New 1.33 anamorphic from century at DVinfo.net

Dwight Flynn · January 10th, 2004, 08:19 AM

Two questions?

1. Does anyone know about, have used, or is planning to buy the new century anamorphic 1.33 focusable lens (ds-ws-1358). If so is it really appropriate for the hd10u.

2. Does anyone know where I could get this lens for under $1000 bucks. Adorama sells it for over $1100.

Ken Hodson · January 10th, 2004, 10:39 AM

Why would you need an anamorphic lens with a HD10?

Ken

Shawn Mielke · January 10th, 2004, 03:21 PM

Why not?

James Ball · January 10th, 2004, 05:12 PM

1.66 is exciting but there are not films shot at 1.66

its either 1.85 or 2.35.

I'm looking for 2.35 solution and the JVC HDs are one way to get there.

You shoot 1.66 with the anamorphic and you get 2.35.

Boyd Ostroff · January 10th, 2004, 05:52 PM

16:9 works out closer to 1.78:1. Is that what the HD-10 shoots, or is it really 1.66:1? I assume a "1.33x anamorphic lens" magnifies the image by 1.33x in addition to the anamorphic squeeze. Why is that desirable? Or maybe it has something to do with the ability to zoom through the whole range?

Ken Hodson · January 10th, 2004, 10:42 PM

Are you confident in the 30p to 24p conversion?
Cost of the adaptor vs. slight letter-boxing. What does it sell for?
A film can not be shown at 16:9? Really? So all those 16:9 DVD's are still cropping picture?

Ken

Dwight Flynn · January 13th, 2004, 01:15 AM

I am simply experimenting with cinemascope, nothing more lofty, at least not for now; and I wanted a cost effective way of doing so. Other anamorphic lenses tended to lose focus fairly quickly and in my view are unusable. The century ds-1358 seem to be the cure, but I am hedging my bets by asking if anyone has any experience with the $1200.00 piece of glass.

Charles Papert · January 13th, 2004, 01:44 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by James Ball : 1.66 is exciting but there are not films shot at 1.66>>>

1.66 is a European standard, although many are now shot at 1.85 for the international market.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dwight Flynn : I am simply experimenting with cinemascope->>>

Cinemascope by definition was close to a 2.0 squeeze, we've yet to see that in a video anamorphic lens. It would be interesting though. The optical artifacts of 'Scope became somewhat beloved as visual elements: circular highlights becoming oval as they go out of focus in the background, exceptionally shallow focus (half that of 35mm) due to the doubled focal length for the same field of view as spherical 35, and those cool horizontal flares. With all the fuss about trying to emulate a film look on DV, I haven't heard those characteristics bandied about. It would be interesting to shoot with anamorphics on a Mini35 setup...hmmm...has anyone seen that done yet?

Dwight Flynn · January 13th, 2004, 02:06 AM

I have seen the dvd of the Mini35 in action. A beautiful piece of equip. The problem is the 30k price tag. Still for short jobs it might be worth the rental. As for the ds1358, century has said that it should give comparable results as other, by now standard , anamorphic lenses (i.e. the lens for the dvx100 ). But of course you keep the high def and you don't get 24p.

Charles Papert · January 13th, 2004, 03:37 AM

<<30k price tag>>

$7.5K. The PRO35 for 2/3" pickup cameras is around $27K.

Boyd Ostroff · January 13th, 2004, 05:25 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : and those cool horizontal flares. -->>>

Aha! That explains something I was just wondering about. Was watching the widescreen DVD of Mad Max 1 a few days ago and noticed these flares which are very prominent in several scenes (wherever bright point sources of light are present). It was shot in 2.35:1. Actually they called to mind the vertical smear that seems to upset some people so much on the PDX-10...

January 10th, 2004, 08:19 AM	#1
Dwight Flynn Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 393	New 1.33 anamorphic from century Two questions? 1. Does anyone know about, have used, or is planning to buy the new century anamorphic 1.33 focusable lens (ds-ws-1358). If so is it really appropriate for the hd10u. 2. Does anyone know where I could get this lens for under $1000 bucks. Adorama sells it for over $1100.

January 10th, 2004, 10:39 AM	#2
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Why would you need an anamorphic lens with a HD10? Ken __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

January 10th, 2004, 03:21 PM	#3
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	Why not? __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

January 10th, 2004, 05:12 PM	#4
James Ball Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Sulphur, LA Posts: 61	for shooting 2.35 1.66 is exciting but there are not films shot at 1.66 its either 1.85 or 2.35. I'm looking for 2.35 solution and the JVC HDs are one way to get there. You shoot 1.66 with the anamorphic and you get 2.35.

January 10th, 2004, 10:42 PM	#6
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Are you confident in the 30p to 24p conversion? Cost of the adaptor vs. slight letter-boxing. What does it sell for? A film can not be shown at 16:9? Really? So all those 16:9 DVD's are still cropping picture? Ken __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

January 10th, 2004, 05:52 PM	#5
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,800	16:9 works out closer to 1.78:1. Is that what the HD-10 shoots, or is it really 1.66:1? I assume a "1.33x anamorphic lens" magnifies the image by 1.33x in addition to the anamorphic squeeze. Why is that desirable? Or maybe it has something to do with the ability to zoom through the whole range?

January 13th, 2004, 01:15 AM	#7
Dwight Flynn Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 393	My answer I am simply experimenting with cinemascope, nothing more lofty, at least not for now; and I wanted a cost effective way of doing so. Other anamorphic lenses tended to lose focus fairly quickly and in my view are unusable. The century ds-1358 seem to be the cure, but I am hedging my bets by asking if anyone has any experience with the $1200.00 piece of glass.

January 13th, 2004, 01:44 AM	#8
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Re: My answer <<<-- Originally posted by James Ball : 1.66 is exciting but there are not films shot at 1.66>>> 1.66 is a European standard, although many are now shot at 1.85 for the international market. <<<-- Originally posted by Dwight Flynn : I am simply experimenting with cinemascope->>> Cinemascope by definition was close to a 2.0 squeeze, we've yet to see that in a video anamorphic lens. It would be interesting though. The optical artifacts of 'Scope became somewhat beloved as visual elements: circular highlights becoming oval as they go out of focus in the background, exceptionally shallow focus (half that of 35mm) due to the doubled focal length for the same field of view as spherical 35, and those cool horizontal flares. With all the fuss about trying to emulate a film look on DV, I haven't heard those characteristics bandied about. It would be interesting to shoot with anamorphics on a Mini35 setup...hmmm...has anyone seen that done yet? __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

January 13th, 2004, 02:06 AM	#9
Dwight Flynn Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 393	anamorphic and Mini35 I have seen the dvd of the Mini35 in action. A beautiful piece of equip. The problem is the 30k price tag. Still for short jobs it might be worth the rental. As for the ds1358, century has said that it should give comparable results as other, by now standard , anamorphic lenses (i.e. the lens for the dvx100 ). But of course you keep the high def and you don't get 24p.

January 13th, 2004, 03:37 AM	#10
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	<<30k price tag>> $7.5K. The PRO35 for 2/3" pickup cameras is around $27K. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

January 13th, 2004, 05:25 PM	#11
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,800	Re: Re: My answer <<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : and those cool horizontal flares. -->>> Aha! That explains something I was just wondering about. Was watching the widescreen DVD of Mad Max 1 a few days ago and noticed these flares which are very prominent in several scenes (wherever bright point sources of light are present). It was shot in 2.35:1. Actually they called to mind the vertical smear that seems to upset some people so much on the PDX-10...