Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Anamorphic with leica lens

  1. #1

    Anamorphic with leica lens

    As you know , there is a pinhole anamorpic camera uses hasselblad film , cost 800 dollars out there. Its a really interesting concept to put a film not facing the lens but parallel to lens axis.
    But I am not happy with pinholes. I want to change the pinhole lens with real lens.
    I want to make same camera with 5 cm leica lenses or cheaper 50 mm or or with a suggested japanese lenses. But I dont know the calculation of film size , distance from the axis , diameter and final image size on film.
    What can be the biggest anamorphic camera film image size with these 5 cm leica lenses and which film format must be used ?

    Best ,

    Mustafa Umut Sarac

  2. #2

    Anamorphic with leica lens

    Same question on another thread -- I just posted over there (with suitable speculation, since AFAIK no one has actually done this).

  3. #3

    Anamorphic with leica lens

    I have been thinking about the appeal of anamorphic with a lens, but I am troubled by the prospect of a non-planar film plane with a lens.

    I have neither tried it nor do I know if a lens-type 'axial' anamorphic camera exists, but I think that a 'deep' depth of focus behind a lens would seem to present the same problem one has with film flatness...regardless of depth of field (in FRONT of the lens), one seesm to havre very narrow depth of focus (BEHIND) the lens. Maybe with macro (1:1), depth of focus would be deeper?

    Anyway, the problem I envision is that one would have very little of a curved film plane in focus. The 'radial' drum-type panoramic is different in that it illuminates a small strip , essentially flat in one dimension and rotates to cover the length of the drum. Here, the distance from lens to film is fixed and suitabel for a narrow depth of focus lens.

    Just my thoughts...don't know for sure.

  4. #4

    Anamorphic with leica lens

    My limited experience with macro suggests that the closer you get to the subject, the smaller the DoF. At 1:1 it is very shallow.

    I don't think there is any getting around the fact that a normal camera lens produces a nearly flat image, and the cylinder only intersects that image plane in a narrow strip. It might make for some interesting effects, but I sure wouldn't bother with a Leica lens - it won't matter.

    This is one case where a pinhole is undeniably superior.

  5. #5

    Anamorphic with leica lens

    A few years ago (okay, almost twenty), when the Tandy Color Computer 3 came out, there was a demo that showed how superior its graphics were compared to the older models. One of the comments at the show where the machine was first displayed was "You can't even do that *badly* on the old machine!"

    I think the same probably applies to a cylindrical film anamorphic camera using a lens. I have seen very small openings used with an enlarger and curved/tilted paper to allow deeply distorted, yet still reasonably sharp prints from fairly ordinary negatives, but the rule is that DOF is proportional to magnification -- whichever side of the lens has the larger scale (image or scene) will have the larger DOF, and the larger that scale is, the large the DOF well get. So, if you could reverse the lens (to avoid excessive aberrations) and make the image at, say, 10:1 magnification, you'd get nice DOF on the inside of a cylindrical film -- of a subject that needs to be pretty darned flat. OTOH, this suggests it may be possible to do anamorphs with a lens by copying a conventional negative or slide (even if of panoramic format)...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •