Anamorphic Lens for Pentax?

stevebrot · 06-30-2018, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Bob 256

since the image is compressed horizontally when it's stored and needs to be stretched when it's reproduced.

With an anamorphic lens, it is compressed horizontally before its stored, hence the problem of information loss. This was acceptable on film because more film area could be used, but less acceptable on a Pentax dSLR because the sensor area and aspect for video is not changeable. If a lens has excess image circle, it might be practical (e.g. FF lens on KP or K-3II)*, but probably not on the K-1.

Steve

* There would be crop off the top and bottom even in this case.

Last edited by stevebrot; 06-30-2018 at 10:06 PM.

svnn · 06-06-2019, 08:13 PM

ah here I am Back!

35mmfilmfan · 06-07-2019, 01:05 AM

Oh. Good. How did the lens tests go ?

svnn · 06-09-2019, 11:19 PM - **1 Like**

Ah.. bad things happend, my room was on fire that day i couldn't save my equipments.
I was using 2.0x anamorphot (slr magic), the experience is very unique, is it worth the price? if you're film maker like me, then yes.

The Pros
1. The widescreen of course
2. It much better using low contrast color profile
3. 1080,30fps / 720,60fps highest frame rate are best setting for this lens
4. Less noise compared to normal lenses

Cons
1. Shake reduction makes my footage jello much
2. Need more lights
3. Weird live preview, if the objects are on frame and then it's fine.
4. You''ll need to rescale the footage on video editing software.

You Tube

It looks like this, but 2.0x are insanely wide

and now, a new start, i bought a new k-01 :^) I still love this camera

ZombieArmy · 06-10-2019, 11:44 AM

People around here aren't as open to anamorphic lenses for some reason the few times I've asked about them.
People forget about the unique way it affects flare and bokeh of shots, very unique style that just screams cinematic. Sure you can fake it but it never looks right.

Marcus Rowland · 10-07-2019, 02:18 PM

Just came across this thread and was hoping someone here might be able to help me with an odd problem.

A while ago I picked up an old Isco-Optic Ultra-star Cinemascope Attatchment and I've just managed to get hold of a used Redstan adapter mount which I intended to use to secure it to a tripod so that I can actually use the thing properly. Except that the screw thread on the mount doesn't seem to be the standard tripod thread, 1/4 BSW - it appears to be slightly smaller and a finer pitch. I've tried a couple of metric sizes but nothing seems quite right. Redstan's web site appears to be infected by some sort of malware, or so my anti-virus software tells me as it won't let me connect, which isn't a lot of help.

Does anyone happen to know what thread this is - and if there's some sort of fixing plate or something I'm missing that it should screw on to?

Later - heard back from the guy who sold me the adapter mount about ten minutes after I posted, and he swore blind that the adapter was supposed to be the standard tripod thread, so I've just scraped out the paint from inside the hole with a sharp screwdriver and tried again and this time the screw went in. Hoping to get the rig complete later this week, it's a total kludge made largely of bits of flash bracket since I just want to make sure it works properly at this stage, but I'll post pictures once it's done.

Mercifulfate · 10-13-2019, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by svnn

Ah.. bad things happend, my room was on fire that day i couldn't save my equipments.
I was using 2.0x anamorphot (slr magic), the experience is very unique, is it worth the price? if you're film maker like me, then yes.

The Pros
1. The widescreen of course
2. It much better using low contrast color profile
3. 1080,30fps / 720,60fps highest frame rate are best setting for this lens
4. Less noise compared to normal lenses

Cons
1. Shake reduction makes my footage jello much
2. Need more lights
3. Weird live preview, if the objects are on frame and then it's fine.
4. You''ll need to rescale the footage on video editing software.

Youtube Sample
It looks like this, but 2.0x are insanely wide

and now, a new start, i bought a new k-01 :^) I still love this camera

I have a Kollmorgen-Kosaka 2X Model KA298 F 1.9 I am planing on building a mount for to use with my K-5. I may be pairing it with a Helios 44-3 58mm or a Takumar 100mm lens. The 100mm seems to be a better fit. Photoshop can be used for any squishing you might need. While some may only think video with a lens like this I feel it is very short sighted to do so. Experiment, fail, succeed, maybe it will fall on your foot and you turn things over falling and find a lens you thought you lost. Who knows?

