I would also state 1.5x-2x. Why, because the anamorphic look isn't about the crop, it's about the disproportionate morphing of vertical and horizontal detail. I find that 1.33x (LA7200) doesn't alter the image 'enough' to give that nice anamorphic look. Ultimately 1.33x adapters were created to convert 4:3 to 16:9...not for the anamorphic look.

2x is the perfect anamorphic ratio, getting the 4-perf 35mm frame stretched out to 2.39 looks fantastic. In the 16:9 world though, it requires a large horizontal crop to get back to 2.39. Or, it can be cropped less, but I find >2.66 too wide, and it's hard to shoot consistently. If camera manufacturers start offering 4:3 shooting (with increased vertical resolution (not 1440x1080) 2x would be perfect.

That's why I think 1.5x is the sweet spot for 16:9 sensors. Natively it gives 2.66 which is OK, and with a small crop, it's back to 2.39. 1.5x morphs the ratio of horiz to vert enough to give it that classic anamorphic look.

So 1.5x from me. :-)

@slrmagic, thanks for your reply, but IMHO, if a proven product at this point will be a better reply: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/219911-slr-magic-50mm-f0-95-m-24.html#post2119905 It seems from different forums, there are quite many dissatisfied customers, and they are not just volunteers but customers who put it real $$$$$$. At least, from a customer perspective, if slr magic could show a proven customer base with the 50mm "CINE" lens, then certainly people will get confidence esp if the new lens/adapter will be in similar price category.. And personally, I think even the word "CINE" for that 50mm is a bit of a hype. As Dan Chung mentioned to Andrew Reid over twitter, CINE lens is not just about 14+ blades and declicked focus ring... It's about a MATCHING SET of LENSES for filmmakers in terms of rendering. I will be a bit surprised if the rest of the set is not under planning, and suddenly the next lens/adapter will be an anamorphic adapter... just because it's catchy and certainly will generate as much hype as the 50mm CINE lens Noctilux. You guys are good marketers, but maybe company "commitment" is even more important for long-term customer loyalty. Just my 2 cents.

@slrmagic Also, are you sure about going with the m43 mount? Wouldn't that exclude a big part of the market?

@mobileavatar I will not discuss in details as it is not appropriate to discuss in this thread.

To conclude what you have read on forums there are some points that were not made clear. Out of 20 or so volunteers from Steve Huffs workshop only two had a bad experience. The two users volunteered as beta testers. They were well informed there may be fixes that needed in the future. However, they choose to complain on forums. We are never able to resolve their issue as they would not send in the lens for servicing. Other beta testers had different issues as well but they were willing to ship the lens in for servicing and their issues are resolved. The lenses we are now shipping to not have the issues the beta testers had thus the point of the beta tester program.

There are also people on this forum that were beta testers for us for the 12mm 1.6 lens. We offered a lens upgrade program for them and it is the best we can do.

Hope we have answered your concerns.

Kind rgds., Andrew

Thanks all for the input and experience sharing. So now we are to a point where we have decided a 1.35x will give us the 2.39:1 ratio that we all want but one thing we ignored is the bokeh characteristics. 1.35x will give anamorphic ovals that look more like circles but 1.5x will give a better anamorphic oval and it is worth the effort to crop out in post production.

We have a new suggestion from the ideas we have concluded.

-We need 1.5x-2x for the anamorphic look. -We want to have a 2.4:1 ratio -We all hope 4:3 Anamorphic mode will come one day (but it is now available by hack)

How about a 1.8x anamorphic? With a future 4:3 Anamorphic mode in mind this would give 2.4:1 with good anamorphic bokeh.

For the time being, it would turn 16:9 recording into 3.2:1 stretch and the user need to crop off the boarders to get 2.4:1 but it will guarantee good anamorphic oval bokeh.

So something like a 25mm or 35mm f/2.8 Anamorphic with 1.8x squeeze for mFT sounds good?

The comments regarding 1.5x bokeh vs 1.33x bokeh, have sent me off to try and get my head around what is possible if SLRMagic make an adpter vs what is possible if SLRMagic a dedicated Lens

@mlysbakken true but imo to design for 72mm thread as a point of attachment would be a bit strange - a 58mm thread for attachment and a larger diameter adapter would make more sense IMO, creating a look resembling LOMO round-fronts: http://www.flickr.com/photos/45352422@N08/4798935303/lightbox/

@LPowell and @mlysbakken .. thank you both .. understood .. not enough consideration before my reply

Perhaps a better solution would be to produce a 1.5x squeeze, which throws away part of the image (an oversized element at some point?) ... projection would be wider than the sensor.

I hope that is understandable .. I can visualise what the guts of a lens looks like but do not know correct terminology

@kavadni Read the many posts earlier in this thread about the characteristics of anamorphic bokeh. An anamorphic adapter is not just for stretch, it's also for adding a certain cinematic quality to the footage. The less stretch, the less pronounced these qualities will be.

@Xenocide38 A 4:3 aspect ratio is only needed for 2x anamorphic adapters. With a 1.5x adapter, a video camera with the standard 16:9 aspect ratio works fine. In post-production, you simply stretch the frame wider by 50%, and then crop 5% off the left and right edges. The result is a 2560x1080 video frame with square pixels in widescreen cinema format.

@LPowell: why as wide as 72mm?

Funny story, kholi. :)

@kholi that's the way of life haha.