Personal View site logo
The arguable real (dis)advantage of anamorphic shooting with adapters.
  • 98 Replies sorted by
  • There's a thing about anamorphic viewing experience that resembles the real life. In real life, I don't pay attention to every corners that my eyes see. The anamorphic screen is so wide that I can't catch all details in each scene. That seems more close to real life experience.

    Anamorphic ratio still photos don't give such experience cuz I can examine every corners in photos. That is the anamorphic magic disappears as soon as I pause the movie.

  • maybe at @Vitaly If i am not mistaken i think there is a anamorphic crop look on magic lantern for canons that let you frame in this format very easily and then can just crop it in the editor(something similar to what Roberto was suggesting here earlier. is there a possibility to add this feature to the future developments ?

  • @subco ha ha ...that is exactly the image(well,just the circle... ;) i get when i mount my 13mm elgeet lens(50's maybe...?) on the gh2 ...so it is not so useless after all ; )

  • I just shot this still in raw (gh2) with the old Olympus 50 1.4 and the bolex anamorphot 8/19/1.5 and unsqueezed it photoshop.

    olyanamorphot.jpg
    6618 x 2800 - 3M
  • @plasmasmp Strange. Such close face framing, but it doesn't look like cropped at all. If you had used the lens without anamorphic lens, the background would have been compressed more... and it would have looked cropped.

  • @subco I like that. Whether the actual framing is anamorphic or not, that circled part is where my eyes would focus.

  • @plasmasmp That bolex looks superb. Very sharp! And of course killer bokeh from the Olympus.

  • @stonebat I think your observations on anamorphic are spot on. That Seb Farges lens looks very nice. Price is a bit steep :) but nice still.

  • @johnnym I'm not even thinking about the lens... $$$$

  • @stonebat The anamorphic screen is so wide that I can't catch all details in each scene. That seems more close to real life experience.

    Exactly! That's what we've all been trying to say.

  • How bout using a UWA lens, then adapting cinemorph filter and using zacuto evf's line guide so you can crop in post later to become anamorphic footage... any real disadvantage to that?

  • @flyguy

    Sounds good to me.

  • I've got a couple of the Cinemorph filters coming (with and without bokeh). I don't think they work with wide angle lenses, I think you're looking at 80mm to get the effect going by their site.

  • @Roberto referring for your earlier suggestion on this thread(soft mate style)wanted to ask you what would be the math behind a little DIY anamorphic cover to put on top of the GH2 screen to help me frame better? I will crop the rest of the frame in the editor later. let say for 2.35:1 ? thanks!

  • @luxis

    We want to matte the GH2's LCD screen at top and bottom to reveal only a 2.3:1 horizontal slice. Math is as follows: 16:9 is 1.777:1 - let's say 1.78mm width for every 1mm height [Anamorphic] widescreen aspect ratio is up to you; let's say 2.35 mm width for every 1mm height. The GH2's LCD 16:9 video visible area is 62mm x 35 mm 3 5mm /2.35=14.89 14.89 x 1.78 = 26.5 mm high

    We want to put a 26.5 mm letterbox in a 41 mm LCD (Full LCD size, not just 16:9 video) 41-26.5 is 14.5. Half of that (7.25mm) comes of the top. the other half (7.25) comes off the bottom.

    This is fairly low risk since you can crop as you wish in post.

    Or you can just try printing this pic, aim camera and mark screen. BTW, Vitaly pointed out a way of using GH2's own guide lines.

    Screen2_35Crop.png
    1123 x 794 - 6K
  • @Roberto Thank you very much for the detailed and so clear explanation and the picture. btw, can you point out Vitaly's post on this if you remember it? thank you again!

