Anamorphic Lens Tests - Kowa, Arri Master Anamorphic & Lomo

[Nick Morrison]

The two big issues for me with the letus thing are #1 it's dual focus so that renders it pretty much useless for serious production, and #2 I don't think a 1.3x squeeze is worth the effort look wise. But that's just my opinion, I'm sure the 1.3x is fine for some folks, but it doesn't get me all the way there.

Nick

Does the light 1.3x squeeze still keep the image 16x9 more or less? Am I right assuming that? All my work is broadcast, and regardless of what type of letterbox my clients chose to add in post, most of the time...they want us shooting 16x9....so if the 1.3 does render out 16x9 (or close enough) that would be more than enough for me.

I agree the dual focus part of it makes it useful only for smaller jobs. On bigger productions where focus becomes more critical, that could become a major hurdle to overcome....

 

[Gabriel Przybysz 2]

Nick

For sensor 16x9 factor 1.3 is more suitable, 2x have to cropping sides or scalling to ultrawide. Adapter will be some joyness for many - but - as you wroted.

Greetings

 

[Andy White]

To chime in with Nick and Gabriel here, I really don't see the point of the Letus (or another 1.3X squeeze solution).

Dual focus - well, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a set with a camera shooting this way... even on personal stuff.

Only thing you'll gain is flares plus a wider horizontal FOV (from your spherical lens)- but that's not enough to give the Anamorphic feel (bokeh/aberrations etc) IMO. The original 1.3X/16:9 adapter solutions were designed for cameras before RED came along with the plethora of shooting modes and 4K etc... so now I'd shoot spherical 5K...

It puzzles me why these new adapters are going down the 1.3X route... in the same way that I think the new Angie rear Ana zoom is pointless... but, that's just me

 

[Gabriel Przybysz 2]

Hello Andy!

So, I am not only one in Old World called EU during the deep night!

Easy to agree with Andy - with this direction better add in , for example after or houdini flares and "traditionally" crop from 4 or 5K.
Rear adapter - agree too but both of us have 18-1 - and better to have than not. It is without anamorph characteristic - but personal observation - in macro iluminations and blics changes in oval... without respect for general rules I think 18-1 will be superior to angie - but somebody could smile and tell something about optimistic prayers... well - will see - proper rear adapter is not so easy technology too - according to great Shiga again...

 

[Andy White]

Hello Andy!

So, I am not only one in Old World called EU during the deep night!

Easy to agree with Andy - with this direction better add in , for example after or houdini flares and "traditionally" crop from 4 or 5K.
Rear adapter - agree too but both of us have 18-1 - and better to have than not. It is without anamorph characteristic - but personal observation - in macro iluminations and blics changes in oval... without respect for general rules I think 18-1 will be superior to angie - but somebody could smile and tell something about optimistic prayers... well - will see - proper rear adapter is not so easy technology too - according to great Shiga again...

Yes - another late night struggling with CG renders and Lightwave's annoying handling of Alphas... looking forward to shooting again, rather than working on CGI.

On the rear adapter - agree on the OPF-18, the macro sometimes gives a little more oval than round. I didn't know you had one... hope it wasn't my recommendations that made you get one - LOL!

I think part of the mix is the glass (and coatings) too - that's why the OPF18 and rear ana is a good combo IMO.

But I don't see the reasoning on the new Angie zoom with rear ana - it's just going to be a sharp zoom and a bit soul-less. Like the Scorpio Ana's - a set of primes that are rear anas... no fun really

 

[Kip Kubin]

Owning Square Front Lomos and having compared the to round fronts I've not seen flair like that in the test from Lomos.

 

[Nick Gardner]

I am biased since I own square fronts, but I prefer the flares on the squares. I had them rebuilt and I put bigger gears on them so they are way more easy to use on set. Mine are the one piece lenses, not the old two piece type. I think they were in TEMP mounts when I got them which were mostly used in animation studious so they weren't all beat up.

Nick

 

[Gabriel Przybysz 2]

Owning Square Front Lomos and having compared the to round fronts I've not seen flair like that in the test from Lomos.

Hard to explain - you are mean round have different? Probably so - round front LOMOs modern, different type. But flair and other artifacts is only part of "anamorphic" in square and front.

Greetings

 

[Gabriel Przybysz 2]

I am biased since I own square fronts, but I prefer the flares on the squares. I had them rebuilt and I put bigger gears on them so they are way more easy to use on set. Mine are the one piece lenses, not the old two piece type. I think they were in TEMP mounts when I got them which were mostly used in animation studious so they weren't all beat up.

Nick

Yes, this is simple truth - good mechanical condition and very good optical without damaged glass - if keeped well then will perform quite close to any new. Can not achive good picture from very dirty, scratched glass. Well, now because not easy find anamorphic sometimes I see offers with parts or damaged - sign of present days - small and smaller quantity everywhere.

One piece lens always better collimated.
But I amprefered round front - definitely. Many reasons. Except wide range 22-30-35 - round front F35 have little more distortion than square.

 

[Gabriel Przybysz 2]

Yes - another late night struggling with CG renders and Lightwave's annoying handling of Alphas... looking forward to shooting again, rather than working on CGI.

On the rear adapter - agree on the OPF-18, the macro sometimes gives a little more oval than round. I didn't know you had one... hope it wasn't my recommendations that made you get one - LOL!

I think part of the mix is the glass (and coatings) too - that's why the OPF18 and rear ana is a good combo IMO.

