someone tried to use dv anamorphic attachement on 35mm lenses ? at DVinfo.net

Elmar Tewes · July 1st, 2004, 08:13 PM

has someone tried to use those dv anamorphic attachements (for vx2000, dx100 ect) on 35mm still photo lenses like nikon and the mini35 yet ?
does that work ? they are available with 52mm screw mount and thats the common front diameter of nikon/canon ect

Elmar

Barry Green · July 1st, 2004, 11:36 PM

There are some with 52mm threads, and while it would "work" (by squeezing the picture), um, then what? There's not really any infrastructure around to un-squeeze, is there?

Or are you talking in reference to using it with a mini35 or something?

Boyd Ostroff · July 2nd, 2004, 02:56 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : There's not really any infrastructure around to un-squeeze, is there? -->>>

What sort of "infrastructure" do you need?

Photoshop > resize > image size > don't constrain > width = 118.6%

But the real question would be "why?" Pretty expensive piece of glass to just stretch an image. Might as well just use a wide angle lens and crop.

Looking at that post again though, maybe he is talking about putting it on the mini 35?...

Elmar Tewes · July 2nd, 2004, 08:27 AM

yes, to save resolution for 16/9 and used with mini35.
editing isnt a problem with premiere

John Jay · July 3rd, 2004, 12:57 PM

Elmar

With a 35mm DOF adapter, my Optex ana works on 35mm primes from 28mm to 135mm, however from 150mm onwards there is noticeable image degradation. The target GG size is 24mm x 32mm.

Simon Wyndham · July 4th, 2004, 07:08 AM

Boyd, the reason why an anamorphic lens is prefereble to just using a wide angle lens and cropping is because of widescreen TV's. Here in the UK widescreen TVs are very popular. If I output a final production as cropped 'widescreen' it would mean the TV owner would need to use the zoom function to fill the TV screen reducing the apparent picture quality.

With an anamorphically shot production the 16:9 stretch mode can be used and the image quality is retained.

Boyd Ostroff · July 4th, 2004, 07:59 AM

Thanks Simon, you are completely correct. I am well aware of all this and shoot exclusively in 16:9 using a PDX-10 which has high enough resolution chips to do native anamorphic widescreen.

My response was to the original question, which was rather ambiguously worded and made it sound like Elmar wanted to use a DV anamorphic attachment to take 35mm still photos. I think Barry initially interpreted it this way as well...

Simon Wyndham · July 4th, 2004, 08:49 AM

Ahh right. Sorry. :-)

Barry Green · July 4th, 2004, 03:46 PM

I did indeed. And if you're taking anamorphic stills, it just seemed odd... I mean, would you be printing using an anamorphic lens on your enlarger? Etc...

(with that said, there was a Kowa 1.5x anamorphic attachment for still cameras, in M42 mount...)

So anyway, yes, for mini35 usage it does seem like it could work and might be one way to get full-res 16:9 imagery with a mini35.

Nick Hiltgen · July 7th, 2004, 09:06 AM

I'm confused, if you're going to use a mini 35 why not just go ahead and rent anamorphic lenses instead of trying to throw extra glass on?

Elmar Tewes · July 7th, 2004, 09:21 AM

renting something like the mini35 or such lenses is a waste of money. when i would rent those things for a few days i could have bought halfe of the equipment ;-)
no im no friend of renting, i like to buy things to have something worth for my money

Barry Green · July 7th, 2004, 11:46 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Hiltgen : I'm confused, if you're going to use a mini 35 why not just go ahead and rent anamorphic lenses instead of trying to throw extra glass on? -->>>
Because cine anamorphics only come in a 2:1 squeeze, which would be fairly useless for most video purposes. For video squeeze you want 1.33:1. Using 2:1 would involve significant cropping and resizing in post to get a usable image for display on television screens.

Barry Green · July 7th, 2004, 11:51 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Elmar Tewes : renting something like the mini35 or such lenses is a waste of money. when i would rent those things for a few days i could have bought halfe of the equipment ;-)
no im no friend of renting, i like to buy things to have something worth for my money -->>>

Buying's great if you can afford it. A mini35 package plus a set of lenses would cost somewhere around $40,000. You could rent it for a three-day commercial shoot for around $1000 or so. In some cases renting does make sense -- if you're only going to use it once or twice a year, etc.

Elmar Tewes · July 7th, 2004, 12:15 PM

yes those ultra high speed zeiss ones or something like that. but cheaper ones will do it too, perhaps some disadvantages here and there but always be honest to oneself, this isnt going to be titanic 2 in the end ;-)

Nick Hiltgen · July 7th, 2004, 10:45 PM

So you wouldn't need to convert and resize in post for the 35mm plus anamorphic adapter?

