@simurg Forget about my math. Wider angle might give the same x and y axis framing, but it can't mimic the z-axis or background framing.

Just use your preferred focal length on 16:9 ratio. Make sure you get framing right so that you get enough room for cropping. That'll do it. Just don't substitute with shorter focal length if possible.

@gh2hacked the 2x anamorphic is 'the' look. 1.33x, although rendering a nice 2.35 with nice flares on 16:9, doesn't quite give that true anamorphic look. 1.5-1.75x with horizontal cropping is a good compromise.

I don't know about you guy but after using anamorphic, I can't shoot without it. I personally don't like the anamorphic filter thou. They sharp but gives weird flare on certain lens. I uses a bunch of lens and find that the century anamorphic gives the best result. All the 2X aspect ratio on kowa for example is to much stretching. Look kind of weird to me. The Century and Ag-La7200 is the best in my book. The Century has better build quality and also more compact.

That would work fine. I'm talking about outdoor shots.

See the attachment. It was shot with 50mm focal length lens + 1.75x anamorphic lens. Notice how the cars are lined up in the street. 50mm focal length is equivelant to the human eye in terms of z-axis distortion.

Oval bokeh with DIY paper cutout and cropping in post works rather well with my 50 1.4. I rather add flares in post to control them better.

@stonebat might it be possible to add "some" distortion" by changing away from square pixcels? It would stretch uniformly, but it might bring some similarities to the anamorphic footage? I don't know if there are any plugins or techniques that can distort footage in a way that would more closely approximate anamorphic glass?

Simply dividing focal length by anamorphic ratios isn't quite right though. It only changes the horizontal FOV. When dealing with subjects, the vertical ratio is still the same, it's not like switching to a lens with a shorter focal length.

When I approach anamorphic shooting, which usually includes people in the shot, I'm still the same distance away from the subject, attachment or not, as they still need to physically fill the vertical frame the same. However, I do have a different composition.

To me anamorphics are more compositional tools than focal length adjusters. Although I do appreciate if you're comparing larger sensor (FF/APSC) matte cropping to mFT anamorphics the similarities start to converge.

I like taking 4:3 photos from GH2. It helps capturing more vertical framing for candid style. I mean... who would like headless portraits? Getting familiar with 4:3 photo helps this anamorphic cropping trick.

Let's say one likes Vimeo videos taken by GH1/2 + 35mm + 1.33x anamorphic lens. Simply dividing the focal length by 1.33 gives 26.3mm that is just a tad bit longer than 25mm.

First draw the anamorphic horizontal lines on GH1/2's LCD protector. Have 25mm lens on the camera. Without pointing the camera, eyeball the imaginary 4:3 frame as if using 35mm lens. Then use the camera and do the real framing from the same standing place. The anamorphic box on the camera's LCD would look very close to 33% wider than the imaginary frame. Easy huh?

Here's a list of such mapping. Divide by 1.33 then make a bit wider to accomodate the difference between 4:3 ratio's 2x crop and 16:9 ratio's 1.83 crop.

• 85mm -> 58mm
• 50mm -> 35mm
• 35mm -> 25mm
• 24mm -> 17.5mm
• 18mm -> 12mm

Isn’t it looking pretty?

Thanks for the info. That was written before 12mm 1.6 was available ;)

BTW some Chinese company is working on 35mm 0.95. Does m43 need such lens? Sure why not.

At 16:9, I like 14mm, 25mm, and 50mm. At 2.35:1 cropping without using anamorphic lens, I like 11mm, 17.5mm, and 35mm. There are a couple of drawbacks or characteristics to this approach.

The wider lenses would give deeper DOF. If the lenses are fast, it wouldn't be a showstopper. But fast lense ain't cheap. E.g. crazy fast 0.95.

Usually camera lenses have short throw toward infinity. Using wider lens implies focusing closer to infinity which requires more precision control.

@fatpig - the details are on the vimeo page, but yes, except for 'Love or War' which is a feature I shot on the GH2 which is in post right now.

People are blown away by the GH2. So I buy a GH2, and shoot one short with it, someone from that set raves about it to a friend, who calls me and asks to see footage, then I get hired to shoot their film, and then the cycle continues, until you get a call to shoot a feature, and then the next thing you know you're shooting the opening titles to a studio film on the RED, and so on. The budgets on the shorts are always very small, otherwise I would shoot with a RED, only because it's so much easier to do so. I'm constantly fighting the limitations of the GH2, which is an extra battle I'd like to not have. BUT it sure beats shooting on a fixed lens video cam. The more I use it, the more I'm aware of it's limitations in what I'm trying to do, but it's still the best camera I've ever OWNED, and the best DSLR I've ever shot with.

There should be more imdb credits going live soon from "Seeing Other People", "Love or War", and "What Lies Between Us", and as one of the producers I just worked with put it, I'm quite possibly creating a new production crossbreed - the Cinematographer/Colorist, as the credits that I will getting on all of those projects will be for both shooting and grading the project. So the look of my footage is a combination of factors, the camera, my lighting, and the grading.

got it, thank you, very nice work by the way