no distortion and no breathing? Those are the qualities I look forward to. So excited to see your video on doing it in post, which should come up in a month or so
I can understand the streamline thing. I shot several shorts on Sirui and spent a lot of time in post working the ratios. The overall look is just a little different than normal lenses but the pain in the butt factor didn't seem to be worth it. Probably going to sell my set and go back to sphericals. :(
I'm thinking of the Sirui Anamorphics, once I get the cam I want to run going the way I want, but they seem to have split opinions - some think they're great, others, like you not so much. Did you end up selling them?
Oh, I tried to remove the aperture blade of the FE 50mm F2.8 Macro (It's easy to teardown) and replace it with a 1:2 elliptical aperture iron to get the fake anamorphic look like the Mini Hawk. It's a FE 50mm T4 anamorfake macro autofocus lens now. In fact, anamorphic lenses' out-of-focus distortion is the thing makes it fascinating, because two directions have different DOF, which cannot be achieved by changing the aperture only. I hardly agree that the Mini Hawk is an anamorphic lenses.
So this would work if we use adapted glass and the adapter fitted with an oval adjustable iris, right (if some company were to make it). That would be perfect. No more making seperate anamorfake discs for each lens.
@@AnamorphicOnABudget I tried it! I got some nice vertical bokeh, I'm gonna keep experimenting and finding the perfect balance between not blocking as much light but still having a noticeable effect!
@@AnamorphicOnABudget Yeah, you went much more in depth the I did lol. I just put a black piece of paper with an oval shaped slit in front of my lease haha. A bit jank, but it works great!
Worked on a few project with those. Somehow no sparks, little fun
Місяць тому+1
Petzval inspired lenses and lensbaby had aperture disks why can't we have anamorphic disks like that and cheap glass? Modding is cool but i wish it would be easier
Have you ever looked up the patent? Given how long cinema lenses have been around, would be surprised if there were not a previous implementation (prior art) of this idea. In well trodden fields like optics, patents are often incredibly specific to some portion of an implementation, so are ripe for legal workarounds. Perhaps they've only patented the gearing, or some other minor feature.
if you're familiar with richard gale optiks (aka dog schidt optiks) his lenses have used oval shaped drop-in irises for a long time. theyre not as high tech as this but its more or less the same thing. Also, not that you asked but I'll share anyway for other people, back in the 70s/80s some lens companies did a similar, but also not similar at all, thing to this where they took existing spherical lenses and slapped some anamorphic elements onto them and called them a whole new anamorphic lens. JDC xtal xpress anamorphics are actually cookes, zeiss, and/or canon lenses underneath. Todd AO anamorphic lenses are usually canon k35's underneath. theres another line of lenses that does this but i cant remember.
@@JPC4 Interesting. Strongly suggests the Vantage patent may not stop others from releasing similar designs. Wonder if those JDC and Todd lenses are still floating around Hollywood's rental houses?
JDC and Todd AO's are still floating around, yes. As for the patent, it specifies the synchronized double iris. So if you were to develop drop-in apertures, like Richard Gale, or my anamorfake series, you're fine. Angenieux made an adjustable oval aperture with their IOP Toolkit, which is different from Vantage's and doesn't infringe on the patent.
Yeah it'll depend on how specific their implementation is. I spent like 2 hours 10 years ago trying to come up with a solution and settled on the same thing. But rejected building it because of the squared off shape. I guess I better patent my superior solution that fixed that (and required a massive lens barrel haha). /s The truth is that I doubt anyone else will bother with an anamorphake.
Heya! Just a heads up, there's going to be a large format version of the minihawks and apparently it will be announced next month. Also, I'm guessing you're still having trouble getting the aivascope for review?
Yes to all of the statements in this comment. I'm aware of the large format minihawks, and still no leads on an aivascope - not that I'm too into adapters right now.
Without the de-squeeze these lenses are not anamorphic lenses. It is false advertisement to call these lenses hybrid anamorphic. A name like fx-sphero would better suit these lenses. I don't know if it is possible to sue a company for false advertising but if these lenses take enough business away from the big players there certainly will be a lawsuit.
