Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Anamorphic Lens Tests - Kowa, Arri Master Anamorphic & Lomo

Hey, right on! Thanks for posting this.

As a Kowa owner myself, my vote is obviously lies with these babies. However, are they comparable with the Master's? Of course not. . . A set of Kowa's costs about as much as an Arri front-cap! So its kind of apple and oranges. (or, maybe more like Mushrooms and White Truffles!)

But I'll agree with others that if I was in the market for a NEW set of anamorphics and had some money to throw down, I'd be seriously looking at Cooke's offerings.
 
Brandon

Probably nobody here not questionable possibilities to make professional big movie with LOMOs anamorphic, lot of around hi-budgets features with LOMOs - including quite big worldwide productions...

Greetings
 
As a Elite Ana Pre owner I would like to see them beside the other they are holding really good performance something in between the older lomo and Kawa and the newer Master Anas and a reasonable flare characteristics.
also like to add from my experience with anamorphic if you want a lens like Master Ana to flare you have to put pen shaped light (old 2k tungsten)in front of it like the sample below:
i had the same problem with the Elites and they hardly flared but i fund how to make them flare.
 

Attachments

  • Tangestan Flare.0009642_90000.jpg
    Tangestan Flare.0009642_90000.jpg
    42.6 KB · Views: 0
As you can see from the below sample the Elites are really sharp lenses but still have the Ana Feel to them which place them in the middle of the line.
 

Attachments

  • 039515.jpg
    039515.jpg
    105.3 KB · Views: 0
Not easy to find. All old anamorphic became to be very rare - LOMOs in Russia after many years "rivers" dry - not easy to find any. I always will stand closer to LOMOs - I prefer charakteristic -as many wroted in this topic - cinematic, filmic look without any postpro. Any shoots looks like scenes from epic movie. New anamorphic - of course good - but with "old babies" can you reach quite close effect. Easier spend few thousend bucks than hundreds thousends... It is always way better than clinic look especially from spherical. And once again - it is not matter of flares! - can be add at many ways from soft to filters (tiffen), adapters, etc - but with LOMOs advantage is "juicy, rich" picture, softness etc - one of best results can present Bjorn fron Syndicate in Sweden - his Hawks are great - they are quite same like LOMOs.
 
Speaking of Hawks, I'm not sure if there have been discussions of this in other threads:

http://steveoakley.net/template_permalink.asp?id=570
EDIT: [THESE ARE SPHERICAL NOT ANAMORPHIC!!! It would be nice though huh? We can dream...]


Also nice:

http://www.fdtimes.com/2012/10/19/hawk-anamorphic-zooms/

These are all way way way out of my price range of course.

Anyone with bank account details they'd like to share? Kiddin'... but seriously, I have an ailing uncle in South Africa who is a prince and very wealthy but needs help before he can get to the bank... or something...
 
Last edited:
Hello again Brandon

Interesting, indeed. It will be produced primary for rental buisness.

Quality - truly - I think it will be top but not far from present or old. It is like Shiga story with adapters - hard to find today same abilities and experience

Greetings for you
 
Important here is obvious truth - all new anamorph will be out of range private filmmakers - most of them will be top price because of cost and quantity limitations - most of companies will provide only big rental houses. Big dot here.

One more important thing about anamorphic - why? matter of taste, primary. Secondary? - as above, because picture is beauty, because of complexity, living picture (not flat), some softness, irregulars, even distortion - etc.
Limitations? - so many - always "more light" - hungry more than Smaug, always limited to horizontal shoots, don't like tilting, expensive in rent etc. From other side - just look Nolan or Abrams features.

And finally - why "old" anamorphic? Because from many POVs it is only real alternative for us and just look comparision above - how big difference do we see - this is question about level - better, worse - but from same level.

If we stop with theory, according to many movie production preparations what we get ? - always when anybody have to rent anamorphic start troubles and misery - rentals usually have limited sets in quite not-comparable condition, prefered big titans of market - schedule is depend of everything not by smaller.

