Is the hype real? Moment 1.33X Anamorphic Adapter 

Perhaps don't release a video on a product yet if you're unable to demonstrate it's full potential? I understand the issue RU-vidrs face where they find they have to release videos about a product at the same time as other creators (while the hype is still there). But if this means that the quality of information provided in the video is severely impacted then this is a problem.

So the vignetting was the fault of the lens having an adapted ring for 77mm which increased the distance between the lens and the adapter? If that's the case I think it was a bad decision to release this video using that setup lol.

Yes, the vignette comes from that problem. The information is only impacted if you watch 10 seconds and decide you hate it. We clearly talk about the vignette issue at 5:42. The proposition for this video was to make do with what we had at hand, improvise the experience and learn from it on the go. I'm pretty happy with it. Vignetting and all, I still find the look great. If you don't, then the adapter might not be for you, and that's fine, there are lots of other options! :)

@@AnamorphicOnABudget The look is great, absolutely!!

@@AnamorphicOnABudget I did watch the whole video, but that little bit is easy to miss, especially since the discussion uses vague terminology.

Yeah, honestly all of the footage here looks like utter trash. Doesn't help that his friend has the most annoying voice as well.

@@oo-eo9pw I also got taxed an extra £250 before they’d deliver it. which was nice. I think it might be a Kickstarter thing, but they could have given me a heads up!

Agreed

Let us know some feedback you have please

Ah man heck yes, let us know how it works out with the Meike lenses. Or even better, post some clips 😃

Honestly, I think you're still being too kind to this adapter. All of the footage here looks like utter trash.

What I don't like about the Moment's adapter is that so far the advertising has only been hype. Pure hype using the final edit as the result. The vignetting is quite strong (unless it's a fault of the lens?). I'd be completely fine with the hype, the squeeze factor, the lack of a proper focus ring... etc if the price tag wasn't at $1,300. This product could have been priced better considering these faults and setbacks, but no, they decided to be greedy. So yes, although the anamorphic sphere is expensive, many budget options already exist and this one doesn't exactly revolutionize anything to excuse the price.

@@johnbrowningdp yeah everything I have seen from this adapter well the distortion looks very anamorphic for some reason the footage just looks flat like it has been over compressed with no dimension to the footage... Maybe they should have stopped the lens down a bit more? But there is just something off with how most of the footage from this adapter looks.

The problem is for us, Nikon Z users, I can't use the GJ on Z mount 🤠

Greatjoy adapter is shitty

The hype around the batman lens needs to die. No one would ever consider that lens until someone who was a somebody used it because he loved it and now all the posers and copy/paste RU-vidrs are hyping it up 🤡

@@Samiam-mu5ln buddy what the fuck are you talking about. the helios is literally one of the most mass produced lenses of all time. it's literally the most used vintage lens for video and has been way before the batman.

I have videos about the Helios 44 before Batman! In fact, I'd risk saying those videos inspired the guys that *made* the custom versions for the Batman. So, it's a feedback loop.

@@AnamorphicOnABudget one step at a time there buddy, don't get too ahead of yourself now! This is still RU-vid world after all, and no one takes youtubers serious in the industry xD

@@Samiam-mu5ln lol.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Got mine yesterday, and there is a bit of telescoping. Unless I was hallucinating.

Yeah, we stopped to realign it at one point, the sun was going down and we rushed out before it was gone. I had a whole section about aligning it, but the episode was just too long.

I think the SLR magic is actually decent apart from the blue streaks. I've tried it with the fx30 and sigma 16mm using clear image zoom and I think it's a winner. This moment has nice oval bokeh though

I don't have a camera that works with the Saturn, unfortunately. Sirui is not offering it in L mount. :(

I might be wrong feel free to correct me but if you shot on a 4/3 sensor open Gate so you don't loose pixels you should get a 16/9ish right?

Correct. 4:3 and 1.33x lenses deliver 16:9 for final aspect ratio.

While the price is indeed much steeper, I found the visuals coming out of the Moment vastly superior to Great Joy's. The price tag is hard though. Is it worth two or three GJ's? I can't tell.

using an appropriate stepper ring instead of an 80mm OD ring inbetween seems like a relatively easy fix to that issue.

I thought I was the only one that noticed. The bokeh def. look a lot more oval than your standard 1.33X. I wonder what else they're doing in the design that causes this.

to my brain there's just no way it can actually be doing that on its own, but they were still using a normal 50 as the taking lens I think. so I have no idea what's going on

mildly interesting that this wasnt even mentioned in the video, it seemed so glaringly obvious to me on first watch. its about to be a few days later and no one has gotten around to responding to the bokeh comments, not even Tito. but that's fair since this platform isnt his job. Really hoping theres some logic to this cause will always want taller bokeh

@@notPat-Rick same bro. Hope to hear a response soon. Is it cause of there taking lens you think?

