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 :)

Sigma Cinema Lenses

Christoffer Glans said:
After talking to the guys at Celere, it's clear that the way lenses are made nowadays differs from a couple of years ago. It's easier and less expensive to hit the market and for already established lens manufacturers it's much easier. So it might just be a matter of time before we see affordable mid range anamorphics that might rival the high ends. I like the look of the new Master Anamorphics, but I felt that they went into the same direction as my CN-Es; i.e they lack a certain soul. The images are perfect anamorphic images, but then I think the format looses it's point. If they look rather perfect, why even use anamorphics since it's improving 35mm film more than digital sensors? It feels like it's better to use somewhat older anamorphics with digital sensors to get the glass characteristics that increase the organic feeling to it rather than almost perfect anamorphics which almost looks as clean as a regular spherical with a 2.35:1 crop. So, people who agree on this would benefit from anamorphics with more glass character than perfect glass, just like HS Celere isn't perfect glass but character-glass.

I've always had a bit of a love/hate relationship with anamorphics. They look great, but I feel it's more nostalgia than anything else. Lens flares and bokeh of the past instead of modern clean looking images. There's a time and purpose for anything, but I think they're overused through pure nostalgia rather than story-telling perspective. - side note.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that there is only one camera with the sensor native aspect ratio that will (kind of) work for anamorphic. RED is probably the least preferred with their super wide 2:1 sensor.
Deleting half the pixels to get the look.
Still struggling to understand the purpose of it other than the hipster for the hipster sake.....
Damn you engineering mind ;-)
 
Jacek Zakowicz said:
Not to mention that there is only one camera with the sensor native aspect ratio that will (kind of) work for anamorphic. RED is probably the least preferred with their super wide 2:1 sensor.
Deleting half the pixels to get the look.
Still struggling to understand the purpose of it other than the hipster for the hipster sake.....
Damn you engineering mind ;-)
Click to expand...

your spot on - when someone as brilliant as Roger Deakins essentially saying the same thing, It only justifies my argument even more that spherical lenses are almost always the better choice. - https://www.rogerdeakins.com/camera/blade-runner-cameralenses/
 
Jacek Zakowicz said:
Not to mention that there is only one camera with the sensor native aspect ratio that will (kind of) work for anamorphic. RED is probably the least preferred with their super wide 2:1 sensor.
Deleting half the pixels to get the look.
Click to expand...

Unless we are all filming one specific aspect ratio and delivering one aspect ratio, no sensor size "is perfect".

Interestingly enough however, RED has gone with generally 1.9:1 which allows for minimal "croppage" while maintaining high resolution for:
- DCI 1.9
- 1.85:1
- 2.40:1
- 16x9, 1.78:1

In terms of pixels towards anamorphic, RED actually shoots at a higher pixel resolution typically, but there's an interesting trade off there as the pixels appear to be smoother rather than sharper say compared to Alexa (due to a lack of resolution/talking finishing 2K). This was uncovered by PV some time ago and sort of a shocker in terms of how the final unsqueazed image developed, but it makes sense really. However, you can sharpen the footage if you need that, some prefer the more "optical feel" to the RED draw in that case.

Dragon 8K VV is at the moment the largest format size for traditional 2X anamorphic filming at 8K 6:5 and it's a lovely thing if you can find glass that covers that.
 
andrew wehde said:
Thanks Mark, Any idea if there has been luck to file down the back of the lenses without effecting the element?
Click to expand...

We're just a few days from shipping out stock of our solution to Leica/CW to solve this :)

Nice collaborative effort between RED, KipperTie and CW Sonderoptic.
 
Phil Holland said:
Unless we are all filming one specific aspect ratio and delivering one aspect ratio, no sensor size "is perfect".

Interestingly enough however, RED has gone with generally 1.9:1 which allows for minimal "croppage" while maintaining high resolution for:
- DCI 1.9
- 1.85:1
- 2.40:1
- 16x9, 1.78:1

In terms of pixels towards anamorphic, RED actually shoots at a higher pixel resolution typically, but there's an interesting trade off there as the pixels appear to be smoother rather than sharper say compared to Alexa (due to a lack of resolution/talking finishing 2K). This was uncovered by PV some time ago and sort of a shocker in terms of how the final unsqueazed image developed, but it makes sense really. However, you can sharpen the footage if you need that, some prefer the more "optical feel" to the RED draw in that case.

Dragon 8K VV is at the moment the largest format size for traditional 2X anamorphic filming at 8K 6:5 and it's a lovely thing if you can find glass that covers that.
Click to expand...
Haha you are just relentless aren't you ;-)
 
Anamorphic glass is a creative choice, I mean, they do look good on digital, if you aim for that feel and look. But then there are times it doesn't make sense at all, like on Fear the Walking Dead, where there's no justification for anamorphs in terms of story and there's nothing gained after the image is zoomed into 16:9 format. The end result is an Alexa shot show loosing resolution by zooming in and getting a condensed weird looking image. Opposite that there's a show like 11.22.63 which used spherical for present day scenes and Hawc anamorphs for scenes in the 60s. even though they zoomed in, it fit the tone of the story and it made sense.

