Anamorphic prism adapter that works with 35mm adapter idea...why not like this?

[Keith Kline]

Originally Posted by Joshua Nitschke

The problem with mounting outside the 35mm lens is that it screws with how you can use them; I want a solution without all those side effects.

What do you mean about screwing with how you can use them? Which side effects do you mean? To me the only real problem with a front mounted anamorphic is that fact that the prisms have to be larger and therefore add to the total length of the adapter.

[Joshua Nitschke]

Originally Posted by Keith Kline

What do you mean about screwing with how you can use them? Which side effects do you mean? To me the only real problem with a front mounted anamorphic is that fact that the prisms have to be larger and therefore add to the total length of the adapter.

Well, I was going by what I've read about people trying to use the panasonic anamorphic adapter, or the Century one on 35mm lenses.

But those are lenses that mess with the focal points and such, so I guess it'd be different from prisms?

I just remember reading about how you can't get close focus, and your depth of field is changed, focal lengths don't match up and all sorts of stuff. I can dig some of it back up, but none of it sounded very pleasing.

See here for an example of what I've read. I forgot that prisms may well be a different ball game when it comes to this; I just don't know.

[Keith Kline]

Again Oscar would be the one to ask about this, but I think the prism operate differently than the panasonic and century adapters. Well I mean i know they are different, but more specifically the way they manipulate the light. If I recall Oscar was able to get the same stretch/squeeze (depending on how you look at it) with both longer and shorter lenses. I don't know how many different focal lengths he tested, but i know he tried a few.

I know there is alot of problems with other 16:9 adapters, but not sure what the technical differences are between those and the prisms.

[Joshua Nitschke]

Originally Posted by Keith Kline

Again Oscar would be the one to ask about this, but I think the prism operate differently than the panasonic and century adapters. Well I mean i know they are different, but more specifically the way they manipulate the light. If I recall Oscar was able to get the same stretch/squeeze (depending on how you look at it) with both longer and shorter lenses. I don't know how many different focal lengths he tested, but i know he tried a few.

I know there is alot of problems with other 16:9 adapters, but not sure what the technical differences are between those and the prisms.

I sent him an email requesting his input.

If I can put this behind the adapter, I'll be really happy, but if putting it in front works too, well....I'll buy a bigger set of rails.

I'd really like the option to get good prisms instead of making them myself, though. I haven't found a place that sells prisms that large yet.

[Giroud Francois]

there is absolutely no interest in putting an anamorphic system after the 35mm lens, since it will not give you anything more than the lens already gives you.
I made a test on my adapter with an anamorphic adapter mounted on the lens (the century one) and it works, except that it adds so much glass that quality is very low (imagine, the anamorphic, the 35mm lens, the GG, the condenser, the macro, the camera lens).
the only real solution is
find a 35mm anamorphic lens.
or
add black bar in post
or
shoot HDV

[Joshua Nitschke]

Originally Posted by Giroud Francois

there is absolutely no interest in putting an anamorphic system after the 35mm lens, since it will not give you anything more than the lens already gives you.

If you are looking for a wider field of view, this is true. However, if you just want to use your full CCD surface, then there is a reason; just convert what the lens gave you into anamorphic, you'd probably have to zoom in a bit farther, but I don't see why it wouldn't work unless you just couldn't get that close to focus. Or stuff like vignenting issues could ruin it....but still. If you want to use the whole surface of your ccd which is what I want....then there is a reason to put it after.

the only real solution is
find a 35mm anamorphic lens.

Looked for those too....nothing in my price range.

-------------

I plan on getting the Andromeda mod, the reason I'm really interested in getting a quality anamorphic adapter made is because I could practically achieve 1080p with it when shooting with the andromeda. It's like 100 pixels off if you go by the squeezed anamorphic image they have on their website.

720p is good, and I'd be content with that, but if I could have 1080p I'd be a much happier camper. It hurts to throw away that much resolution in cropping.

[Bob Hart]

I tried the Century Optics 16:9 and an old cinemascope lens (Proskar Anamorphic) on front of 50mm, 85mm and 135mm Nikon mount lenses. They worked but the image became increasingly furry beyond 85mm which is to be expected as the adaptor was never intended to be abused in this fashion. The Proskar lens has a smaller exit and vignettes on wide lenses.

There was also an effect on the out of focus areas, stretching either horizontally or vertically, depending on which side of the subject the out of focus area was, not necessarily adverse, but there. The Proskar also would not hold distant focus. As a projection lens, it did not need to.

I did not pursue this any furthur as adaptors for individual lenses had to be made up.

[Joshua Nitschke]

Originally Posted by Quyen Le

If you try to put it between the camera and GG on the Brevis35, I wish you luck. First, what camera are you going to use? can your camera focus on something smaller than 24x36 at closer range than the Brevis35? If not, it's not going to work. The set of 2 prisms will narrow your 24x36 frame and also shorten the light path from camera to GG. The 2 GG idea is not going to work because of 1 simple reason, the prisms will only bend light paths, not focusing them. The best way is to put it in front of your SLR lens. You will also get wider field of view thos way. Thanks.

Quyen

I've been thinking a bit more, and I think you're right.

Oh well, time to go back to the drawing board. :)