Anamorphic Adapter - geni.us/QXCK9 Nightwalker Cine Lenses - geni.us/klCO Brightin Star 35mm - geni.us/KQkM Camera used for example footage - geni.us/RYga1uR
Thx for exploring and introducing all these lens. I like the perspective of your approaches that focusing on inexpensive but quality gears and their applications in practice.
The barrel distortion is not really that pronounced at 24mm and actually adds to the image "look&feel". The fringing on the other hand gets a bit disruptive, but not sure how much that is caused by the anamorphic adapter. Anyway - great video, I didn't know there are these adapters available and how to use them.
Nice info in this video thumbs up but if you're going to be talking about the character of images you should have used a lot more b-roll examples. The whole video is pretty much a talking head shot?
Unfortunately, the more real examples the worse the videos perform. That’s the way I prefer, and use to make the videos, but for whatever reason this is what works for me on TH-cam.
I don't think Fallen Angels is an anamorphic movie. Actually I'm pretty sure it isn't. That being said the new Criterion release is cropped so it could look like it. I guess there is also a limit to how wide a shot can be with an adapter.
Just looked it up. They used a super wide lens, then added a wide adapter, so not the exact same setup, but very similar. I think the anamorphic setup could look even better.
@@markwiemels I remember there being a lot of speculation about the actual lens used but yeah it’s definitely not an anamorphic lens. I always love seeing wide lenses like that or what Yorgos Lanthimos used on the Favourite (2018)
@@graysonhouseproductionsi don't think it's the perspective that intrigues you, rather it is the rich colors of Christopher Doyle's method of film development, tinting and the acting that got to you. The lens didn't do anything but expand space.
Good video! I personally like the Blazar anamorphic adapter 1.5x more. It has more character, 1.5x squeeze and is way smaller. Pair it with for example the konica ar 40mm 1.8 and you get an awesome looking image.
Actually this sirui adapter is my focus ring for any vintage lens. I just tape in the focus ring in the vintage lense and connect the sirui to focus puller. With dji one it will even have autofocus. I am not a fan of paying extreme premium for vingage lens rehausing. With vintage lenses the focus pull is very long and takes like 3 full turns to get from min. Focus to infinity. With Sirui and taking lens on infinity its like half of a turn making it great for video work.
if you bump your taking lens out of inf. you will still get focus but not at inf. You can focus much closer if you throw your taking lens focus back than with just taking lens. This is kinda advantage of separate taking lens and anamorphic adapter. Cheers
To confirm does the rear of Sirui adapter have tabs that stick out slightly? Saw over on BH some people scratched front elements of their lenses... RF mount I think. Solution - add a UV filter to add space... I’d break out the UV element personally... extreme bulbous front elements take note!
Wondering if you have and tried with the 55mm nightwalker or other longer lens? I have found this set, particularly the 24mm to have chromatic aberrations and not really sharp, but I still really like them for the size and ease of use!
I have not, but I'm sure it would be good. If you stop the nightwalker down, it cleans up the CA a lot, and since the adapter ads such a cool look, you can stop them down to T2.8 and using the adapter the images look great.
If you simply wish to view the footage without the squeeze as you’re filming to help with composition there’s plenty of on camera monitors that will do that for you with the obvious trade off of bulk and cost. If you’re doing a lot of video it might be worth it?
The close focus is much closer than typical anaphoric lenses. So for most things you wouldn't need them. There is probably more detail on this if you search.
All of the first footage with the Brightin star was out of focus and blurry. The rest was better but the edges/distortion/out of focus makes me think a crop will still look better than this (it probably looks good with their lenses and the ones the recommend). Also if you put the video in 21/9 format on youtube I could see it in full screen.
What happens if one were to put this on a Sirui 35mm f1.8 1.33x? 1.33*1.25= 1.66 1.66x? What are the down-sides to doing this (aside from price): Sharpness Light loss Barrel distortion Bokeh Flare Close focus Focus adapter, lens, or both? Is there a variable amount of squeeze at different distances, infinity vs .85m as with native Sirui 35mmf1.8 1.33x both with and without this lens? Any idea too about in combination w/speed-boosters (with SLR lenses of course)? "Enquiring minds want to know." Thinking of using this adapter w/EOS-M original w/Magic Lantern or EOS-M6ii with Sirui 35mmf1.8 1.33x, 11-22mmf4-5.6, 15-45mmf3.5-5.6, 18-55mm f3.5-5.6, and 22mmf2 but maybe too with Nikon Z5 with same Sirui 35mm f1.8 1.33x exchanging EFM with the Z mount, 16-35f4g, 40mmf2z, and 85mmf1.4g. Maybe this for video overall instead of a 35mmf0.95 Brightin Star or a 32mmf1.4 for M6ii for stills. Yes, too much GAS but as a camera salesman told a parent: Get your kids hooked on photography. They'll never have money for drugs.
I try to put that in all the descriptions. I purposely don't mention it, as people get hung up on the camera, but when it comes to the image quality the lens is actually way more important. I could put this setup on any camera and make the footage look nearly identical.
I'm a beginner and I'm lucky enough to have a ZV-E10 and a M50 m II. Will these Sirui fit those? I would like to film my small town both sunlight and at night.
Have you compared the difference between the adapter and actual Sirui anamorphic lens? I just shot a montage with their 50mm on the Lumix S5IIX. Beautiful combo
I think, if you have the budget, a dedicated anamorphic lens is better, but this adapter is designed to be used on anamorphic lenses to give an even bigger stretch.
well, you don't "lose" pixels of vertical resolution, but, in the "stretched" direction, you get fewer pixels per degree of coverage, and the pixel x/y ratio gets blown up when you change the x/y ratio in edit...i guess that your editor software interpolates, in the horizontal direction...
Cheaper way to acheive a anamorphic lite look is to get the streak filter that vid Atlantic sells and the rear element stickers that create the oval bokeh. You don't get the widescreen but it's still an image with more character. I plan on doing that to my Brighton star 35 when I finally pick it up
Gotta laugh: "How do I capture Cinematic footage?" Answer: Easy, hire Arthur Max as your Production Designer.. (look him up) Seriously though, I now use the ultra low cost 7Artisans 12mm T2.9 Cinema lens on my Sony FS5 instead of my $5K Carl Zeiss 21mmm Distagon F/2.8 and Speed Booster. Is there difference? Yes, for Pixel Peepers but really, not having to focus and allowing the FS5's floating auto electronic ND to find the correct exposure is a match made in Heaven
So... cinema (or, better spelled, cinematograph) = Hollywood. Like there is no other place on Earth where people create films ? You are not more guilty than anyone else, but it shows how much, or rather, how little USA cares about other countries. USA did not invent cinema. USA did not refine cinema. USA did not theorize cinema. USA did not write the grammar of cinema. I strongly advise all viewers and their buddies to have a look at productions from Italy, France, Spain, UK, Finland, Western African countries (Sénégal, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Mali, etc.), Germany, Poland, etc. Those are places where it was born, then flourished, before being turned into an industry by USA. For the good or not, it's not the topic. All cinematograph related affairs were brought to life and mature in Europe. And many techniques (including optical inventions, see who was Augustin Fresnel) or machineries were invented there. Then imported in USA, and sometimes stamped with a fake "home made" label. Remember what happened to Charles Chaplin, professionally and personally ? This is, in some way, a good some up of the History of "le Cinématographe".
While I get your point, he never said that only Hollywood produced films, did he? Or that USA "created" cinema. It's a fact that the most viewed motion pictures are from Hollywood (whether we like it or not).
Anamorphic Adapter - geni.us/QXCK9
Nightwalker Cine Lenses - geni.us/klCO
Brightin Star 35mm - geni.us/KQkM
Camera used for example footage - geni.us/RYga1uR
Thx for exploring and introducing all these lens. I like the perspective of your approaches that focusing on inexpensive but quality gears and their applications in practice.
Great concept
Thanks Cam. The battle of the algorithm never ends. Love your work by the way.
I’d love to see some tests with the Viltrox 27mm!
The barrel distortion is not really that pronounced at 24mm and actually adds to the image "look&feel". The fringing on the other hand gets a bit disruptive, but not sure how much that is caused by the anamorphic adapter. Anyway - great video, I didn't know there are these adapters available and how to use them.
Nice info in this video thumbs up but if you're going to be talking about the character of images you should have used a lot more b-roll examples. The whole video is pretty much a talking head shot?
Unfortunately, the more real examples the worse the videos perform. That’s the way I prefer, and use to make the videos, but for whatever reason this is what works for me on TH-cam.
I loved the ultra wide look with the 24mm lens. And yes- it seems I have seen this in Hollywood movies- esp. spy thrillers..
Imagine using an even wider angle lens with the adapter, you’d get a Fallen Angels (1995) look
I don't think Fallen Angels is an anamorphic movie. Actually I'm pretty sure it isn't. That being said the new Criterion release is cropped so it could look like it. I guess there is also a limit to how wide a shot can be with an adapter.