The point is if you do not at least try you will never know what you will get. It does work on stills. It just requires some out of the box thinking and some work ... cause that thing is heavy as ... LOL

Rankinator · 10-17-2019, 12:58 AM

The thing about anamorphic lenses that appeal to videographers is the lens flare, the bokeh effects, the cinematic widescreen format, and the creative use of sensor space.

For example, by "squishing" the aspect ratio of a 2.35:1 on a 16:9 sensor, you are using the same focal length of a 50mm, for example, but getting a much wider area of coverage. However, cropping actually removes available sensor information, whereas the anamorphic lens actually "adds" information by first squishing the image and then stretching it back in post.

That's what gives the videographer such appeal to use an anamorphic lens. 50mm anamorphic lens may give you the same side angle as a 24mm standard lens but without the distortion of simply cropping a 24mm

Marcus Rowland · 10-20-2019, 04:49 PM

I tried a 50mm lens with the Cinemascope adapter I got but it turned out that the corners were cropped, so the current plan is to use a Helios 44-2 (58mm) instead - that works and the corners aren't cropped, but it seems a bit odd to up the focal length to get an extra-wide result. The positive side is that the Helios is really strong and I'll be using a relatively light-weight Canon with it rather than my Nikon, since you can't focus an M42 lens to infinity on Nikon without a corrective lens that adds distortion, so I ought to be able to test it without most of the support structure I've been trying to assemble. If the weather's nice I'll give it a try this week.

veato · 10-22-2019, 12:54 AM

I'm tempted to try an anamorphic lens on my phone. It's something I'm curious about and as an experiment would be a lot cheaper than dslr options.

Marcus Rowland · 10-22-2019, 08:05 PM

Some photos with this kit here:

Cinemascope Converter | Flickr

I'll be honest, I've tried it enough to satisfy my curiosity, but it's just too big and cumbersome for me, and the routine of using it is a bit of a pain, with the need to focus the lens and adapter for each shot etc. I took about twenty shots in the time I would have normally taken about eighty when I'm testing a normal lens, and more than half were duds for one reason or another. I'll probably sell it on.

ZombieArmy · 10-22-2019, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Marcus Rowland

Some photos with this kit here:

Cinemascope Converter | Flickr

I'll be honest, I've tried it enough to satisfy my curiosity, but it's just too big and cumbersome for me, and the routine of using it is a bit of a pain, with the need to focus the lens and adapter for each shot etc. I took about twenty shots in the time I would have normally taken about eighty when I'm testing a normal lens, and more than half were duds for one reason or another. I'll probably sell it on.

What kit are you using exactly?

Marcus Rowland · 10-23-2019, 09:00 AM

Oh right, sorry, I sort of lost track a bit. it's an Isco-Gottingen cinemascope converter in front of a Helios 58/2 lens on a Canon 400D body, with a Redstan mount on the converter so I can mount it on the lens and camera. The converter and Redstan thing cost me about £53 including stepping rings etc. which is ludicrously cheap for these things. The trouble is that when it's all together it's about a foot long, needs a tripod, and is fairly heavy and slow to use, and I think I would get results that are at least as good from my highest resolution camera (Nikon D7000) with a wide angle lens and the image cropped top and bottom.

ZombieArmy · 10-23-2019, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Marcus Rowland

Oh right, sorry, I sort of lost track a bit. it's an Isco-Gottingen cinemascope converter in front of a Helios 58/2 lens on a Canon 400D body, with a Redstan mount on the converter so I can mount it on the lens and camera. The converter and Redstan thing cost me about £53 including stepping rings etc. which is ludicrously cheap for these things. The trouble is that when it's all together it's about a foot long, needs a tripod, and is fairly heavy and slow to use, and I think I would get results that are at least as good from my highest resolution camera (Nikon D7000) with a wide angle lens and the image cropped top and bottom.

That's actually a mindblowing price from my casual looks on ebay over the years. I'm pretty jealous actually.

Marcus Rowland · 10-24-2019, 12:34 PM

It's not quite as good as it sounds - the glass inside the converter has a slightly mottled look which may be slight fungus. It doesn't seem to be doing much, but it's probably knocked a fair bit off what I'll get for it.