There’s no Anamorphic block but they have the word anamorphic on the barrel. Let’s call a spade a spade - that’s deceptive. As my partner from South London would say, Vantage are “…takin’ the pi$$!”
great vid as always man, I like the look of them and close focus is good, but the lack of a natural flare may end up making a lot of shots with artificial flare look a little cheap.
@@falcofurious Yeah but then you are dealing with a 2d generated streak, which in an action scene will not matter that much, but for a slow scene you run the risk of every flare looking the same as everyone else's (see anything by Michael Bay). Now you could use maya or houdini to mimic flare characteristics based on physical lights, which is easy to do. Or you could animated the parameters of the flare in post as well, but it is all additional work that doesn't need to be done, for this price point I think I'll stick with the cheaper anamorphics that give the look I want, if these were priced only a little more expensively than sirui then it would really make it worth it for me, but the expected price point puts them way out of my range.
The flares always look cheesy to me, real or not. JJ Abrams ruined that for me, and it's precisely why I no longer want to use anamorphics. These lenses seem like the perfect balance of all desirable features for me.
Que alívio que deu quando você disse que estava confuso sobre a distância focal "dobrada", porque eu estava fazendo uma cara de beeeem confuso. Não entendi até agora, pra ser sincero. Interessante, mas não fez muito sentido pra mim uma série profissional anamorfake 🤷🏻♂️ mas claramente tem mercado (Preguiça de escrever em inglês)
Yep! I already talked about all the cheap ones. Extensively. So now I'm seeing what is it about the unaffordable ones that makes them so pricy and special to people with budgets!
So they're only anamorphic characteristics are their flares?? That's mind blowing but actually so simple. They're essentially spherical lenses with a different shaped aperture.
So since they are technically spherical lenses, does that mean there is no desqueeze factor involved? You are basically just controlling the look of the bokeh as you stop up or down with the iris?
@@AnamorphicOnABudget Hmmm... very interesting. That would make it much easier to match with regular spherical lenses since you don't need to do any desqueezing in post. Much faster production workflow!
@@DynamicPhil84 Precisely the point, indeed. Faster workflow, better flare control, close focus, no fall off or breathing. Other than the price, what's not to love.
Although not related to this video - as you have covered Vegas software in the past thought you may be able to assist. Am using Vegas Movie Studio 17 Platinum. Am scanning 35mm motion picture film that has an anamorphic squeeze (2.37 in a 1.37 frame) - how do I de-squeeze the image in VMS 17 - without introducing cropping, so that we end up with a 2.37 ratio that will fit in a standard 16:9 screen and will have black bars top and bottom? Scoured everywhere looking for this answer and not able to work it out on the software without guidance. Any assistance appreciated.
HAHAHAHAH! Well, I hope you didn't feel deceived. There's lots about these lenses that you can carry over to other spherical lenses and create the anamorphic look!
XXXXXXXXX WOuld love to see what you mean by field of view i.e with a 40 mm to a 20mm ... can you show some examples in future videos XXX love the channel
Look at the field of view of a 20mm lens, or 35mm, then put a sticker on the barrel of the lens that says 40mm or 70mm. That's what it means. It's confusing indeed, but also simple.
@@AnamorphicOnABudget Thanks for your answer, BUT (theres always a but) so is the compression of the background say on a 35mm prime like a 70mm ana? but it has the say wide view? also if your subjects face is a close up on a 70mm ana, will that look like a 70mm prime or 35mm prime?(thin & distorted) & what of the bokeh ? on a 70 ana Ok I understand its oval but is it like a 35 prime? or a 70 prime? - This would be such a great video to make, as most of us cant afford to even hire these lenses. Loovvee your channel Bro.
Everything about it spherical, except the bokeh. And some exaggerated spherical aberration which is also common in anamorphics. Everything else - compression, field of view, close ups - is spherical. The bokeh matches an anamorphic lens of the indicated focal length (35mm 2x anamorphic bokeh on a Hybrid lens that says 35mm, with the field of view of a 35mm 2x anamorphic lens) - but the actual lens and its focal length are 17.5mm spherical.
