Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV Telegram channel! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
True wide scope with Anamorphic Adapters ( lenses ).
  • i bought and read the Andrew Reid's Anamorphic Shooters guide again. What i understand from the condensed info Andrew is providing is; as much as the Anamorphic lenses give you horizontal wide view for a given focal length - if we need a true wide scope effect there is only one option with compromises and that is LA7200. Surprisingly those compromises pile up quickly also ( eg. lack of shallow depth of field, forced to shoot F/4 and up, .... ) . Considering this $50. piece of glass in plastic housing is valued at around $1000. these days, are there any other options available for GH1 + anamorphic for start up with almost same capabilities as LA7200 ?
  • 49 Replies sorted by
  • This guy has made a bunch of GH1/2 vids and some vids on using the LA7200 with the GH1/2s.
    http://www.youtube.com/user/eyepatchentertainmen


  • I noticed that LA7200 lens have dropped drastically in price over the past couple of months. I just bought 2 for under $1300. I also managed to pick up a tiffen +0.5D 4.5" diopter. I might pick up the Redstan achromat for some testing if the tiffen turns out to be crap. Anyone have any brilliant idea on how to attach these diopters to the front of the lens AND still make use of my matte boxes?
  • For people who know the current rates of isco 36 .what would you say is a "good" deal price on one ..I have a chance to pick one up for $1600 ..thank you

    I got even a better deal, got the isco 36 for $1130..I love the vivitar 28-90mm macro , anyone has experience with that lens with the isco, will zoom lenses work on isco? and if yes, will it vignette at 28mm on gh2? thanks
  • I noticed that the LA7200 really doesn't like long focal lengths (>40mm). Is this something diopters helps?

    Chris
  • @LPowell
    Congrats! Isco's coatings are topnotch!!
  • @lpowell I wanted that 42 badly.
  • @LPowell
    Can you direct me to the discussion topic of this latest patch?
    Until now I've only enabled PAL/English Language. I need to see what people are doing with anamorphic MJPEG.
  • OMG! I just won an eBay auction for a 1.5X Iscorama-54 for "only" $1800!!
  • thanks for the number, and for the work you do on these patches.
  • @routetroupe
    With a 1.75X anamorphic adapter in VGA mode, the precise frame size would be 1890x810, but I'd just fudge it up to a full 1920x810. The squeeze ratios of vintage lenses were typically a little imprecise. I have an ISCO that's supposed to be 1.5X but is actually closer to 1.4X.
  • Sorry not being antagonistic (to you die hard Anamorphs) but Im looking at this footage I've shot drunk today - focus thru ghetto cheap adapter and Redstan Tokina 0.4 + 20mm 1.7 - looks on a HD monitor in the suite, with (actually equally drunk editor) sharp as a nats chuff - far more edge to edge detail than anything seen from the AG7200 ever - several beers later, this is corroborated by a BBC old sod with us - who funnily confirmed only the Century was accepted by the BBC, hell if that actually means owt?! Hey In the end I point it focus + shoot - no double focus, wait wait wait oh do it again? Ive snooped a whole day with no-one actually knowing my cheapo shit ol rig has ever been there - is it really real world poo - dunno, not going to pixel peep, Im going to give it to an editor who really believes the GH2 cant beat the Canon - hell I can't shoot for shit, hence if he likes it ...:) Might be funny result may not!
  • in vga mode what would the width be to shoot with a 1.75 squeeze anamorphic adapter? ____x810? thanks
  • Shot all day thru my (Sorry EOS Andrew) shit generic anamorphic - sharper than any LA7200 Ive seen, dumped in the shoot to his AVID interrupting the new Take That DVD, to really see if Im blind/mad - nope sharper than a sharp thing edge to edge at F2 >> - I may be mad, hence why I shot imported and showed this world class editor what even a cheap old bit of glass (Sorry EOS) can do - and again Im sorry - this man has cut the best shit you've seen and does weekly,and he concurs - my old bit of shit generic is tack sharp - sorry !

    Like Hendrix playing a shit old Squier or Beatles using old English EMI Ch
    andler cack - don't listen to anyone else, make your own mistakes, experiment, it's not ALL about gear. Have fun make your own decisions. Its only telly or film or ...

  • @LPowell
    Yes, I'll be giving this a try. Very useful even though I prefer projecting 1080P through an anamorphic lens.
    This option may be too convenient to refuse. Thank you!
  • @LPowell
    heartfelt 1000x thanks for these new settings!
  • @EOSHD sorry to bother, I sent you a PM
  • No, the anamorphic MJPEG modes do not stretch the frames in-camera, they make it unnecessary to stretch the frames in post-production. The HD anamorphic mode produces frames that actually contain 1920x810 pixels, downsampled from the 12-bit RGB image sensor before they are converted into 8-bit, 4:2:0 YCC MJPEG format. Unlike non-anamorphic modes, these pixels do not need to be stretched or resampled, because the anamorphic property of the lens is precisely inverted by the complementary anamorphic property of the video frame, producing natively square pixels.

    The disadvantage of stretching a non-anamorphic frame in post is that you must work with compressed 8-bit, 4:2:0 YCC data, which is inevitably of lower quality than the original 12-bit RGB image sensor data. As for 1080p, a widescreen movie at that resolution would need to be 2560 pixels wide, which is too high a resolution for all but high end distribution purposes. In practice, virtually all Blu-ray quality widescreen movies are letterboxed within an actual resolution of about 1920x810.
  • ok, so it stretches in-camera? Is that the only advantage? If I shoot AVCHD, yes, there is no desqueezed monitoring, but I would get full 1080 vertical, correct? I still don't see the point. Can you explain?
  • Thanks once again to Vitaliy, PTool 3.62d now supports MJPEG frame sizes beyond 1920 pixels wide. I've made use of this new feature to optimize the GH2 for native anamorphic shooting with both 1.33X adapters in HD video mode, as well as 2X adapters in VGA video mode. Used with an appropriate anamorphic lens, these MJPEG modes will produce videos that are automatically played back at the correct widescreen aspect ratio, without need for post-production stretching:

    HD mode: 1920x810 videos for 1.33X anamorphic adapters, with peak bitrates of 100Mbps.
    VGA mode: 2160x810 videos for 2X anamorphic adapters, with peak bitrates of 100Mbps.

    Note that the 2160x810 VGA mode produces an aspect ratio of 2.66:1. For a 2.37:1 aspect ratio, you'll want to crop these videos to a 1920x810 frame size.
    100Mbps GH2 MJPEG Low-Light Anamorphic Patch.zip
    469B
  • @soundgh2

    "Nice diopter test with LA7200 here looks like an improvement - lots of lenses tried ..."

    This is for a full frame Canon 5D2...
  • @EOSHD

    Are there any relatively inexpensive ways to monitor/frame while shooting anamorphic? Seems like none of the inexpensive monitors (e.g., under $350 or so) do this. What did you use before you had the Zacuto?
  • @cbrandin
    I found out that i could get a bit closer to my subject if i use a diopter between camera and lens. It''s an old 46mm B & W glass close-up filter and it fits my 20mm 1.7 and 14mm 2.4. Because the frontglass of these lenses are so small it's no problem to put them a bit further away from la7200 - there is no vignetting at all.
    Diopter in front of la7200 is the most common solution however.
    I will do some more test nxt week with these lensblocks and post a clip here.
    GRTZ Eddie
  • @cbrandin: My understanding is that the diopter must be in front of the anamorphic lens to work correctly. You "could" put a diopter anywhere in the lens assembly but it will only be beneficial if it is in front of the anamorphic. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.