When you're using something like the mini 35 that's going to knock light out anyhow you'd porbably want to have faster lesnes. The majority of the cost for renting it is in teh actual adapter why not spend an extra 50 bucks to get the faster lenses instead of adding on the additional cost of a light kit? (or a larger light kit)

July 1st, 2004, 08:13 PM	#1
Elmar Tewes Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Frankfurt Germany Posts: 104	someone tried to use dv anamorphic attachement on 35mm lenses ? has someone tried to use those dv anamorphic attachements (for vx2000, dx100 ect) on 35mm still photo lenses like nikon and the mini35 yet ? does that work ? they are available with 52mm screw mount and thats the common front diameter of nikon/canon ect Elmar

July 3rd, 2004, 12:57 PM	#5
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	Elmar With a 35mm DOF adapter, my Optex ana works on 35mm primes from 28mm to 135mm, however from 150mm onwards there is noticeable image degradation. The target GG size is 24mm x 32mm. __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

July 1st, 2004, 11:36 PM	#2
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	There are some with 52mm threads, and while it would "work" (by squeezing the picture), um, then what? There's not really any infrastructure around to un-squeeze, is there? Or are you talking in reference to using it with a mini35 or something?

July 2nd, 2004, 02:56 AM	#3
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : There's not really any infrastructure around to un-squeeze, is there? -->>> What sort of "infrastructure" do you need? Photoshop > resize > image size > don't constrain > width = 118.6% But the real question would be "why?" Pretty expensive piece of glass to just stretch an image. Might as well just use a wide angle lens and crop. Looking at that post again though, maybe he is talking about putting it on the mini 35?...

July 2nd, 2004, 08:27 AM	#4
Elmar Tewes Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Frankfurt Germany Posts: 104	yes, to save resolution for 16/9 and used with mini35. editing isnt a problem with premiere

July 4th, 2004, 07:08 AM	#6
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Boyd, the reason why an anamorphic lens is prefereble to just using a wide angle lens and cropping is because of widescreen TV's. Here in the UK widescreen TVs are very popular. If I output a final production as cropped 'widescreen' it would mean the TV owner would need to use the zoom function to fill the TV screen reducing the apparent picture quality. With an anamorphically shot production the 16:9 stretch mode can be used and the image quality is retained.

July 4th, 2004, 07:59 AM	#7
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Thanks Simon, you are completely correct. I am well aware of all this and shoot exclusively in 16:9 using a PDX-10 which has high enough resolution chips to do native anamorphic widescreen. My response was to the original question, which was rather ambiguously worded and made it sound like Elmar wanted to use a DV anamorphic attachment to take 35mm still photos. I think Barry initially interpreted it this way as well...

July 4th, 2004, 08:49 AM	#8
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Ahh right. Sorry. :-)

July 4th, 2004, 03:46 PM	#9
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	I did indeed. And if you're taking anamorphic stills, it just seemed odd... I mean, would you be printing using an anamorphic lens on your enlarger? Etc... (with that said, there was a Kowa 1.5x anamorphic attachment for still cameras, in M42 mount...) So anyway, yes, for mini35 usage it does seem like it could work and might be one way to get full-res 16:9 imagery with a mini35.

July 7th, 2004, 09:06 AM	#10
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	I'm confused, if you're going to use a mini 35 why not just go ahead and rent anamorphic lenses instead of trying to throw extra glass on?

July 7th, 2004, 09:21 AM	#11
Elmar Tewes Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Frankfurt Germany Posts: 104	renting something like the mini35 or such lenses is a waste of money. when i would rent those things for a few days i could have bought halfe of the equipment ;-) no im no friend of renting, i like to buy things to have something worth for my money

July 7th, 2004, 11:46 AM	#12
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Hiltgen : I'm confused, if you're going to use a mini 35 why not just go ahead and rent anamorphic lenses instead of trying to throw extra glass on? -->>> Because cine anamorphics only come in a 2:1 squeeze, which would be fairly useless for most video purposes. For video squeeze you want 1.33:1. Using 2:1 would involve significant cropping and resizing in post to get a usable image for display on television screens.

July 7th, 2004, 11:51 AM	#13
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	<<<-- Originally posted by Elmar Tewes : renting something like the mini35 or such lenses is a waste of money. when i would rent those things for a few days i could have bought halfe of the equipment ;-) no im no friend of renting, i like to buy things to have something worth for my money -->>> Buying's great if you can afford it. A mini35 package plus a set of lenses would cost somewhere around $40,000. You could rent it for a three-day commercial shoot for around $1000 or so. In some cases renting does make sense -- if you're only going to use it once or twice a year, etc.

July 7th, 2004, 12:15 PM	#14
Elmar Tewes Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Frankfurt Germany Posts: 104	yes those ultra high speed zeiss ones or something like that. but cheaper ones will do it too, perhaps some disadvantages here and there but always be honest to oneself, this isnt going to be titanic 2 in the end ;-)

July 7th, 2004, 10:45 PM	#15
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	So you wouldn't need to convert and resize in post for the 35mm plus anamorphic adapter? When you're using something like the mini 35 that's going to knock light out anyhow you'd porbably want to have faster lesnes. The majority of the cost for renting it is in teh actual adapter why not spend an extra 50 bucks to get the faster lenses instead of adding on the additional cost of a light kit? (or a larger light kit)