It's weird because oval bokeh is only one of the many perks of using real anamorphics. The natural distortion, flare, breathing and falloff of anamorphics can't be faked with a simple oval thingy in the lens. Yes they must be extremely sharp and well built, but there are NOT anamorphics.
Those are all the undesirable characteristics of anamorphics to begin with, in my book, and precisely why they created these lenses to resolve those issues while providing an alternative option. Did you not hear the part where he mentioned how much time was saved using these vs real anamorphics?
@@AnamorphicOnABudget in 20 years, dudes will be like - “…hey these old Atlas Orions are SO cool!! You can use them open gate and you don’t even have to add a streak filter!!”
I think anamorfake should not be encouraged. Anamorphic is more than oval bokehballs and flares. If you cant go anamorphic dont anamorfake. :) Go spherical 👍
@@AnamorphicOnABudget I get your point, and every format has its own pros and cons. I was going to say, why not go with spherical techniscope? Shure the lens is technically good but the whole "thing" is like having a Toyota (great car btw) and putting a Ferrari logo on it calling it a Ferrari hybrid or "Italian", it has a yellow badge with a horse on it. But as always, it comes down to what we like. Thank for the video btw 👍
Oh patents... great. That means the common people and art itself will have to wait to reap the mass benefits of a tiny, miniscule fleck of innovation for decades because some rich guy had money for lawyers to wring more rent-seeking profit from a nothing idea that could've, and should've, been open-source.
Hawk: here's our 30k anamorfak... errr... Hybrid Anamorphics™
😂😂😂😂
But it opens up like an eye 😁
old gear companies really loves to rob customers
Once again I want to compliment your framing, lighting, camera and lens choice, video looks great
no distortion and no breathing? Those are the qualities I look forward to. So excited to see your video on doing it in post, which should come up in a month or so
I really like the oval bokeh with cut off from the top and bottom when it’s stopped down a little bit. Interesting aperture design.
*Combines with 2x Front Adapter for 4X BOKEH!*
All backgrounds shall be a chandelier of candles!
Wow! These are awesome. This is what the budget manufactures should be after.
With Hawk's patent, I guess that ship has sailed unfortunately..
I've become a HUGE fan of these lenses since watching "THEM" shot also by Checco Varese.
I watched the first half of "Them", but ended up being all the episodes shot by Grobet!
@@AnamorphicOnABudget roger that. Question, do you still recommend anamorphic questions submitted via your website?
Yeah! Or become a member of the channel and join our Discord! :)
ua-cam.com/channels/8nvNpXmCZmg_YJFkrQsryw.htmljoin
I just finished watching the live action One Piece and saw they used these lenses, works very well with many of the close up shots
I can understand the streamline thing. I shot several shorts on Sirui and spent a lot of time in post working the ratios. The overall look is just a little different than normal lenses but the pain in the butt factor didn't seem to be worth it. Probably going to sell my set and go back to sphericals. :(
I'm thinking of the Sirui Anamorphics, once I get the cam I want to run going the way I want, but they seem to have split opinions - some think they're great, others, like you not so much. Did you end up selling them?
Oh, I tried to remove the aperture blade of the FE 50mm F2.8 Macro (It's easy to teardown) and replace it with a 1:2 elliptical aperture iron to get the fake anamorphic look like the Mini Hawk. It's a FE 50mm T4 anamorfake macro autofocus lens now.
In fact, anamorphic lenses' out-of-focus distortion is the thing makes it fascinating, because two directions have different DOF, which cannot be achieved by changing the aperture only.
I hardly agree that the Mini Hawk is an anamorphic lenses.
anamorfake helios 44 + great joy 1.35x adapter is super fun
So this would work if we use adapted glass and the adapter fitted with an oval adjustable iris, right (if some company were to make it). That would be perfect. No more making seperate anamorfake discs for each lens.
I’m gonna try adding additional non circular aperture discs to some of my lenses to see what happens! Could be cool!
Well, I have a ton of videos about that, which is what motivated this special episode! :P
@@AnamorphicOnABudget I tried it! I got some nice vertical bokeh, I'm gonna keep experimenting and finding the perfect balance between not blocking as much light but still having a noticeable effect!
