Jump to content


Photo

1.3x anamorphic lens vs. a 2x


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Justin Simpson

Justin Simpson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Other
  • New York

Posted 16 December 2010 - 12:36 AM

Are there any differences in the artifacts between a 1.3x anamorphic lens vs. a 2x? Assuming that they're both used properly to obtain a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

I would test this, but I don't have the gear or money for it.

Best

-Justin

Edited by Justin Simpson, 16 December 2010 - 12:40 AM.

  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 December 2010 - 12:42 AM

Are there any differences in the artifacts between a 1.3x anamorphic lens vs. a 2x? Assuming that they're both used properly to obtain a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

-Justin


The amount that out of focus circles get squeezed into ovals is less when the anamorphics are less strong.

You can see the effect of the 1.25X anamorphic lens used for Ultra Panavision movies here:
Posted Image

You can see the effect of the 1.5X anamorphics used for Technirama movies here:
Posted Image

Posted Image
  • 0

#3 Justin Simpson

Justin Simpson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Other
  • New York

Posted 16 December 2010 - 12:49 AM

Thank you David, this was exactly what I was curious about. What about flares? Are there any significant differences?
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 December 2010 - 01:00 AM

Thank you David, this was exactly what I was curious about. What about flares? Are there any significant differences?


Depends on the lens -- since the only 1.3X anamorphics are the ones by Hawk, they are very low in flare, which is why they made a blue streak filter for people who want the blue horizontal line.

But in theory, if someone dug up an old 1.3X anamorphic from the past which had an uncoated element, then the red horizontally flattened oval that some 2X anamorphic lenses made would be less flattened, a bit closer to a circle. But since as far as I know, there were no old 1.3X anamorphics made, I don't think there is an example.

This shot from "Logan's Run" (Todd-AO 35, 2X anamorphic) shows this issue. An uncoated spherical element is causing a red circular ring flare on the image:
Posted Image

But when the image is stretched out by 2X horizontally during projection, the red circle becomes an oval:
Posted Image
  • 0

#5 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 16 December 2010 - 10:56 AM

Depends on the lens -- since the only 1.3X anamorphics are the ones by Hawk, they are very low in flare, which is why they made a blue streak filter for people who want the blue horizontal line.


david, do you know of anyone in the states that is using/renting Hawk 1.3X? Specifically, the V-lite 16s. have you used them? I have seen and read here about a student film Posterest, that used them. They had a heck of a time getting them to flare, see link below. If you intensionally set out to get flares and shoot lights into the lens like Daniel Mindel did on Star Trek, would that do the trick?

Justin, check out this test of V-Lite 16 anamorphic lenses.
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 December 2010 - 12:43 PM

david, do you know of anyone in the states that is using/renting Hawk 1.3X? Specifically, the V-lite 16s. have you used them? I have seen and read here about a student film Posterest, that used them. They had a heck of a time getting them to flare, see link below. If you intensionally set out to get flares and shoot lights into the lens like Daniel Mindel did on Star Trek, would that do the trick?

Justin, check out this test of V-Lite 16 anamorphic lenses.


Well, I'd probably use regular 2X anamorphics, like the Panavision C-Series, if I wanted more flare. I think you can get the 1.3X Hawks through Clairmont, but they might just be a subrental from Vantage.
  • 0

#7 Vinicius Pedrozo

Vinicius Pedrozo

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Film Loader

Posted 16 December 2010 - 01:41 PM

I use Sankor in small Carl Zeiss Lens and..



I transform circle in oval shape, its cool?
  • 0

#8 Vinicius Pedrozo

Vinicius Pedrozo

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Film Loader

Posted 31 January 2011 - 11:00 AM

Delete my Msgs!
  • 0

#9 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 21 December 2011 - 03:10 PM

david, do you know of anyone in the states that is using/renting Hawk 1.3X? Specifically, the V-lite 16s. have you used them? I have seen and read here about a student film Posterest, that used them. They had a heck of a time getting them to flare, see link below. If you intensionally set out to get flares and shoot lights into the lens like Daniel Mindel did on Star Trek, would that do the trick?

Justin, check out this test of V-Lite 16 anamorphic lenses.



I know it's an old thread, but it's one of the few that pop up when you punch 1.3X and HAWK into google.....