But I don't see the reasoning on the new Angie zoom with rear ana - it's just going to be a sharp zoom and a bit soul-less. Like the Scorpio Ana's - a set of primes that are rear anas... no fun really

Agree.

in my opinion 18-1 is one of three best zoms by soviet union. close to Cooke = warm, compared to new Varotal and vintage Varotal V (great amazing glass). But it is best way to see that same technology and almost same glasses from one producer show all differences beetwen real anamorphic and rear adapters - not same structure of picture. Spherical still just... spherical.
"Soul-less" - poetical; indeed. Spherical always little or more flatter than "living" ana with all half-tones, softnes in borders, edges etc.

Good night or good day!

 

[Karim_Nassar]

The arris on red epic wide open at 1.9. fantastic:

Edit: Mike Reyes updated the video info:

Camera / RED Epic
Resolution / 5K ANA (5:1 Compression)
Frame Rate / 24FPS
Shutter Angle / 180°
WB: / ~6000°K
Colorspace / REDcolor 3, REDlogfilm
Filters / IRND 1.2 + 6
Color Grade / DaVinci Resolve 8

 

[Gabriel Przybysz 2]

Hi Karim
Yes, very nice, thanks for material - especially wide open. With older you have to close 1-2 stops. When you compare with "older brothers" it will be obvious why true anamorph is... true anamorph. Complexity.
New anamorph will be great alternative for biggest production. If you have own or free access to older - you will see why worth to try too
Greetings again

 

[UM ALI]

Lomos are nice, especially since they have the old school breathing, mumps and one "may" pickup a set for price of one AMP ana.

 

[UM ALI]

I agree with Brandon. Anamorphic lenses are not just about the FOV. Many filmmakers just shoot "anamorphic widescreen" without using anamorphic lenses. The unique characteristics of an anamorphic lense is truly obvious in the old school lenses, like the Kowa and the Lomos. The quirky, imperfections in these lenses is what makes them so interesting.

[Q0UOTE=Brandon Esten;1305910]No problem Karim, that's what the internet is all about :0)

I keep watching that clip over and over to try and see your side (there's another clip of the 50mm in action in Paris for a short about two ladies out on the town) and I personally can't get behind the look as far as "anamorphic" is concerned. Indeed, we have seen just about every paradigm rewritten in the last decade, many to the good, some to the detriment; here we have an example of that shift happening again. Not saying it's a bad thing, please. Indeed, the Arris deliver a beautiful image and I don't argue that the control of angle of view during focus is absolutely radical (whereas the Kowas look like they're zooming while pulling focus). What I am interested in discussing is where the resolving power of these arri anamorphics really warrants the money to use them over renting ultra-primes for less money or something similar and cropping. The only 4:3 sensor I know of is the Alexa which only shoots 2K right? So... if you have some kind of crop factor built into your chip, shoot spherical if you don't like the classic anamorphic look. You're going to get the resolution you need from the lens, and if you crop and blow up (having shot at 5K) you will still be OK on the big screen... Maybe someone else has numbers they can crunch and add to the discussion?[/QUOTE]

 

[Nick Morrison]

The arris on red epic wide open at 1.9. fantastic:

Edit: Mike Reyes updated the video info:

Camera / RED Epic
Resolution / 5K ANA (5:1 Compression)
Frame Rate / 24FPS
Shutter Angle / 180°
WB: / ~6000°K
Colorspace / REDcolor 3, REDlogfilm
Filters / IRND 1.2 + 6
Color Grade / DaVinci Resolve 8

Agreed. Wide open, that bokeh looks fantastic. A lot more retro and interesting than I'd imagined.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Hmm,

You need a set of Hawks to compare anamorphic I think to me they just kicks the others ass, some panavision stuff looks great as well but those are as we all no you need to be a thief to own

Here is some stuff shot with our set of Hawk C's for comparison, just love the how the dof falls and how the details in sharp areas is almost enhanced same feel I get from the falloff from the summilux-C but with the bonus of being anamorphic. I guess I'm biased but I love how these lenses look:

 

[Gabriel Przybysz 2]

Bjorn
Thanks for clips, your cat become star pretty soon. Pterodactyl is some new stuff?- 0'08-0'10 with milo?
But serious - anamorphic always make difference. Dot.

 

[Nick Gardner]

Aren't Hawk Cs lomo round front optics rehoused? I know the first generation was that, and I thought hawk Cs were 1st gen? I can't remember. Regardless, great looking stuff.

I absolutely love the second spot even though I have no idea what it's for ;-) Really any mid 70's and newer anamorphics can be shot well and look great. They are like ice cream or boobs, lots of variation but all good.

Nick

 

[Brandon Esten]

They are like ice cream...

Except maybe squid-ink icecream :0)

 

[Andrew Ceperley]

Hawk - all the way. If we're talking non-Panavision, the older Hawk lenses (C-Series and V-Series) are just too good to overlook. They're sharp but preserve so many wonderful anamorphic artifacts (unlike those horrendously boring Zeiss Master Anamorphics - I mean, way to make such a wonderful and optically exciting format dull and lifeless).

What about Todd AO, JDC and Cineovision - great older options (though JDC can pretty much only be found through Panavision now...unless you look long and hard)? If I were to look into older anamorphics I'd look at those options before Lomo or Kowa without question. Kowa's widest is a 40mm, which on any camera outside an Alexa 4:3, is totally unacceptable...and even then it's still not quite as wide as I'd like. Lomo's wider range of focal lengths (22-500 apparently, though I've only used 35-200) is limited by poor optical quality - not to mention a total inconsistency of optics AND mechanics. Every set I see is radically different from the last.