So it's a matter of creative choice, but I'm hardcore story-purposed choices and when there's no reason for anamorphs I don't understand why it's used. A modern day drama, thriller or Sci-Fi makes no sense using anamorphs (anamoprhic lens flares is a nostalgic choice for sci-fi, not really purposed for the story IMO).
 
John - only because I've been holding my breath for maybe 3 years now for a Leica-M OLPF -- will you have a DSCM2 OLPF
so we can shoot Leica-M mount lenses that will have "corrected" images and not bump into the OLPF. Maybe be able to
keep one of your OLPFs in the camera for Summilux-75mm, Noctilux 0.95mm, and (say) even a 24mm ? [Swapping OLPFs
in the field is not my cup of vodka.]

If so, PLEASE, where do we send money ??

TIA,
Serge

John Marchant said:
We're just a few days from shipping out stock of our solution to Leica/CW to solve this :)

Nice collaborative effort between RED, KipperTie and CW Sonderoptic.
Click to expand...
 
Christoffer Glans said:
Anamorphic glass is a creative choice, I mean, they do look good on digital, if you aim for that feel and look. But then there are times it doesn't make sense at all, like on Fear the Walking Dead, where there's no justification for anamorphs in terms of story and there's nothing gained after the image is zoomed into 16:9 format. The end result is an Alexa shot show loosing resolution by zooming in and getting a condensed weird looking image. Opposite that there's a show like 11.22.63 which used spherical for present day scenes and Hawc anamorphs for scenes in the 60s. even though they zoomed in, it fit the tone of the story and it made sense.

So it's a matter of creative choice, but I'm hardcore story-purposed choices and when there's no reason for anamorphs I don't understand why it's used. A modern day drama, thriller or Sci-Fi makes no sense using anamorphs (anamoprhic lens flares is a nostalgic choice for sci-fi, not really purposed for the story IMO).
Click to expand...
Personally I'm yet to see a story that would for me justify giving up the screen real estate , aberrations notwithstanding....
 
Jacek Zakowicz said:
Personally I'm yet to see a story that would for me justify giving up the screen real estate , aberrations notwithstanding....
Click to expand...

It's great for getting a period feel. We rarely know of times before our time, we only know them through the media we've seen and most of 20th century history is viewed through the lens of fiction from those times. If one are to create a story set in a time period with a lot of anamorphic cinematography, like the 80's, then it's great making use of older anamorphics to generate that feel. I don't see a problem with that, image is more than resolution but it should always be rooted in what story or thing you're creating.
 
Serge Polevitzky said:
John - only because I've been holding my breath for maybe 3 years now for a Leica-M OLPF -- will you have a DSCM2 OLPF
so we can shoot Leica-M mount lenses that will have "corrected" images and not bump into the OLPF. Maybe be able to
keep one of your OLPFs in the camera for Summilux-75mm, Noctilux 0.95mm, and (say) even a 24mm ? [Swapping OLPFs
in the field is not my cup of vodka.]

If so, PLEASE, where do we send money ??

TIA,
Serge
Click to expand...

These will be available via CW, not KipperTie.

For DSMC2 we have engineered a solution that goes to the absolute limit without disturbing the OLPF position. The reference point requested by CW was a prototype Summilux-M 24mm f1.4 serie VII with cine mods they supplied as a sample. This has, as I understand it, the deepest rear element in their lineup.

The filter frame accommodates a 30mm diameter rear element completely clear of obstruction right up to the surface of the OLPF.
 
You still have to watch for vignetting. These range finder lenses get dark in the corners pretty quickly. Leica made special sensors with tilted micro lenses to battle this....
 
Going off topic for a minute...

Anamorphic is just plain incredible to shoot with. From an imaging standpoint it's just super cool, incredible and different than what we are used to experiencing behind the camera if we have only shot spherical, but watched Anamorphic movies for a large portion of our film watching lifetimes...

Here's the real secret sauce about Anamorphic:

You get the vertical field of view of your focal length's number.

You get Twice the horizontal field of view of your focal length's number comparing to Spherical (talking about 2x anamorphic here aka original Cinemascope style format)

(a 50mm 2x anamorphic has equivalent horizontal field of view of a 25mm, and vertical field of view of a 50mm)

You get roughly the depth of field properties of your focal length compared to spherical (so again - wide horizontal field of view of a 25, but shallow depth of field of a 50mm)...

with the added benefit (or drawback depending on your perspective) of astigmatized bokeh (referring here to "classic" anamorphic look - not Master Anamorphic).

The major problem with Anamorphic in our time is the mechanics are mostly SHOT on anything that isn't maintained by Panavision, or by other master lens technicians and babied by Cinematographers and AC's...

All the other problems of "resolution" or "crop factor" or "windowing" are "just numbers" (In My emotional "Artist" opinion) - and have nothing to do with the artistic result of imaging...

But... back on Topic...

Sigma Cine Lenses.

Damn, I love me some Sigma Art optics for contrasty, clear, nice draw, aspherical, low chromatic aberration, solid, dependable imaging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top