  • Bought an LA7200 awhile back but didn't care for the softness. Finally tried out a diopter and was stunned with the results. It's kind of a disadvantage to have to use them because it adds more to the setup and the process but the image quality increase is worth it. You can check out my thoughts and some test images here: http://stronzvanderploeg.net/2012/04/26/anamorphic-shooting-with-the-la7200-part-1/

  • ChainsawFilms > if you need 80mm to do that, beats the purpose of anamorphic, no? hmmm

  • @flyguy depends what you're looking for really. I'm after the lens flare, and the oval bokeh, for a scifi flick I'm starting later this year. Because lens flare is futuristic and all that :)

  • Still waiting for an anamorphic speedbooster - maybe from china?

  • @psyco +1 I dont have enough optics knowlage to know if its 1 : Doable 2 ; Doable with okay optical performance

  • @Psyco Such a product would be no better than the various anamorphic teleconverters that are available. Anamorphic rear attachments don't have the anamorphic signature that most people want, such as elliptical bokeh.

  • Anamorphic rear adapters were used on telephoto canons and Nikkors (ca. 300mm) in the 1990s in US feature film production.

    I believe some Panavision Anamorphics used rear element anamorphics in their design.

    A product called the mesmerizer from Kish Optics was such a anamorphic rear element mounted in a spinning adapter, which created a psychedelic effect.

    http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?43783-Kish-Optics-mesmerizer-lens

    The effect is seen here ca. 1:30 and else where (where the whole screen stretches and squeezes:

  • @brianc1959 no oval bokeh is the only drawback of a rear adapter - and its not that important. The very obvious horizontal flares can be faked with screw on filters (or DIY with fishing thread). And nobody knows what other effects such a adapter would have - maybe some very similar?

    Anamorphic lenses having some very special optical problems that people today call "character" is one thing, but the purpose of such a lens/adapter is by giving a wider image and using the whole sensor.

    @CFreak thanks for the info - if you ever stumble on one of this adapters let me know, maybe it can be adapted to be used with our gear.

  • Re-post from Dave Mullen, ASC from here: http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=2633

    "So these days, people are more likely to pick anamorphic over spherical when they want a 2.40 movie more when they are interested in the odd optical artifacts of anamorphic lenses shot in low-light -- the stretched bokeh, the horizontal flares, the shallower depth of field, etc. Anamorphic lenses tend to be physically larger and heavier than spherical lenses, and are often either a bit slower in speed, or even if they are faster, look better if stopped down. They tend to flare more and when you rack focus, the amount of stretching between the foreground and background will change, causing a visible breathing effect during the focus rack. Most of these artifacts are an aspect of front-element anamorphic prime lenses -- most anamorphic zoom lenses and telephotos are just spherical lenses with a rear anamorphic element in the back to squeeze the image -- they don't have the anamorphic artifacts but many are also not very fast -- a T/2.8 35mm spherical zoom converted to anamorphic usually becomes a T/4.0-5.6 lens."

    Another Dave Mullen, ASC repost from here: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=493

    "No, rear-mounted anamorphic elements do not to create the oval-shaped lights in the background -- but on the longer lenses, you instead get SQUARE-shaped lights, which is really odd-looking.

    Wide-angle lenses tend to not have room in the back for an anamorphic element, plus back focus is too critical with those lenses to stick another element back there. Plus I suspect it is easier to make a sharper anamorphic element if it is large (for the front) than tiny (for the rear.) "

    There is a good discussion towards the bottom of this page: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=47189

    Here is an offer in 2009 to make such a rear anamorphic adapter:

    http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?36580-FS-Rear-anamorphic-adapter-for-Zoom-Cooke-MK-II-Angenieux-HR-25-250-PL-mount

    The P+S ver$ion: https://www.pstechnik.de/en/shop/anamorphic-rear-element-with-mounting-rings-for-angenieux-and-cooke-zoom-lenses/a-1570/

    I don' think there is a cheap anamorphic rear adapter to be had for cheap.

    @Psyco The Kish Optics rear mesmerizers I worked with came in PL mount. I am surprised to learn they went on to make a front mounted version: http://handheldfilms.com/kish-front-mesmerizer/