@@AnamorphicOnABudget Yeah, you went much more in depth the I did lol. I just put a black piece of paper with an oval shaped slit in front of my lease haha. A bit jank, but it works great!
right on time. people have been talking about things and I have no idea what they’re talking about.. :O)
So much for your channel being anamorphic on a budget
It was indeed!
Worked on a few project with those. Somehow no sparks, little fun
Petzval inspired lenses and lensbaby had aperture disks why can't we have anamorphic disks like that and cheap glass? Modding is cool but i wish it would be easier
is this the fancy version of the cutout oval shape cardboard that we all put in front of the lens 😅🤣
If you want a recent example of a production these lenses were used on, the Netflix adaptation of “One Piece” shot with Hawk hybrid lenses!
Thanks for the heads up. I'm watching it already and made a note of bringing this up whenever I have the chance! :)
So what is a hybrid anamorphic? *Marketing*
I think you should start producing your own "hybrid anamorphics" Tito 😉.
You should own the patent
wow these are cool, great video man! if you go to NAB next year i would love to meet up :)
Have you ever looked up the patent? Given how long cinema lenses have been around, would be surprised if there were not a previous implementation (prior art) of this idea. In well trodden fields like optics, patents are often incredibly specific to some portion of an implementation, so are ripe for legal workarounds. Perhaps they've only patented the gearing, or some other minor feature.
if you're familiar with richard gale optiks (aka dog schidt optiks) his lenses have used oval shaped drop-in irises for a long time. theyre not as high tech as this but its more or less the same thing. Also, not that you asked but I'll share anyway for other people, back in the 70s/80s some lens companies did a similar, but also not similar at all, thing to this where they took existing spherical lenses and slapped some anamorphic elements onto them and called them a whole new anamorphic lens. JDC xtal xpress anamorphics are actually cookes, zeiss, and/or canon lenses underneath. Todd AO anamorphic lenses are usually canon k35's underneath. theres another line of lenses that does this but i cant remember.
@@JPC4 Interesting. Strongly suggests the Vantage patent may not stop others from releasing similar designs.
Wonder if those JDC and Todd lenses are still floating around Hollywood's rental houses?
JDC and Todd AO's are still floating around, yes. As for the patent, it specifies the synchronized double iris. So if you were to develop drop-in apertures, like Richard Gale, or my anamorfake series, you're fine. Angenieux made an adjustable oval aperture with their IOP Toolkit, which is different from Vantage's and doesn't infringe on the patent.
Yeah it'll depend on how specific their implementation is. I spent like 2 hours 10 years ago trying to come up with a solution and settled on the same thing. But rejected building it because of the squared off shape.
I guess I better patent my superior solution that fixed that (and required a massive lens barrel haha). /s
The truth is that I doubt anyone else will bother with an anamorphake.
The minihawks are always rented, so, if you can make something better, there's money and lenses to be made.
Great review!
Heya! Just a heads up, there's going to be a large format version of the minihawks and apparently it will be announced next month. Also, I'm guessing you're still having trouble getting the aivascope for review?
Yes to all of the statements in this comment. I'm aware of the large format minihawks, and still no leads on an aivascope - not that I'm too into adapters right now.
Without the de-squeeze these lenses are not anamorphic lenses. It is false advertisement to call these lenses hybrid anamorphic. A name like fx-sphero would better suit these lenses. I don't know if it is possible to sue a company for false advertising but if these lenses take enough business away from the big players there certainly will be a lawsuit.
There’s no Anamorphic block but they have the word anamorphic on the barrel. Let’s call a spade a spade - that’s deceptive. As my partner from South London would say, Vantage are “…takin’ the pi$$!”
They don‘t take business away from the big player. Because Vantage are the big player in anamorphics themself.
@@Wieselmann100 “the big player”…um, by what metric? I think Vantage might currently be dwarfed by Panavision in revenue by a factor of 7 or 8??
That will never happen, since no one cares except those who can't afford these anyway.
Yes, I learned new thinhs today.
we need a gif of that aperture mechanism at 04:29
great vid as always man, I like the look of them and close focus is good, but the lack of a natural flare may end up making a lot of shots with artificial flare look a little cheap.