Remember about one more "small" detail - big productions with digital cinematography with many units always try to (or have to) get sets for all of cameras and units - sometimes even over 5 - 20 units per production. Or more. In many countries, even when you find "dealer" of world provider - they just collect order and forward ask about lenses to US or two, three cities in EU.

In my opinion old anamorph still have one big advantage - it is great step closer to real cinema when it is not really big budget project. It is important to keep clean POV in mind - when you worked over next movie with budget in millions $ - you get all gears as you want - to be sure about top effect by top wide available lenses etc. - doesn't matter - spherical or anamorph. It is just matter of taste of director, DP and producers and process of production - for example - if post-pro company connected with particular production or producer can not afford effect with anamorph, then will be clean spherical, no doubt. If they have practice and ability (IT IS NEAR ALWAYS possible to add today everything as wanted to anamorph same like to spherical - sometimes just more work with tracking because of distortion, sometimes with keying because of flares or too softness borders - but fixable - new Star Trek and Incepcion is best example) If director want run&gun, flying cameras, spiders, etc - same - spherical or mix for close up, for examle. If want best looking pictures in epic style - it will be anamorph or 65mm etc.

IMPORTANT - risk of rent old, used set of anamorph is not because worse quality (of course it could be one of reason too) but more important is - ability to replace and matching to rest units - usually need few same sets. If we worked own and wit one, two set - of course it is not limitation.

As anybody who worked with postpro - hardest is everything what is connected with trying "emulate" anamorph, cinematic picture and "emulation" of good lens at all - mask with softness, bluriness to sharp, razor picture, blur, etc - effect poor or still flat or even flatter - and hundreds hours of rendering, especialy in higher res close to render of 3D.

Of course - great lenses are great lenses - matter what anybody want, like and see. Some of DP said that anamorph is more - kind of philosophy. In my opinion - funny - but easier way to achive better effect - with razor spherical have different DOF, sharp as knife picture sometimes closer to videogame - and here is first reason - not so easy to tell and convincing to story. Second - is DOF and "softness" - everything includingh scenography and costumes looks better - maybe not so sharp, but not so video detailed but... more attractive.

It is reason why I like private set of anamorph - independence, original "look" (hate this term!). LOMOs are old, but this was military technology, no limitations according costs of best glasses on the world - so design was poor (labour gear for labours "comarades" from movie industry... :) - usable to work, not for good looking :) ) , mechanicaly - hazardous, matter of luck, always like battleship - but not really heavy - from 2 to 3,1 kg. Most important - opticaly - one of best, sometimes just best - including coating recepture. It was irrational many times - I have friend near Zurich who get titan shovel from Russia... Anybody who worked with original LOMOs and any other piece after refubrish know what I mean here exactly.

In last few years I've saw to many productions with quite good budgets and "middle class" lenses - finally - too late conclusions about reasons... And it is same reason why still looking with pleasure old 60' 70' movies with so nice pictures...
 
I'm curious how the Letus Anamorphic adapter will work out, for when you quickly need an anamorphic look, but don't have time (or budget) to get your hands on some of these newer sets of glass...
 
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
 
Hello Nick

I've saw effect and in my opinion it is same like with LG7200 - I have one, accidentaly - was part of handy DVX100 many tears ago as a extended kit - more flares than any anamorph :) - but this is half way. But of course - you are right - fast set-up for some fast project. Without anamorphic this is some solution. But this is same like with soft flares as some solution

Greetings
 
Totally agree with Nick Gardner

Gentelmans, factor 1.3 is first - it is problematic even by professional, double focus, problems with constant focus for frame, etc. This is half way beetwen - question about benefits. Not real anamorph view, characteristic without visible difference, flares - yes, sharpness - lower. If no other way... Easier to buy adapter than find KOWAs, LOMOs or rent set of new anamorph....

But this is my private opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top