I've been testing the 1.3X anamorphic lenses for a film I'm about to start shooting in January. We've decided to use them after comparing them with 2X looms on Alexa. You can see some examples and a bit of a discussion about it here.

http://johnbrawley.w...hic-lens-tests/

jb
  • 0

#10 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11934 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 December 2011 - 05:04 PM

I just wish someone would make some sort of 1.3x anamorphic element at a more indie-filmmaker sort of cost, so mere mortals such as myself can occasionally shoot scope on 16:9 sensors. The Panasonic LA-7200 anamorphic adaptor, which was intended to give the DVX-100 widescreen standard def and will thus also give rather soft and mushy scope to a Canon 5D, is currently made out of unobtainium because it is more or less the only 1.3:1 camera lens that doesn't cost an internal organ.

P
  • 0

#11 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1596 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 21 December 2011 - 10:06 PM

I know it's an old thread, but it's one of the few that pop up when you punch 1.3X and HAWK into google.....

I've been testing the 1.3X anamorphic lenses for a film I'm about to start shooting in January. We've decided to use them after comparing them with 2X looms on Alexa. You can see some examples and a bit of a discussion about it here.

http://johnbrawley.w...hic-lens-tests/

jb


Hi John,

it's not that surprising that the Hawks outperformed the Lomos - they're 20+ years younger and what, 3 times the rental? I would also imagine that a 1.3X squeeze makes aberrations like veiling glare or CA easier to correct in the design than a 2X. Plus you're cropping a third of the image with the Lomos to match the aspect ratio, right?

Were you interested in an anamorphic 'look' for the film or was that not so important?
  • 0

#12 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 22 December 2011 - 04:01 PM

Hi John,

it's not that surprising that the Hawks outperformed the Lomos - they're 20+ years younger and what, 3 times the rental? I would also imagine that a 1.3X squeeze makes aberrations like veiling glare or CA easier to correct in the design than a 2X. Plus you're cropping a third of the image with the Lomos to match the aspect ratio, right?

Were you interested in an anamorphic 'look' for the film or was that not so important?



Dom they're a lot more than 3 times the rental. On top I that I've had to pay a fortune in freight to have them brought in from Germany. No one in Australia carries them.

We went Hawk because we still felt we got an anamorphic look without the softness. We were certainly wanting to get that look.

It's interesting that a lot of people seem to equate anamorphic with horizontal blue lens flares.

That's not a effect we wanted and in fact the hawks are very difficult to flare (I beleive the anamorphic element is located in the middle of the lens instead of the front)

If we had a full height Alexa then we woul have looked to 2x squeeze. The directors weren't impressed with the look of Epic which we tested with the lomos so that pretty much left Alexa.

JB
  • 0

#13 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 22 December 2011 - 04:07 PM

. The Panasonic LA-7200 anamorphic adaptor, which was intended to give the DVX-100 widescreen standard def and will thus also give rather soft and mushy scope to a Canon 5D, is currently made out of unobtainium because it is more or less the only 1.3:1 camera lens that doesn't cost an internal organ.

P


Hi Phil.

This is exactly what I used to shoot the short film that lead to this feature film getting up. On super speeds on an Si2k would you believe.

Check it out here
http://johnbrawley.w...morphic-lenses/
  • 0

#14 georg lamshöft

georg lamshöft
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Berlin

Posted 22 December 2011 - 04:34 PM

Of course the Hawks are superior they're made by Rodenstock with state-of-the-art technology. But some of the Lomo-results are just embarassing! I mean the 35mm wide open looks like a lens element is missing! That's not just soft... Who made these lenses? Who is still ripping off people for that quality?

Edited by georg lamshöft, 22 December 2011 - 04:35 PM.

  • 0

#15 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11934 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 December 2011 - 04:54 PM

Crikey, you found an LA-7200 as a rental!

P
  • 0

#16 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 22 December 2011 - 10:22 PM

Crikey, you found an LA-7200 as a rental!

P



Not exactly. They had a couple lying around that I made them find.....they were gathering dust in storage. I got them to modify them and build a housing so they could go onto a MK2 Superspeed.

Nobodies rented them since ! The problem is that the lens focus calibration get screwed every time you change the lens so focus has to be done by eye checking each point.

jb
  • 0

#17 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1596 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 27 December 2011 - 10:13 AM

Of course the Hawks are superior they're made by Rodenstock with state-of-the-art technology. But some of the Lomo-results are just embarassing! I mean the 35mm wide open looks like a lens element is missing! That's not just soft... Who made these lenses? Who is still ripping off people for that quality?


