Good camera for 2x Anamorphic Lenses.

[Matthew Buick]

Hi.

I'm going to start shooting my first DoP Demo Reels in March or April. When the weather is nicer here in the UK. I'm going to shoot them all through a 2x Anamorhic Lens. Can anyone recommend cameras well suited for Anamorphic Lenses? Also, if I modified my camera to Super Duper 8 which degree of Anamorphic Lens would I have to use to achieve the same 2:35:1.

I'm sorry. I'm a complete noobie in this field.

[mattias]

super duper (assuming 1.5:1) plus a 1.5x lens will give you 2.25:1. good luck.

i got an a-lens for my quartz. they say it's well suited for it since you can remove the zoom, but the viewfinder is so crappy that focusing is completely impossible, at least on mine. i haven't actually shot any footage yet though.

/matt

[morales72]

Hi to all. Matthew, A good start:

http://home.pacbell.net/mnyberg/super8mm/super8_39.html

If you like, check out my examples:

http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseacti ... d=17761773

Need to find a support for my Bolex DS8 and use the kowa with the 12,5mm Switar. Like Matt above, I use the Quarz S8-2 with the a-lens screwed on the C mount thread with adapters:

http://zenitquarzcameras.blogspot.com/

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

Morales.

[mattias]

i've never really gotten around to mounting the lens, do you know where to find a c-mount (1") to kowa 16s (43mm) stepup ring?

one more question: how do you focus? trust the markings or assume huge dof? i don't see much of a difference at all as i turn the kowa ring.

ok, one more, they say the flange distance on the kowa is 43mm, which is 25mm more than c-mount. does that mean i need to put a spacer between them to get correct focusing? damn, this is so much easier with video cameras where you can see what's happening. :-)

oops, just one more. just came up. ;-) how do you fasten the aperture dial if it comes off? seems like there's a tiny screw, which has now fallen into the dial itself. glue would work i guess...

btw the kowa works really well with my canon hv20, letting me shoot 2x1.78:1=3.56:1. beat that spaghetti western fans.

/matt

[morales72]

i've never really gotten around to mounting the lens, do you know where to find a c-mount (1") to kowa 16s (43mm) stepup ring?

Hey, Matt! I got mines from an eBay auction. I pluralize cause I needed 3 step up rings to get to the kowa's series Vii rear thread. In your case is different and probably need just to rings: series C to series V and series V to 43mm. Series C are hard to find, but with patience you'll be able to get it. Just search for it sistematically.

one more question: how do you focus? trust the markings or assume huge dof? i don't see much of a difference at all as i turn the kowa ring.

With the Quarz I focus with the a-lens. Nearly the end of my E64T Carabanchel example there's a building seen through plants that it's out of focus and I focus slowly with the a-lens. Mine has a 3m to infinity range. I test it with the smiling girl with shades, she was 2 meter away from the camera, and of course, out of focus. Anyway, seems that the kowa is softer than the Isco, but I need more testings. Soon I'll upload a test with the Bauer, which is sharper than this one.

ok, one more, they say the flange distance on the kowa is 43mm, which is 25mm more than c-mount. does that mean i need to put a spacer between them to get correct focusing? damn, this is so much easier with video cameras where you can see what's happening.

It didn't seem to be a problem with this, but the far is the lens, most probably you are getting a vignette, and since it's a complementary lens, with a prime lens over 10mm you won't have any problems.

oops, just one more. just came up. ;-) how do you fasten the aperture dial if it comes off? seems like there's a tiny screw, which has now fallen into the dial itself. glue would work i guess...

Never happened to me, but seems that the plate over the dial is removable, so maybe there's a screw under it. There is one under the spring, so I guess...

btw the kowa works really well with my canon hv20, letting me shoot 2x1.78:1=3.56:1. beat that spaghetti western fans. /matt

Must look terrific. Any examples you can share? I love westerns...my all time favorite: "Il Grande Silenzio" by Sergio Corbucci.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

Morales.

[mattias]

i've never really gotten around to mounting the lens, do you know where to find a c-mount (1") to kowa 16s (43mm) stepup ring?

Hey, Matt! I got mines from an eBay auction. I pluralize cause I needed 3 step up rings to get to the kowa's series Vii rear thread. In your case is different and probably need just to rings: series C to series V and series V to 43mm. Series C are hard to find, but with patience you'll be able to get it. Just search for it sistematically.

can you please elaborate? what's a series c? and series v? what do i search for? what about using an m42 to c-mount adapter and then a 42mm to 43mm step up ring? would that work you think? i'm not sure if m42 is the same as 42mm filter thread, but all metric threads are usually the same, right?

/matt

[morales72]

can you please elaborate? what's a series c? and series v? what do i search for? what about using an m42 to c-mount adapter and then a 42mm to 43mm step up ring? would that work you think? i'm not sure if m42 is the same as 42mm filter thread, but all metric threads are usually the same, right?

/matt

Hi Matt. Yes, no problem. Series C refers to c-mount thread. Sounds strange, I know, but they exist. In the beginning I used what you describe but it wasn't really stable since I had to adjust the 46mm to series VII adapter with the 3 screws from the c-mount to m42 one. The 46mm fitted when I took away the inner ring from the c-mount adapter. In fact, the Carabanchel film was shot with that setup. The Kahl b/w neg and the plus-x were shot with the definitive setup.
You should look for:

c-mount to 43mm (don't know if this exists)
c-mount to series V + series V to 43mm (easier)

In the meantime you can try messing around with the c-mount to m42 (yes, it's the same as 42mm) and try to acomodate your a-lens. Sooner or later we'll find a solution for your anamorphic filmmaking. Don't forget to share you results, please, but I know you are always generous. I love your video clips in super 8.

Hope this helps,

Morales.

[mattias]

thanks a lot, that really helps.

/matt

[morales72]

thanks a lot, that really helps.

/matt

No problem, glad to help anytime.

Best regards,

Morales.

[mattias]

ok, i've gotten closer. i took my c-mount to arri standard adapter and screwed it apart, revealing the c-mount thread being it's own part fixed with a flange to the actual adapter with a "stepup" ring that's 43mm. i though wow, but the threads are half sized. any idea what this is? probably a proprietary thing to build several adapter from the same parts but who knows?

the flange goes from about 36 to 42mm so i'll see if i can perhaps use a 37 to 43mm stepup ring instead, problem solved. the only problem would be to find one with deep enough threads since the flange is almost 2mm thick. stay tuned.

/matt

[adamgarner]

If I might add a thought, which is apparently not very popular:

If you are shooting for final destination to video I might suggest cropping your final 4:3 sequence to anamorphic rather than trying to capture anamorphic. It's what I've done in the past with wonderful results.

Pro:
-No additional lenses, focusing issues, distorted reflex viewfinder issues, distortion issues, etc.
-accurate results (most of what I see with an anamorphic is not unsquished accurately and is somewhat distorted.
-weight and ease of use

The other thing that's important to note is that putting twice as much info into the same grain real-estate will lower your resolution. It will lower it by 2x I'd guess. Cropping your 4:3 sequence is going to get you very near that same resolution. I have a hard time understanding the benefit of all the extra hardware if the end results are going to be damn near identical.

Here's some cropped examples: http://super8films.trigger-studios.com

[mattias]

If you are shooting for final destination to video I might suggest cropping your final 4:3 sequence to anamorphic rather than trying to capture anamorphic

q: why choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things?
a: ...

The other thing that's important to note is that putting twice as much info into the same grain real-estate will lower your resolution

so by using a wide angle lens you're also lowering resolution? we should all be shooting extreme telephoto, that would make super 8 really sharp? ;-) no, you're reasoning is wrong, and i'm sure you realize it if you give it some more thought. the real estate *is* the resolution, you either use it all or half of it. the loss of sharpness from the extra glass will counter all of this benefit according to my tests, but as you said the results are pretty much equal which to me is a good reason to shoot anamorphic, not to avoid it.

/matt

[adamgarner]

Well, we're sort of talking about different things. Let me try and explain my point of view:

If you film through an anamorphic lens, say a 2:1 for simplicity, you're putting a compressed image in that 4:3 frame. Eventually you will have to un-stretch this image to get the correct aspect ratio. When you change the dimensions of your final frame-size you are lowering the resolution. There will be the same number of silver halide grains but across a larger frame. Lower rez by 1/2 horizontally.

Alternatively if you were to simply crop the top and bottom of this frame, you would need to enlarge the frame afterwards as your resulting cropped image would be shorter, again lowering the number of grains in your final frame.

So, again, without doing the detailed math, we're getting to the same place. However, I see using more hardware as a deterrent. Ultimately it's about the best image you can get. I haven't see any anamorphic images that are better than what I've done by cropping. If I were ever blown away I might consider this route. As of yet I really have not.

[super8man]

(I have not read the thread, just your last post)

Think about this: using a hardware A-lens on your super 8 film camera/ film frame uses ALL OF THE SILVER HALIDES of the super 8 format to project onto your admittedly very wide screen.

BUT, if you CROP a super 8 image shot NORMALLY (without an A-LENS) and then proceed to show that image IN THE SAME SIZE FORMAT as above when projected, you are now using 1/2 the silver halides in the film to show the same AREA.

Therefore, a HARDWARE A-lens setup will always be superior in resolution than a cropped standard image.

Bottom line, you lose resolution when you crop a standard image and try to show it as faux widescreen.

Cheers,
Mike

[mattias]

Well, we're sort of talking about different things

actually no, i understand what you're trying to say but you simply misunderstand the concepts completely. i know it's hard for the person misunderstanding to realize it, i mean otherwise you wouldn't be misunderstanding, but if you just try harder i'm sure you'll figure it out. :-)

If you film through an anamorphic lens, say a 2:1 for simplicity, you're putting a compressed image in that 4:3 frame. Eventually you will have to un-stretch this image to get the correct aspect ratio. When you change the dimensions of your final frame-size you are lowering the resolution. There will be the same number of silver halide grains but across a larger frame.

as a matter of fact even with your somewhat backwards and redundant reasoning you come to the correct conclusion if you just do it correctly: the anamorphic image in your example needs to be stretched 2x so it's, with your words, half the resolution. the cropped image needs to be stretched 4x to get the same size, i.e. both vertically and horizontally. so the anamorphic has about twice the resolution, the same conclusion that you get from the much simpler and more straightforward observation that twice as many halides are being used to form the image, period.

Ultimately it's about the best image you can get

i thought it ultimately was about expressing yourself through images, but to each his own i guess. i just can't figure out why you would be shooting super 8 in that case...

/matt