@@chinitopinoy1726 it must be!?? from what I see it just cant be the 1.33x squeeze on its own there has to be something else.

No. The lenses have to be focused to infinity for the adapter to work.

Unfortunately, the Moment adapter requires to have your taking lens set to infinity, and all focusing is done on the adapter! So, no luck with autofocus! :(

@@AnamorphicOnABudget Fair enough. Thanks, Tito!

We were filming 16:9

if you were to shoot 3:2 your aspect ratio would be a 1.99:1 after desqueeze. 1.33 is for 16x9. If you want a 2.40:1 on a 3:2 you would need a 1.6x squeeze lens

@@AnimeZone247 That makes sense! So I'd guess, shooting 3:2 would introduce even more vignetting as more sensor area at the top and bottom is beeing used?

@@nebukadnezzar3578 yes since 3:2 is 1.5:1 and 16:9 is 1.778:1

Yeah, the Leica we were using had a 55mm thread.

It's an old Cavision rig!

@@AnamorphicOnABudget Thank you!! Wonderful video, as always!

1.33 DOES bring 16:9 to scope though?

It seems you may have it backwards. 1.33x was specifically chosen because it converts a 16:9 sensor to a 2.35.1. 1.33x on 4:3 wouldn't even make it as wide as 16:9. 1.33x makes the most sense for the average consumer, since 2x would mean way too much crop on a 16:9 sensor for the average joe, meaning you need cropmarks on top of the desqueezed image for monitoring. I think it was a calculated move. And not a bad move at all.

@@mellin7049 1.33x adapters were also used to film 16:9 on more square formats when the change was made into 16:9 broadcast but the infrastructure was mostly 4:3. if you divide 16/9 (1.777777) by 1.333 you get 1.333, which is 4/3.

@@EveTheBoneQueen 1.33 x 16 equals roughly 21.3 (it's 21.28 but in reality, most 1.33x are 1 1/3, so 21 1/3 would be precise). Regardless of what you work with, divided by 9 that's something between 2.364 and 2.37 - both neither 2.39:1 or 2.4:1. Sure, it's close. But why not make it right, if you make something new? There's no gain in doing it "wrong". GreatJoy seemingly understood that (or it was a lucky accident).

@@mellin7049 as stated in a different answer in this comment chain, 16:9 does not bring you to 2.35:1; you can calculate this on your own if you don't trust my math. And if it did, that's not scope since the 70s. And of course, in the past 1.33x converters were used to bring 4:3 cams to 16:9, the math isn't too hard either. 4:3 is the same as 12:9. 12 x 1.33 equals 15.96 (or 15.999999... if using the proper 1 1/3 as explained earlier in the other comment), which is pretty decent 16:9 1.33x has no advantage for the average Joe or anyone, it just needs extra steps as you have to crop the image a tag (instead of leaving it be). It's not far off, but it is off. So why do it wrong if you, as a company, claim to do it from scratch for a certain goal that you obviously don't reach? I mean, calculate it yourself. 1.33x neither gives you 2.35:1, nor 2.39:1.

It's Matt's old Cavision rig!

Nao! Foca a taking lens no infinito e o resto eh na Moment. :)

@@AnamorphicOnABudget Isso é ótimo! Valeu! To querendo chegar em NY esse fim de mes e trazer uma S5II e esse adaptador... Fica massa, né? O problema é que ontem diretor de fotografia deu a ideia de captar e dar saída em 4:3 original... hahah.... Parabéns, seu canal é muito bom!

Can you expand on what parts you feel we didn't cover?

@@AnamorphicOnABudget I just think there isn't a lot of video documentation on this adapter in general. Would be interesting to see in more controlled lighting scenarios on different camera/lens combos to more strongly see results and comparisons between their spherical take lens. I think people would appreciate seeing its limitations on fullframe vs super 35 sensors, and performance at different apertures. Love your videos, just found the majority of the ones on this adapter to not be as in depth as other products sometimes are. Thank you for the response.

The folks at Moment quite liked it. :)

That is a budget considering how much Anamorphic lenses cost. You're not going to get dirt cheap quality lenses

@@phoenixfunny4517 We just go back to the oval inserts and cropping video in post :P Ha-hah!

There's ALWAYS someone with this argument! hahaha. I'll start recommending $20 phone lenses that are just garbage.

There are not many three digit products being released, and Tito has covered those also. If you want budget, get a second hand 16mm scope and a variable diopter from eBay and pair them with one of them tiny manual focus taking lenses like TTArtisan 50/2 if you're intending to spend less than $400 total, that's a well established well covered concept at this point

@@AnamorphicOnABudget Yeah, the OP post of this is frigging stupid. Things a cheaper than ever. And this is a great tool for the cost.