10-07-2019, 02:18 PM	#21
Marcus Rowland Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: London Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,079	Just came across this thread and was hoping someone here might be able to help me with an odd problem. A while ago I picked up an old Isco-Optic Ultra-star Cinemascope Attatchment and I've just managed to get hold of a used Redstan adapter mount which I intended to use to secure it to a tripod so that I can actually use the thing properly. Except that the screw thread on the mount doesn't seem to be the standard tripod thread, 1/4 BSW - it appears to be slightly smaller and a finer pitch. I've tried a couple of metric sizes but nothing seems quite right. Redstan's web site appears to be infected by some sort of malware, or so my anti-virus software tells me as it won't let me connect, which isn't a lot of help. Does anyone happen to know what thread this is - and if there's some sort of fixing plate or something I'm missing that it should screw on to? Later - heard back from the guy who sold me the adapter mount about ten minutes after I posted, and he swore blind that the adapter was supposed to be the standard tripod thread, so I've just scraped out the paint from inside the hole with a sharp screwdriver and tried again and this time the screw went in. Hoping to get the rig complete later this week, it's a total kludge made largely of bits of flash bracket since I just want to make sure it works properly at this stage, but I'll post pictures once it's done. Last edited by Marcus Rowland; 10-07-2019 at 02:44 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Theta and anamorphic lenses	biz-engineer	General Photography	5	09-10-2017 08:13 PM
Anamorphic lens for the Pentax Q	sapporodan	Pentax Q	11	04-21-2015 04:58 PM
Takapuna Beach, Takumar 50mm 1.4 with Anamorphic	dwijip	Video Recording and Processing	11	12-14-2014 10:10 PM
Anamorphic lens	D4rknezz	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	06-01-2014 10:56 AM
Anamorphic lens adapter	rechmbrs	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	03-12-2007 12:33 PM

06-30-2018, 09:43 PM	#16
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Bob 256 since the image is compressed horizontally when it's stored and needs to be stretched when it's reproduced. With an anamorphic lens, it is compressed horizontally before its stored, hence the problem of information loss. This was acceptable on film because more film area could be used, but less acceptable on a Pentax dSLR because the sensor area and aspect for video is not changeable. If a lens has excess image circle, it might be practical (e.g. FF lens on KP or K-3II), but probably not on the K-1. Steve There would be crop off the top and bottom even in this case. Last edited by stevebrot; 06-30-2018 at 10:06 PM.

06-06-2019, 08:13 PM	#17
svnn New Member Join Date: Jun 2018 Posts: 10 Original Poster	ah here I am Back!

06-07-2019, 01:05 AM	#18
35mmfilmfan Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2016 Location: Norfolk, UK Posts: 4,342	Oh. Good. How did the lens tests go ?

06-10-2019, 11:44 AM	#20
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210	People around here aren't as open to anamorphic lenses for some reason the few times I've asked about them. People forget about the unique way it affects flare and bokeh of shots, very unique style that just screams cinematic. Sure you can fake it but it never looks right.

10-13-2019, 05:04 PM	#22
Mercifulfate Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 92	Originally posted by svnn Ah.. bad things happend, my room was on fire that day i couldn't save my equipments. I was using 2.0x anamorphot (slr magic), the experience is very unique, is it worth the price? if you're film maker like me, then yes. The Pros 1. The widescreen of course 2. It much better using low contrast color profile 3. 1080,30fps / 720,60fps highest frame rate are best setting for this lens 4. Less noise compared to normal lenses Cons 1. Shake reduction makes my footage jello much 2. Need more lights 3. Weird live preview, if the objects are on frame and then it's fine. 4. You''ll need to rescale the footage on video editing software. Youtube Sample It looks like this, but 2.0x are insanely wide and now, a new start, i bought a new k-01 :^) I still love this camera I have a Kollmorgen-Kosaka 2X Model KA298 F 1.9 I am planing on building a mount for to use with my K-5. I may be pairing it with a Helios 44-3 58mm or a Takumar 100mm lens. The 100mm seems to be a better fit. Photoshop can be used for any squishing you might need. While some may only think video with a lens like this I feel it is very short sighted to do so. Experiment, fail, succeed, maybe it will fall on your foot and you turn things over falling and find a lens you thought you lost. Who knows? The point is if you do not at least try you will never know what you will get. It does work on stills. It just requires some out of the box thinking and some work ... cause that thing is heavy as ... LOL

10-17-2019, 12:58 AM	#23
Rankinator New Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 4	The thing about anamorphic lenses that appeal to videographers is the lens flare, the bokeh effects, the cinematic widescreen format, and the creative use of sensor space. For example, by "squishing" the aspect ratio of a 2.35:1 on a 16:9 sensor, you are using the same focal length of a 50mm, for example, but getting a much wider area of coverage. However, cropping actually removes available sensor information, whereas the anamorphic lens actually "adds" information by first squishing the image and then stretching it back in post. That's what gives the videographer such appeal to use an anamorphic lens. 50mm anamorphic lens may give you the same side angle as a 24mm standard lens but without the distortion of simply cropping a 24mm

10-20-2019, 04:49 PM	#24
Marcus Rowland Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: London Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,079	I tried a 50mm lens with the Cinemascope adapter I got but it turned out that the corners were cropped, so the current plan is to use a Helios 44-2 (58mm) instead - that works and the corners aren't cropped, but it seems a bit odd to up the focal length to get an extra-wide result. The positive side is that the Helios is really strong and I'll be using a relatively light-weight Canon with it rather than my Nikon, since you can't focus an M42 lens to infinity on Nikon without a corrective lens that adds distortion, so I ought to be able to test it without most of the support structure I've been trying to assemble. If the weather's nice I'll give it a try this week.

10-22-2019, 12:54 AM	#25
veato Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Nottingham Posts: 543	I'm tempted to try an anamorphic lens on my phone. It's something I'm curious about and as an experiment would be a lot cheaper than dslr options.

10-22-2019, 08:05 PM	#26
Marcus Rowland Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: London Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,079	Some photos with this kit here: Cinemascope Converter \| Flickr I'll be honest, I've tried it enough to satisfy my curiosity, but it's just too big and cumbersome for me, and the routine of using it is a bit of a pain, with the need to focus the lens and adapter for each shot etc. I took about twenty shots in the time I would have normally taken about eighty when I'm testing a normal lens, and more than half were duds for one reason or another. I'll probably sell it on.

10-22-2019, 08:15 PM	#27
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210	Originally posted by Marcus Rowland Some photos with this kit here: Cinemascope Converter \| Flickr I'll be honest, I've tried it enough to satisfy my curiosity, but it's just too big and cumbersome for me, and the routine of using it is a bit of a pain, with the need to focus the lens and adapter for each shot etc. I took about twenty shots in the time I would have normally taken about eighty when I'm testing a normal lens, and more than half were duds for one reason or another. I'll probably sell it on. What kit are you using exactly?

10-23-2019, 09:00 AM	#28
Marcus Rowland Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: London Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,079	Oh right, sorry, I sort of lost track a bit. it's an Isco-Gottingen cinemascope converter in front of a Helios 58/2 lens on a Canon 400D body, with a Redstan mount on the converter so I can mount it on the lens and camera. The converter and Redstan thing cost me about £53 including stepping rings etc. which is ludicrously cheap for these things. The trouble is that when it's all together it's about a foot long, needs a tripod, and is fairly heavy and slow to use, and I think I would get results that are at least as good from my highest resolution camera (Nikon D7000) with a wide angle lens and the image cropped top and bottom.

10-23-2019, 09:20 AM	#29
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210	Originally posted by Marcus Rowland Oh right, sorry, I sort of lost track a bit. it's an Isco-Gottingen cinemascope converter in front of a Helios 58/2 lens on a Canon 400D body, with a Redstan mount on the converter so I can mount it on the lens and camera. The converter and Redstan thing cost me about £53 including stepping rings etc. which is ludicrously cheap for these things. The trouble is that when it's all together it's about a foot long, needs a tripod, and is fairly heavy and slow to use, and I think I would get results that are at least as good from my highest resolution camera (Nikon D7000) with a wide angle lens and the image cropped top and bottom. That's actually a mindblowing price from my casual looks on ebay over the years. I'm pretty jealous actually.

10-24-2019, 12:34 PM	#30
Marcus Rowland Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: London Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,079	It's not quite as good as it sounds - the glass inside the converter has a slightly mottled look which may be slight fungus. It doesn't seem to be doing much, but it's probably knocked a fair bit off what I'll get for it.