Lomo (Leningrad Optical & Mechanical Enterprise) made lenses for the Russian film industry up to the late 80s, including anamorphics. The early ones had a front anamorphic focusing group (square-fronts), later ones from the 80s had a spherical front focusing element (round-fronts). There were high speed versions as fast as T1.5 (though naturally they weren't as sharp). They also made anamorphic zooms (with a rear adapter).

I've read that Tarkovsky used Lomo square-fronts on Solaris and Mirror, perhaps more knowledgeable forum posters could confirm it?

They tend to be almost agricultural in their build, but the glass itself is actually very good. One thing I've noticed after working on 5 or 6 sets is that there is some variation in quality. They often need to be properly adjusted and aligned to perform at their best, particularly the alignment of the anamorphic elements. Also they were all individually constructed, so swapping the removeable rear spherical unit between lenses will generally throw the whole thing out, a point that might be lost on resellers who may have used a variety of bits to make up a set.

But when they're in good order they're an excellent low budget anamorphic option. Like virtually any lens of this vintage they get softer wide open. The 35mm is AFAIK the widest angle round-front they made and often the most problematic, but it shouldn't fall apart wide open. It's possible the one used in those tests needs some work.

As a point of interest, the first generation Hawks had a very similar element configuration to the last Lomos. I was told the Lomo lens designer went on to work for Vantage.
  • 0

#18 brandon esten

brandon esten

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Other
  • USA / China

Posted 05 November 2013 - 02:07 AM

Of course the Hawks are superior they're made by Rodenstock with state-of-the-art technology. But some of the Lomo-results are just embarassing! I mean the 35mm wide open looks like a lens element is missing! That's not just soft... Who made these lenses? Who is still ripping off people for that quality?

 

I just couldn't leave well enough alone. First, comparing 1.3X Hawks to 2x Lomos is a waste of time; they're apples and oranges. You might as well compare 1.3X to Super Baltars for that matter, or Lomos to Zeiss Spherical Master Primes...

 

Here's what's going on with these lenses folks: the Lomos have an exggerated curved field of focus. ALL lenses have a curved field, but anamorphics have a very pronounced curve. ALL (front element) anamorphic lenses (Panavisions and Cookes too) have this curve (and front element anamorphics are the only ones that make any sense in the digital age). What happens is that as you open up the aperture you are decreasing depth of field; if you decrease DoF to the point that it does not cover the curved focus field, the lens goes really soft. It just so happens that the loss of focus begins in the corners and works inward as the DoF becomes smaller and smaller. This is why FAST anamorhic lenses are kindof a waste... unless you are clever with your framing.

 

 

You can see a great example of this effect of DoF/Curved FoF trading off in these tests. Again, it's really pointless to compare apples and oranges, but here it is anyhow. The next thing to consider is diffraction. You can't stop down anamorphics too far (not much past T11) otherwise you start to get diffraction past the edge of the iris blades. This occurs in EVERY lens, spherical or anamorphic; some have better performance than others. ND filters are a great way to overcome this problem.

 

If you want to shoot anamorphic by any lens manufacturer you should probably be looking at a T4/5.6 split on the aperture ring for your optimum performance. Light your set accordingly and you're cooking with gas. Open that puppy up like it was a spherical lens and you're going to see a loss in clarity; same if you're outdoors and shoot your sunny 16...


  • 0

#19 brandon esten

brandon esten

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Other
  • USA / China

Posted 05 November 2013 - 02:16 AM

Heck; I guess it's a feature of the digital age to say "Open up the lens to T1 Fred, that'll fix the lighting situation. Oh, and go to ISO 2400000 while you're at it..." This isn't going to work on lenses made during an era when film makers new how to light and DP's had an idea how their optics worked. The Soviets weren't a bunch of monkeys with hammers and cardboard boxes...


  • 0

#20 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 14 November 2013 - 09:49 PM

If anyone wants to see an example of the Hawk 1.3x squeezed anamorphics you can watch Gus van Sant's Promised Land shot by my old buddy Linus Sandgren, FSF. 


  • 0


CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Tai Audio

Opal

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Visual Products

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS