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 :)

RPAs...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I suspect these are standard 2X anamorphic lenses that will more than cover enough of the 30mm x 15mm MX sensor area to get a 1.20 image with a 2X squeeze, i.e. 18mm x 15mm.

After all, all 35mm anamorphic lenses have to cover the 4-perf 35mm anamorphic aperture, which is about 22mm x 18.5mm, which is still larger than a 1.20 area of the MX sensor.

Whether they will cover a 29mm x 24mm area of the 36mm x 24mm Monstro sensor is unknown. Of course, you may need some longer focal lengths to compensate for the larger sensor area. The opposite is true if you start putting them on a 2/3" camera -- you're going to want shorter focal lengths that start more in the 20mm range at least.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I suspect these are standard 2X anamorphic lenses that will more than cover enough of the 30mm x 15mm MX sensor area to get a 1.20 image with a 2X squeeze, i.e. 18mm x 15mm.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right, David. That said, I'm curious as to what the majority of excited people here are hoping for. I'm all for the front anamorphic element and 2X squeeze for the flares and OOF highlights, but I wonder how many share that feeling.
 
Ryan S said:
I hope you're right, David. That said, I'm curious as to what the majority of excited people here are hoping for. I'm all for the front anamorphic element and 2X squeeze for the flares and OOF highlights, but I wonder how many share that feeling.
Click to expand...

No real point if they aren't front element and all artifacty. If you just want resolution then you can just shoot on Monstro anyway and save a lot of hassle.
 
I hope they aren't just using rear anamorphic elements -- I kinda doubt it because that wouldn't come close to adding a 1/2-pound to the lens. On the other hand, front anamorphic elements would add quite a bit of size and weight if they are using the RPP's as a base. So either they are starting out with smaller primes and building on them, or they are doing something different like Hawk's approach of putting the anamorphic elements somewhere in the middle of the lens, but that reduces the tendency to get that blue horizontal flare (which is why Hawk makes a blue flare filter.)

For example, Primo anamorphics are gigantic (each prime is the size of a Cooke 5:1 zoom) because they are based on Primo primes; if someone took a Zeiss Master Prime and tried to add front anamorphic elements, the result would even bigger than Primo anamorphics. That's the reason why the newest JDC anamorphics were still built around older Cooke S2/3's instead of Cooke S4's, because of the size.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I hope they aren't just using rear anamorphic elements -- I kinda doubt it because that wouldn't come close to adding a 1/2-pound to the lens. On the other hand, front anamorphic elements would add quite a bit of size and weight if they are using the RPP's as a base. So either they are starting out with smaller primes and building on them, or they are doing something different like Hawk's approach of putting the anamorphic elements somewhere in the middle of the lens, but that reduces the tendency to get that blue horizontal flare (which is why Hawk makes a blue flare filter.)
Click to expand...

With that in mind, the fact that Jim says they'll be within a half pound of the RPPs suggests that they won't be front-element? He did say that the optical quality and mechanics will match the RPPs, which suggests that they're using the RPPs as a base.

I realize that this is all speculation at this point, I just find it very interesting. I hope that they're not going with the rear or middle anamorphic element- I realize that you can get the blue streaks using filters, but they just don't look the same.
 
Why RPA's

Why RPA's

I'm just playing Devil's advocate here but why would most of you really want anamorphics in the first place when traditionally the reason for anamorphic lenses was based on fixing an issue that a digital sensor with plenty of pixels would take care of anyway? I know the "artifacts" that ani's introduce to the image but is that the main reason everyone seems so interested?
 
Please make the lenses 2X squeeze. The choice for anamorphic is an aesthetic one. Anamorphic glass was designed initially to maximise the use of squarish 35mm film stock when cinema converted from Academy to Widescreen formatts and it did this well. Their use on high resolution digital cameras is NOT about maximising technical quality. Its about the unique 'Look" they create. 1.3X squeeze may make better use of 16x9 sensors but unless they lenses have a strong anamorphic look. I do not understand why you would bother when you are using 5K and up sensors
 
Justin McAleece said:
I'm just playing Devil's advocate here but why would most of you really want anamorphics in the first place when traditionally the reason for anamorphic lenses was based on fixing an issue that a digital sensor with plenty of pixels would take care of anyway? I know the "artifacts" that ani's introduce to the image but is that the main reason everyone seems so interested?
Click to expand...

yes, for me that is the main reason.
And 2x squeeze,
i didnt like the hawk 1,3x...oh i mean they werent as hot as hawk 2x.

shit, i have to work a lot this year.
 
Justin McAleece said:
I'm just playing Devil's advocate here but why would most of you really want anamorphics in the first place when traditionally the reason for anamorphic lenses was based on fixing an issue that a digital sensor with plenty of pixels would take care of anyway? I know the "artifacts" that ani's introduce to the image but is that the main reason everyone seems so interested?
Click to expand...

For me, it's the artifacts. The streaky flares just add a little something to certain types of films (not all, in my opinion). I also like how they affect the field of view- a 35mm Anamorphic with a 2x squeeze looks very different from a 35mm spherical. However, it's the flares and out of focus highlights that really do it for me.

Pawel, how about RPMs? Red Pro Macros!
 
It only takes 1.2x squeeze to go from 2:1 sensor to 2.40 : 1 format. So, anamorphics do not make much sense there.

I speculate the new anamorphics will cover FF35 and will have 2x or so squeeze ratio, which would bring the result closer to 2.40 : 1. It would be amazing, but imagine the size of this thing.
 
I would be willing to sacrifice the flare in exchange for the focus. In fact I even like the barrel distortion and loss of sharpness on the edges that many anamorphics bring. My desire would definitely be for 2x and Monstro even if it didn't cover the entire chip and only covered a 4 perf Academy portion of the sensor.

I like the Hawk primes but I'm not sure I would buy the RPAs if they were analogous. I would be tempted to put it into cleaning up a set of LOMOs. Tough to say even if we just had a spec sheet. With anamorphics I think it's so much about the look and character that the spec sheet will be almost meaningless. Maybe they'll be mid element and still have a great look. Maybe they'll be front element and just be boring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top