i call TROLL

Btw http://www.my-ip-neighbors.com/?domain=64.38.197.160+ sites hosted on same server with Akos :-)

Quite interesting collection like semperfuck :-) .

@_OZ

Yep, all really skilled guys does not talk even remotely like this. They just do not need it.

@slrmagic I see your point.. Well, as long as you make a product which has it´s own character and feels unique you´ll have a good foundation for selling quite a few of these units, in my opinion. Will you offer service for them, too?

@akos actually called us yesterday at 4am and I "so happen" to be still at the office obviously responding to everyone yesterday evening and picked up the phone.

I have to agree @akos has very strong personal views and has doubts if our anamorphic can deliver what he wants. I have to say he sounds different on the phone than on the forum.

Its good to listen to different opinions. He made a point on the phone where he wants to use anamorphic in his professional work and that our lens has to deliver optically. Anamorphic is special because you get a tight crop and get a wide view at the same time and that is how the human eye works. With a regular lens you stimulate what one singe eye sees. In the brain, the two images from both eyes get combined and you get a tight vertical view but the width of both eyes combined and thus the appeal of anamorphic as you do not get that from anamorphic cropping of an image in post.

He made a point where it needs to deliver mechanically and be made really solid so it can be used for professional work. It's easy to find a back up lens in the bag but not so easy to find a spare/backup anamorphic lens.

His last point is that the lens should be made affordable. I explained to him how it is difficult because better and larger image coverage means increased cost. I mentioned that earlier on in the thread I think but he did not go through the earlier posts. He thought it is just a matter of if we want to make it better and larger and did not know manufacturing costs increase as well. Maybe if it is converted to a filmmaking example it might be easier to understand. It is not possible to charge a client the same rates for arial cinematography compared to on the ground cinematography due to the extra equipment as well as risks involved.

@akos made a point that I did not quite agree originally but he asked if we can offer the adapter for cheaper by minimising features of the lens. Maybe make it only work with one lens instead of all lenses. Maybe make a version with no macro mode. Maybe do not use coating to offer the lens at a lower cost opposed for effects purpose. Main point is many are not prepared to spend as much as 1.5K to experiment with top anamorphics but is willing to experiment with a lower cost alternative that may not be a full featured anamorphic. Just like some are happy with a commuter car despite its inability to do 0-60 in under 5 seconds. It is a viable option as long as we get "yea" instead of "nay" for something like that.

I am not taking any sides on his opinion but I do think he has a point and not trying to troll.

@slrmagic

For what crop size is designed the current prototype? Can't you make two lens adapters - one cheaper than 1.5k for mFT (BMCC, GH3 etc.) and a second bigger to cover S35 and fullframe.

I don't think compromising compatibility with other lenses makes sense, as choice of lenses is one of the most important means for archiving a unique look, not that everybody's footage looks the same.

If cheaper is so demanding, I guess you can rehouse some vintage projector lenses for those. :)

@slrmagic

does the 35mm lens + anamorphic adapter combo work on s35?

@slrmagic

Personally, I think it should be a priority to have it work on s35 in normal focal lengths. If you can manage that from 35mm and up, it would be massive (since there are no other complete solutions on the market that is within reach of low-budget filmmakers). You could expand this by planning 50 and 85mm taking lenses (match the 35) to go with the adapter, if you can work out a solution for easy handling (like a solution to focus in unison which you talked about before). But then there´s the issue of what mount it should have? I think EF mount would make the most sense at this moment in time, for such a solution, perhaps PL. (not MFT)

A s16 adapter is not a bad idea but I think it´s a completely different product that will be enough for some. Maybe you can make two versions, one big, one small (cheaper)? Not saying you have to do it immediately, however think about it as a possibility over time.

In other words, two identical but different sized adapter + taking lens sets (keeping both functional). Mind, ease of use is something that will sell a lot of adapters with matched lenses. I know what I´d prefer having on set: an anamorphic solution that is easy to use - or adapters which require a lot of fiddling. Not to mention how much safer a director or producer would feel (and more willing to invest in / take a chance) with a product that has the functionality of an ordinary lens.

Personally, I'm happy you're going wider because that's more useful in the long run for more kinds of work. It won't end up just another novelty lens that only works at focal lengths that are inappropriate or impossible to use for a majority of filmmaking and commercial projects.

I'm speaking strictly from a narrative and commercial perspective and for this you need wide. Wide and medium focal lengths make up a majority of the footage you see in film, commercial and television production. Compatibility with wider focal lengths is especially important for shooting on MFT where getting wide enough is often difficult and expensive.

Being restricted to longer lenses would still make for an attractive lens if and only if it allowed for very fast apertures at telephoto focal lengths. Then it would be a supplemental adapter used occasionally since my Century Optics works quite well in the 18mm - 24mm range but by 35mm requires the taking lens to be stopped down to f/4 instead of the f/2.8 that your prototype appears to work well at though my primary interest is in how fast (before adding achromats and diopters) it works at 50mm+.

Hey guys, just arrived here after watching the test of ed_lee83 that I really enjoyed. The 1,33x anamorphic look is not as beautiful than in 2x, but still there is some beautiful things. Love the sharpness and how the bokeh softly appears, it gives a nice film feeling to the footage.

Maybe it would be great for everybody if you had a page or a blog post where you could resume to us the information about the product. I read a lots of things, it's too confusing and now I just don't know anymore what you are gonna put in your lens. Have you any idea of the launching date ?

If you intend to release a "bady" version of the lens as well, I suggest to forget about the macro system : I think that diopter is enough for mostly of people. And final question, why can't we go faster than F/2.8? I would like to mount my Nikkor lenses with speed booster on the camera to have an aperture of F/1.4... Isn't it possible ?

Thanks and good luck for your work. If you need any help from France don't hesitate to write me.

Thanks for the answer. My question was more : why do we need diopters to improve sharpness ? This is not supposed to work like that, diopters are filters that only improve the minimal focus distance...

I read somewhere that diopters were used not as improvement, but as a way of fixing the fact that the adapter is badly attached ( http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/archive/index.php/t-276948.html)

So finally, is it only a question of sharpness that explains the F/2.8 limitation? Or is vignetting could be exagerate with this kind of adapter and a fast aperture?

@jcbouben

Some sample images of the letus35 adaptor here:

http://www.clintonharn.com/?p=445

And a first look at the SLR one from EOSHD here:

http://www.eoshd.com/content/11138/introducing-the-slr-magic-anamorphic-lens-hands-on-with-new-v3-prototype

@kellar42 @jcbouden @grisnjam It seems shortly after EOSHD said on twitter he is testing our anamorphic in Berlin there was a quick announcement on an anamorphic made by Letus35. However, it seems we are working on a very different approach. We wanted to make one that is compact and light weight enough for run and gun shooting without the use of support rails. The Letus35 anamorphic is much larger and heavier that requires support rails and is built into a matte box.

@BurnetRhoades @jcbouden We rated our anamorphic adapter to be sharp at f/2.8 so potential customers can have a realistic expectation of modern IQ standards. There are probably many legacy anamorphics that are softer than ours at f/2.8 but we feel at f/2.8 the IQ our anamorphic can deliver is of modern IQ expectations in terms of edge to edge sharpness and light fall off characteristics.

I'm curious now if the Letus35 adapter is more than a rehousing of LA7200 optics.