Anamorphic newbie..

B3Guy

yup, I actually already have some good diopters :)

and I know exactly what you mean. Anamorphics are clearly not for on the fly shooting, but for planned, controlled shooting (which is exactly what I'm doing.) You have to know when you need the diopter, and what your limitations are with the diopter on, and plan accordingly.

(In another vein, I made my own "cinemorph" filter. IMO, the oval bokeh is not an effect worth replicating by this means. you have to use the lens in a very specific way, and the result is minimally cool. HOWEVER . . . the vertical fishing line works like a charm, even if the flares do not cross the entire frame. Awesome addition of my own: color the fishing line with a dark blue Sharpie for blue flares. I tried this on a whim and it really puts the icing on the cake.)

CRFilms

I have a 37mm Century. Not that heavy. You can mount that on most regular manual prime lenses from 28mm to 135mm. The problem with it and most Anamorphics is "close focus". They can't focus within 5 feet. But that's fixed with a diopter and you can buy a cheap macro/close up lens. I bought a $25 set from adorama and it works BUT....with the diopter you can ONLY focus close. And it willl only focus within a narrow range.

B3Guy

Ok, so to clarify, even with an adaptor that does not need to focus (e.g. an LA720 or a Century), focusing is STILL difficult? (I mean, focusing at f2.8 or lower is already difficult if not almost impossible during run n' gun shooting.) I have rails and a follow focus, and the anamorphic would be for narrative film work, always on a tripod or a slider, under controlled conditions. Does the anamorphic increase the "sensitivity" of focusing?

I understand that none of the anamorphic are light weight, and they're just a pain to handhold.

Anamorphic for me is about helping the "film atmosphere". The GH2 gives a really great digital image, but it is a fair bit inorganic. To my eyes, anamorphic (with the tall bokeh, the softening, some CA, and increased susceptibility to flaring and glaring,) seems to help mask the medically clean reality that is digital footage.

I've been shooting for several years with a Canon GL2 (great standard-def workhorse camera), and I've pulled off a few good shorts with it, but it is more difficult to engage the viewer in a film narrative when it is so obviously shot on video. 16:9 on DSLR with shallow DOF was my first step towards a more cinematic setup, I guess anamorphic just seemed like the next logical step, but maybe not.

So you have a Century? and you say you must focus the "taking" lens AND the Century both? I thought the Century was like the LA720, where it simply adapts the taking lens to anamorphic.

And I still hold that lens flares are pretty cool when used tastefully and lovingly. (Have you seen Super8 btw? They overkill anamorphic flares in that quite a bit, but I'll forgive J.J. because the story was enjoyable.)

shungyiu

Before one jumps into the world of anamorphic lenses, this is my personal experience:
First I was mystified and attracted by the overly projected effects of a physical anamorphic lens over cropping;
then I got obsessed into finding/bidding for anamorphic lenses,
wasting a fair bit of money and a lot more time that could have been productive;
and eventually understood why Philip Bloom has not been promoting it.

I own a Bell and Howell, Century Precision Anamorphic and a Kowa something;
There are a few things to consider:

1. It's difficult to focus(have to do 2 lenses), even if you have a Century Precision Anamorphic;
2. It's bulky and heavy, so handheld is out of the question unless you purposefully want your audience to puke;
3. Flares aren't that cool really, compositions of the image and finding your the color tone of your film's atmosphere is way more important;
4. It is not easy to find a solid and suitable anamorphic lens adapter.

That's my 2 cents. Cropping as Vitality suggested is way less pain.

B3Guy

Hi, all! I've been reading this site from the sidelines for a month or two now, and I have a GH2. I have been slowly acquiring peripherals (poor film student), and an anamorphic is close to next on my list. I have been closely eyeing the adaptors by Century Optics. (I have recently seen one go for $400 USD on Ebay). Just thought I'd mention this brand. They operate the same as the LA-7200 (that is, no silly focusing on both lenses. Just stick it on the front of your prime and start shooting.) They're a tad more expensive, but that seems worth it for the much improved ease-of-use.

Also, they seem to give really nice blue flares.

johnnym

The Panatar is well overpriced. Of course, it all depends on what people want to pay for it, but i have seen most panatars go for under 100$

stoney

It's like 24p argument. Many people are used to with anamorphic movies. No software tricks can replace anamorphic lens. Plus it won't break your bank to own it. I don't have it... yet.

Oedipax

There is also the Cinemorph filter: http://www.vid-atlantic.com/cinemorphic

This is basically a filter to give you the oval-shaped bokeh and flares you'd get with an anamorphic lens, but you shoot with normal spherical lenses in the 16x9 aspect and crop later if you want.

The big advantage is you can still easily rack focus so it's great for run-and-gun type shooting. The big disadvantage is you lose about 2 stops of light, and you have to shoot at or above certain focal lengths to avoid vignetting: 50mm on crop sensors, 85mm on full frame.

I own three legit anamorphics (Kowa 16H and 16D, Panasonic LA7200) and also recently got the Cinemorph. I still think there is a certain look you get with real anamorphic lenses that is impossible to produce simply by cropping and mimicking the bokeh and flares, it has to do with the wider horizontal perspective applied to the same (shorter) vertical perspective; i.e. it is a wider view without feeling like a wider lens. But this is a pretty esoteric difference and for many things, the Cinemorph is also a great tool. I will probably use a mix of the two on future anamorphic projects.

P.S. The Cinemorph filter is probably easily replicated in DIY fashion if you're so inclined. It's basically combining two ideas, the use of paper cutouts in a filter to alter the shape of bokeh, and the use of a small string to reproduce anamorphic-style flares.

Mark_the_Harp

Doesn't 1.33x convert a 16:9 image to 2.36(ish)? if that's right, that's very close the current standard of theatrical release, which is 2.39... If my maths are correct.

I have a 1.33 Cambron lens which I used to use to convert 4:3 to 16:9 so maybe I should give it a go on my GH2 to give me 2.36:1.

I remember it was great to use as it gives you a greater "wide angle" but it didnt like being zoomed in too much. Maybe that's common with all Anamorphic conversion lenses. Up till now I've gone down the crop route but you've all got me intrigued to get that lens out again!

stoney

I heard good things about LA7200. 1.33x.

I had thought cropping could simulate anamorphic. I was wrong. Yes it's wider. But there are other aspects that make anamorphic lens special. softer corners, circular bokeh, etc.

MarkV

@ Vitaliy .. well yes.. I can simulate anamorphic flares in post-production, yes I can crop the frame .. but I want to try something new..

Ok.. for example this lens .. http://cgi.ebay.com/PANAVISION-PANATAR-1-5X-ANAMORPHIC-LENS-GH2-CANON-5D-/270738084879?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item3f093f540f .. It's US $299.00 .. so it's not that expensive..

Where I can find adapter for lens like this on GH1?

Vitaliy_Kiselev

And may be even better choice is using normal lenses and cropping. If you need flares, as I understand, people made cheap filters to simulate them (most probably software solutions also exists for this).

johnnym

Just multiply your current aspect ratio with the anamorphic and you have your result :
1,78 (16:9) x 2 = 3.58 or in case of a 1.5x anamorphic it's 1,78 x 1,5 = 2.66

You could film in higher resolution VGA mode at a 4:3 aspect ratio, but i don't recommend it as the resolution is much worse than AVCHD if higher than 1280x720

So a 1.5 anamorphic is best, but there aren't many around and the good one from Isco is very expensive. Your best chance is a 2x anamorphic probably.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters