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.
Haha, if you made anamorphics for the FF35 3:2 sensor, a 2.40 finish would have ridiculous resolution! Make sure the anamorphics can work with the touch-screen auto focus system, though, or ACs are gonna be dropping like flies. :wink:
 
What sensor size (S35, FF35, etc) would maximize the use of these new anamorphic lenses?
 
Just when I started my research for a good set of Anamorphics for the S35 down the road
 
Anamorphic 617! Just kidding.

This is very exciting news! Thank you!
 
The focal lengths suggest they are for the Red One and MX sensor.

If they have the standard 2X squeeze, they would only have to cover a 1.20 : 1 area of the sensor to get a 2.40 image. So on the 30 x 15mm MX sensor, they would have to cover just 18 x 15mm, and on the 36 x 24mm FF35 Monstro sensor, they would have to cover 29 x 24mm.
 
Tom Lowe said:
Haha, if you made anamorphics for the FF35 3:2 sensor, a 2.40 finish would have ridiculous resolution! Make sure the anamorphics can work with the touch-screen auto focus system, though, or ACs are gonna be dropping like flies. :wink:
Click to expand...

If you wanted to use the entire sensor for the 2.40 image, the FF35 Monstro sensor would need an anamorphic lens with a 1.6X squeeze to fit 2.40 onto the 1.50 sensor, and it would need to cover 36 x 24mm.

For the 2:1 MX sensor, you need a 1.2X squeeze to fill the sensor with a 2.40 image and it would need to cover 30 x 15mm.

For the 16:9 Red One / Super-35 sensor, you'd need a 1.34X squeeze to fill the sensor with a 2.40 image.
 
That is so brilliant - we are working on Cooke/Panavision anamorphics now - and we love them, but at full open they can have artifacts and are some of these were prone to skew not just x compression/scale. New Anamorphic lenses from RED are a dream come true.

thanks so much guys !!!
 
I'm sure the Red anamorphics shot wide-open will have classic anamorphic artifacts as well, if they follow the standard front-element anamorphic design approach for their primes.

Unless they are going with the simpler method of just adding a rear anamorphic element to their RPP's, which won't really get you those classic anamorphic optical artifacts. But that would keep the size down.

Front-element anamorphic primes tend to be the sharpest approach to building an anamorphic lens, but it's like adding a wide-angle adaptor to the front of the prime -- it has a tendency to make the lens much bigger.

The third option is what the Hawks do, put the anamorphic elements somewhere in the middle of the lens.

I've never heard of Cooke Panavision anamorphics, unless those are Joe Dunton's Cooke anamorphic lenses that ended up at Panavision once he sold JDC to them.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
If you wanted to use the entire sensor for the 2.40 image, the FF35 Monstro sensor would need an anamorphic lens with a 1.6X squeeze to fit 2.40 onto the 1.50 sensor, and it would need to cover 36 x 24mm.

For the 2:1 MX sensor, you need a 1.2X squeeze to fill the sensor with a 2.40 image and it would need to cover 30 x 15mm.

For the 16:9 Red One / Super-35 sensor, you'd need a 1.34X squeeze to fill the sensor with a 2.40 image.
Click to expand...

Would a bigger size ana-lens still work with a smaller senor area? Like FF35 Anamorphic Lens to S35 with proper adapter/base plate, and correction in software?
 
Man, I was just (a mean a few hours ago) talking to a DP friend about this very Idea (convert a set of RPPs to anamorphic (X2)). I was even going to post the question here. Weird. Great Idea (and full height on Monstro sensor, too).

Bob Torrance
Robert Torrance Camera, Inc.
 
I really do hope the lenses are nice and artifact-y. It seems kindof ridiculous to shoot anamorphic without the artifacts. There's something rich about the flares, the elliptical points of light when you rack out on a source.

You'd think after seeing Star Trek I'd be anamorphic-flared out, but I want more! Can't wait to see what RED brings to the table.
 
Ryan S said:
Aye, this may put a dent in the second-hand Lomo business.

Jim did say "by year's end", and we're barely into the year, so I wouldn't hold my breath for an imminent release.
Click to expand...



Haha... Thanks Ryan for the update. Out with filmmakers from out of town having some drinks. A great night just got Epic! Cheers man...
 
Sean Sweeney said:
I really do hope the lenses are nice and artifact-y. It seems kindof ridiculous to shoot anamorphic without the artifacts. There's something rich about the flares, the elliptical points of light when you rack out on a source.

You'd think after seeing Star Trek I'd be anamorphic-flared out, but I want more! Can't wait to see what RED brings to the table.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. I know that some people think of the desire for anamorphic as the evolution of the Indie desire for shallow DoF, and perhaps they're right...but I love the Transformers/Star Trek/Die Hard look, and I want to use it. Not to mention the wide field of view...

Andrew Benz said:
A great night just got Epic!
Click to expand...

You can say that again!
 
holy shit!!!

Do you guys ever stop? :-)

Really looking forward to learning more about the specs and seeing them in action.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top