Not if you do it right. That’s the point of doing it in post.
@@falcofurious Yeah but then you are dealing with a 2d generated streak, which in an action scene will not matter that much, but for a slow scene you run the risk of every flare looking the same as everyone else's (see anything by Michael Bay).
Now you could use maya or houdini to mimic flare characteristics based on physical lights, which is easy to do. Or you could animated the parameters of the flare in post as well, but it is all additional work that doesn't need to be done, for this price point I think I'll stick with the cheaper anamorphics that give the look I want, if these were priced only a little more expensively than sirui then it would really make it worth it for me, but the expected price point puts them way out of my range.
The flares always look cheesy to me, real or not. JJ Abrams ruined that for me, and it's precisely why I no longer want to use anamorphics. These lenses seem like the perfect balance of all desirable features for me.
great hair!
is there any technical tests available to look at (line pairs resolution etc?) seems a bit gimmicky
Halfway through Reacher and I find the bokeh very distracting. It almost hurts the eyes especially on panning shots.
for the price-tag....the chromatic aberration is a big killer....its brutal.
At $30k per lens, these seem priced for rental.
Very much so.
Hawks have never really been priced for prosumers. They’re high end lenses.
Anamorphake on a *big budget
Que alívio que deu quando você disse que estava confuso sobre a distância focal "dobrada", porque eu estava fazendo uma cara de beeeem confuso. Não entendi até agora, pra ser sincero.
Interessante, mas não fez muito sentido pra mim uma série profissional anamorfake 🤷🏻♂️ mas claramente tem mercado
(Preguiça de escrever em inglês)
Anamorphic on a Budget has the distinct tendency to present anamorphic lenses that are way out of most people's budgets.
Yep! I already talked about all the cheap ones. Extensively.
So now I'm seeing what is it about the unaffordable ones that makes them so pricy and special to people with budgets!
You didn’t explain how they achieve the Anamorphic equivalent field of view
Because they don't! :)
So they're only anamorphic characteristics are their flares?? That's mind blowing but actually so simple. They're essentially spherical lenses with a different shaped aperture.
Their flares are most clearly non-anamorphic! Besides that, yeah, pretty clever idea.
DYING 😂😂😂😂
Nice results tho ✍️✍️✍️
So since they are technically spherical lenses, does that mean there is no desqueeze factor involved? You are basically just controlling the look of the bokeh as you stop up or down with the iris?
Exactly! No desqueeze at all!
@@AnamorphicOnABudget Hmmm... very interesting. That would make it much easier to match with regular spherical lenses since you don't need to do any desqueezing in post. Much faster production workflow!
@@DynamicPhil84 Precisely the point, indeed. Faster workflow, better flare control, close focus, no fall off or breathing. Other than the price, what's not to love.
So what’s the squeeze factor of this lenses ? Will it cover raptor ?
There is no squeeze. Yes, it covers the Raptor's S35 sensor.
@@AnamorphicOnABudget oh not the full 8k full frame spherical of v raptor ?
Few days back I tested
Master anamorphics, Cooke 1.8x ff , and Scorpio 2x service vision
So not able to use the full potential of the sensor …
$30 for Anamorfake, no thanks.
I am loving my SIRUI S35 35mm f1.8 which I got 4days ago and use with my LUMIX S5.
First tests are very impressive!
The lens flares and streaks from the Sirui set are _way over the top._ I can't imagine using them for anything at all.
Although not related to this video - as you have covered Vegas software in the past thought you may be able to assist.
Am using Vegas Movie Studio 17 Platinum. Am scanning 35mm motion picture film that has an anamorphic squeeze (2.37 in a 1.37 frame) - how do I de-squeeze the image in VMS 17 - without introducing cropping, so that we end up with a 2.37 ratio that will fit in a standard 16:9 screen and will have black bars top and bottom?
Scoured everywhere looking for this answer and not able to work it out on the software without guidance. Any assistance appreciated.
I have no clue. I haven't used Vegas in 15 years, and when I did, I didn't know what anamorphics were. :(
Ok, thank you for reply. Found the solution.
give me the opposite, rear element anamorphics that get rid of the oval bokeh
that sounds like a terrible plan, my friend! rear anamorphics don't do anything for the anamorphic look! they just squeeze! :(
30k - pennies!