Just looked it up. They used a super wide lens, then added a wide adapter, so not the exact same setup, but very similar. I think the anamorphic setup could look even better.
@@markwiemels I remember there being a lot of speculation about the actual lens used but yeah it’s definitely not an anamorphic lens. I always love seeing wide lenses like that or what Yorgos Lanthimos used on the Favourite (2018)
@@graysonhouseproductionsi don't think it's the perspective that intrigues you, rather it is the rich colors of Christopher Doyle's method of film development, tinting and the acting that got to you. The lens didn't do anything but expand space.
Good video! I personally like the Blazar anamorphic adapter 1.5x more. It has more character, 1.5x squeeze and is way smaller. Pair it with for example the konica ar 40mm 1.8 and you get an awesome looking image.
Actually this sirui adapter is my focus ring for any vintage lens. I just tape in the focus ring in the vintage lense and connect the sirui to focus puller. With dji one it will even have autofocus. I am not a fan of paying extreme premium for vingage lens rehausing. With vintage lenses the focus pull is very long and takes like 3 full turns to get from min. Focus to infinity. With Sirui and taking lens on infinity its like half of a turn making it great for video work.
if you bump your taking lens out of inf. you will still get focus but not at inf. You can focus much closer if you throw your taking lens focus back than with just taking lens. This is kinda advantage of separate taking lens and anamorphic adapter. Cheers
and anyway $700 for 1.25x is crazy stupid
Phone and drone have this kind of adapter, finally! we have one for our camera! woohhh
Yes! Another Sirui 1.25x lover. Very underrated adapter.
To confirm does the rear of Sirui adapter have tabs that stick out slightly? Saw over on BH some people scratched front elements of their lenses... RF mount I think. Solution - add a UV filter to add space... I’d break out the UV element personally... extreme bulbous front elements take note!
@@dpixvid yes I can confirm it. Convex lenses are at risk. I use it primarily with a Tamron 45mm 1.8 SP, that is concave so perfect match.
I’m going to buy spacers as needed to put distance between front element. Will find out if it screws up taking lens focus?
Wow! Is "Capturing cinematic footage" really one of the most searched for things on TH-cam? Where can I find that information?! Thx.
Wondering if you have and tried with the 55mm nightwalker or other longer lens? I have found this set, particularly the 24mm to have chromatic aberrations and not really sharp, but I still really like them for the size and ease of use!
I have not, but I'm sure it would be good. If you stop the nightwalker down, it cleans up the CA a lot, and since the adapter ads such a cool look, you can stop them down to T2.8 and using the adapter the images look great.
How much is the adapter?
I already have the ttartisan 35mm 1.4… would you still recommend to buy the brightin star 35mm?
Are there any camera bodies out there that will do de-squeeze captured footages in-camera? So no post adjustment is needed?
Not that I know about.
If you simply wish to view the footage without the squeeze as you’re filming to help with composition there’s plenty of on camera monitors that will do that for you with the obvious trade off of bulk and cost. If you’re doing a lot of video it might be worth it?
Thanks for giving us the 24mm shot... I’m guessing the pronounced barrel role could be toned back in Davinci
Lovin’ your channel. That XS20 anamorphic church footage is stellar.
Hey, thanks for video! Does this adapter need a diopters for close up?
The close focus is much closer than typical anaphoric lenses. So for most things you wouldn't need them. There is probably more detail on this if you search.
All of the first footage with the Brightin star was out of focus and blurry. The rest was better but the edges/distortion/out of focus makes me think a crop will still look better than this (it probably looks good with their lenses and the ones the recommend).
Also if you put the video in 21/9 format on youtube I could see it in full screen.
Mark, did you already tried the Pergear 25mm f1.8 for Fuji?
it could surprise you.
What happens if one were to put this on a Sirui 35mm f1.8 1.33x?
1.33*1.25= 1.66
1.66x?
What are the down-sides to doing this (aside from price):
Sharpness
Light loss
Barrel distortion
Bokeh
Flare
Close focus
Focus adapter, lens, or both?
Is there a variable amount of squeeze at different distances, infinity vs .85m as with native Sirui 35mmf1.8 1.33x both with and without this lens?
Any idea too about in combination w/speed-boosters (with SLR lenses of course)?
"Enquiring minds want to know."
Thinking of using this adapter w/EOS-M original w/Magic Lantern or EOS-M6ii with Sirui 35mmf1.8 1.33x, 11-22mmf4-5.6, 15-45mmf3.5-5.6, 18-55mm f3.5-5.6, and 22mmf2
but maybe too with Nikon Z5 with same Sirui 35mm f1.8 1.33x exchanging EFM with the Z mount, 16-35f4g, 40mmf2z, and 85mmf1.4g.
Maybe this for video overall instead of a 35mmf0.95 Brightin Star or a 32mmf1.4 for M6ii for stills.
Yes, too much GAS but as a camera salesman told a parent:
Get your kids hooked on photography.
They'll never have money for drugs.
This is one of the recommended uses, buy SIRUI, so should work well.
I'd like to know which camera you use to test these lenses, if you would not mind mentioning that please.
I try to put that in all the descriptions. I purposely don't mention it, as people get hung up on the camera, but when it comes to the image quality the lens is actually way more important. I could put this setup on any camera and make the footage look nearly identical.
@@markwiemels thanks Mark. Will check the description
love the barrel distortion! Gives me Wes-Andreson vibes :)
Yah, personally I like it too.
Does it give a pastel look too? 😄
I'm a beginner and I'm lucky enough to have a ZV-E10 and a M50 m II. Will these Sirui fit those? I would like to film my small town both sunlight and at night.
Yes, they will, you just need to choose the Sony E mount version.
@@markwiemels Thanks Much. Appreciate your channel.
Have you compared the difference between the adapter and actual Sirui anamorphic lens? I just shot a montage with their 50mm on the Lumix S5IIX. Beautiful combo
I think, if you have the budget, a dedicated anamorphic lens is better, but this adapter is designed to be used on anamorphic lenses to give an even bigger stretch.
well, you don't "lose" pixels of vertical resolution, but, in the "stretched" direction, you get fewer pixels per degree of coverage, and the pixel x/y ratio gets blown up when you change the x/y ratio in edit...i guess that your editor software interpolates, in the horizontal direction...
This is a very good point.
Cheaper way to acheive a anamorphic lite look is to get the streak filter that vid Atlantic sells and the rear element stickers that create the oval bokeh. You don't get the widescreen but it's still an image with more character. I plan on doing that to my Brighton star 35 when I finally pick it up
I want this now. Dear Santa...
If it is 1.25 why marking is 1.6x ?
The 1.6 marking says 1.6 lens x 1.25 adapter = 2.0 stretch.
Melbourne!
It does look nice. 🤔
I think so.
Gotta laugh: "How do I capture Cinematic footage?" Answer: Easy, hire Arthur Max as your Production Designer.. (look him up) Seriously though, I now use the ultra low cost 7Artisans 12mm T2.9 Cinema lens on my Sony FS5 instead of my $5K Carl Zeiss 21mmm Distagon F/2.8 and Speed Booster. Is there difference? Yes, for Pixel Peepers but really, not having to focus and allowing the FS5's floating auto electronic ND to find the correct exposure is a match made in Heaven
How cool. Thank you for sharing that.
SI RUI not SU RAI !
No good for those of us shooting full frame.
The adapter works on Full Frame, recommended not to go below 42mm Focal Length, but once you squeeze that it is a 33 FOV width wise. So quite useful.
Makes everything look out of focus. Not a great setup.
isn't that what anamorphic is all about /s
Why would you want anything in focus when filming?
So... cinema (or, better spelled, cinematograph) = Hollywood.
Like there is no other place on Earth where people create films ?
You are not more guilty than anyone else, but it shows how much, or rather, how little USA cares about other countries.
USA did not invent cinema. USA did not refine cinema. USA did not theorize cinema. USA did not write the grammar of cinema.
I strongly advise all viewers and their buddies to have a look at productions from Italy, France, Spain, UK, Finland, Western African countries (Sénégal, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Mali, etc.), Germany, Poland, etc.
Those are places where it was born, then flourished, before being turned into an industry by USA. For the good or not, it's not the topic.
All cinematograph related affairs were brought to life and mature in Europe. And many techniques (including optical inventions, see who was Augustin Fresnel) or machineries were invented there. Then imported in USA, and sometimes stamped with a fake "home made" label.
Remember what happened to Charles Chaplin, professionally and personally ? This is, in some way, a good some up of the History of "le Cinématographe".
While I get your point, he never said that only Hollywood produced films, did he? Or that USA "created" cinema. It's a fact that the most viewed motion pictures are from Hollywood (whether we like it or not).
chill bro