Not really. Honestly diy solution becomes much more pleasing after seeing price
are these full frame?
No, S35.
Slick move saving the price till the end, had you started with that I would closed the video 😭
HAHAHAHAH! Well, I hope you didn't feel deceived. There's lots about these lenses that you can carry over to other spherical lenses and create the anamorphic look!
@@AnamorphicOnABudget Not at all! Love your content!
Does these support FF sensors?
No, they don't!
@@AnamorphicOnABudget damnit, so much for filmed for IMAX with the LF or monstro.
XXXXXXXXX WOuld love to see what you mean by field of view i.e with a 40 mm to a 20mm ... can you show some examples in future videos XXX love the channel
Look at the field of view of a 20mm lens, or 35mm, then put a sticker on the barrel of the lens that says 40mm or 70mm. That's what it means. It's confusing indeed, but also simple.
@@AnamorphicOnABudget Thanks for your answer, BUT (theres always a but) so is the compression of the background say on a 35mm prime like a 70mm ana? but it has the say wide view? also if your subjects face is a close up on a 70mm ana, will that look like a 70mm prime or 35mm prime?(thin & distorted) & what of the bokeh ? on a 70 ana Ok I understand its oval but is it like a 35 prime? or a 70 prime? - This would be such a great video to make, as most of us cant afford to even hire these lenses. Loovvee your channel Bro.
Everything about it spherical, except the bokeh. And some exaggerated spherical aberration which is also common in anamorphics. Everything else - compression, field of view, close ups - is spherical. The bokeh matches an anamorphic lens of the indicated focal length (35mm 2x anamorphic bokeh on a Hybrid lens that says 35mm, with the field of view of a 35mm 2x anamorphic lens) - but the actual lens and its focal length are 17.5mm spherical.
It's weird because oval bokeh is only one of the many perks of using real anamorphics. The natural distortion, flare, breathing and falloff of anamorphics can't be faked with a simple oval thingy in the lens. Yes they must be extremely sharp and well built, but there are NOT anamorphics.
Those are all the undesirable characteristics of anamorphics to begin with, in my book, and precisely why they created these lenses to resolve those issues while providing an alternative option. Did you not hear the part where he mentioned how much time was saved using these vs real anamorphics?
So much for anamorphic on a budget. $30k!!
It's not really anamorphic, so the budget don't matter for this one. hahaha
Not another patent…
30k per lens! Daaam😂
And they felt the need to patent it to limit competition. Like if Sirui made a 1-2K lens like this it would be competition to them. :/
I really dont like the system. And the price...
@2:54 …”Dude! This is the BEST lens!!” *shows shot with horrible vignetting*
Was this a sly dig? lol
We were using the open gate mode instead of the actual S35 coverage, but the comment was about minimum focus. :)
@@AnamorphicOnABudget in 20 years, dudes will be like -
“…hey these old Atlas Orions are SO cool!! You can use them open gate and you don’t even have to add a streak filter!!”
I think anamorfake should not be encouraged. Anamorphic is more than oval bokehballs and flares. If you cant go anamorphic dont anamorfake. :) Go spherical 👍
I profoundly disagree with you! It's like saying "full frame is the only true sensor".
@@AnamorphicOnABudget I get your point, and every format has its own pros and cons. I was going to say, why not go with spherical techniscope?
Shure the lens is technically good but the whole "thing" is like having a Toyota (great car btw) and putting a Ferrari logo on it calling it a Ferrari hybrid or "Italian", it has a yellow badge with a horse on it. But as always, it comes down to what we like. Thank for the video btw 👍
Hmmm. I'll pass. Terrible reviews over on B&H.
Oh patents... great. That means the common people and art itself will have to wait to reap the mass benefits of a tiny, miniscule fleck of innovation for decades because some rich guy had money for lawyers to wring more rent-seeking profit from a nothing idea that could've, and should've, been open-source.
A $30k lens is not anamorphic on a budget 🤷♂️
It's not anamorphic, so the whole "on a budget" thing is immediately void! :P