Personal View site logo
The arguable real (dis)advantage of anamorphic shooting with adapters.
  • 98 Replies sorted by
  • With cropping on post you can also adjust the vertical position of the original picture if you need to push something out of frame - I've had to do this (but then I'm a bit more careless in shooting than some)!
  • Filmmakers aren't stupid, there is a reason an Iscorama costs $3000 on eBay. It's the whole 'look'.
  • @Ptchaw

    I agree, the LA7200 is way easier to use than older ones (you can focus through it!) and now over-priced.

    @B3Guy

    That's what we're all saying. I bought my LA7200 before the price rise - but to realise that profit I'd have to sell before somebody manufactures an alternative and the price crashes! The loss per month of use will possibly exceed any rental expenses I'd have incurred.
  • I think price perception is different to everyone. All the blanket statements about over-priced lenses does not apply to everybody. Compared to a $20k Hawk anamorphic, the Iscorama is actually very good value as its performance isn't far off! If Zeiss or Canon made a modern anamorphic today, it would cost similar to the Hawk. They're not easy to make and they're not mass market products.

    See it as an opportunity to explore. Go to camera fairs, try and find the gold nugget in amongst the rubbish. Somewhere out there is a projector or a box at a camera fair with an Iscorama in it from some old guy who's never used eBay. They exist!
  • Sounds like Hammond shopping. Except its old ladies who bought one for their livingroom back in the '50s and have dusted it every day until you come along and give them $1K for it ;-)

    . . . and yes, it DOES happen.
  • I know this will annoy the anamorphic fans out there, but to my eyes the LA7200 is the only anamorphic I've seen footage of (online) which doesn't look irritatingly slightly out of focus.
  • "I know this will annoy the anamorphic fans out there, but to my eyes the LA7200 is the only anamorphic I've seen footage of (online) which doesn't look irritatingly slightly out of focus."

    At big screens its the blur festival... the soft focus become out of focus.
  • I'm just going to wait until the DSLR "revolution" groupies loose interest in anamorphic and latch onto some other magical trick to the ultimate film look. Then they'll all be selling 7200s and the price will go down. Hopefully. I can easily tell a good story without one. Zoom H4n and good LAV mics is next on my list, then when this darn script is done I'll treat myself to an indiGO Jib for a whopping $400.
  • Purely technical comment...

    Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't proper anamorphic lenses (e.g. Lomo, Iscorama, Hawks) built with both a prime and anamorphic lens latched together? So, funny how it's similar to what folks are doing now with the anamorphic projection lenses/adapters? Of course the big difference is that the proper ana's are built as a single lens with one focusing mechanism.
    When I look into my Lomo anamorphic beauties there is a standard prime lens inside. And as far as I know the same dude who designed them also worked on the Hawks. But I wonder if the construction method is the same as Iscorama's?
  • Aren't they designed to mitigate "anamorphic mumps" issue?
  • I really don't know the cinematic "look" of anamorphic lens since I don't own any. Expensive. But I'm interested in 2.35 or 2.39 anamorphic aspect ratio.

    The aspect can be easily marked by drawing lines on a LCD protective film. Some ext monitors support it. Of course GH2 will record 16:9, but it's easy to chop the vertical ends. I wouldn't call it just simply wider. It's definitely different from using more wide angle lens. It changes framing.

    Let's say I get framing on a subject by using 28mm lens on 16:9 ratio. To do the similar framing on anamorphic ratio, I gotta move further away from the subject, and this framing is definitely different from using 20mm lens without moving.

    I know a guy who upgraded from APS-C to FF camera but his photos looked worse cuz he was framing 3:2 ratio photo using his 4:3 framing style.
  • @EOSHD
    "Filmmakers aren't stupid, there is a reason an Iscorama costs $3000 on eBay. It's the whole 'look'."

    Sorry, professional filmmakers are not stupid (because they won't get a job if they are), but a lot of the so called "independent filmmakers" are very stupid.
    Don't get me wrong on that one, but there is by now a tremendous amount of people running arround with a 5D MKII, GH2,... doing it because its fancy, they feel cool and get a lot of attention this way. These people often have a lot of money and no idea what they are doing.
    The use of anamorphic lenses and attachments have surely been started by some geek (like we are;-) who had not much money....
    ...but actual prices for all these equipment is over the top. Very clever people are selling stuff with the "independent/HDSLR film maker" button on it for many times the cost to build these things. And many of these ...film makers... do happylie pay that much money to feel "pro". But the reason why real professional video/film equipment is so expensive is
    1) very low production volume
    2) very high quality and well thought after design.

    Both points are missing for all these steadycam-wannabe, cage-lookalike or dolly-ripoffs. If I come across some of these rail- or cage-systems on ebay, only one thought comes to my mind: What idiot is stupid enough to pay $500 for that stuff, if he could order it personaly made on his demands in the next workshop/job shop? (sorry, don't know the right english word for "Metallwerkstatt")

    The problem is just, that the prices of such special things like the good anamorphic attachments is pushing them out of reach for the more creative people, which will really put them to use.

    Want an example?

    I bought (by accident) 3 Soligor anamorphic attachments about 5 years ago. The did cost me 30-40EUR each, so I thought it doesn't matter (maybe one breaks or I will ned it on a second camera). As these adaperts work "ok" on a DVX-1000 I kept them. While upgrading to a GH1, the adapters became nearly useless as the IQ is degraded below SD resolution. So....I sold 2 of the adapers on ebay. I wrote every flaw in the text, I answerd every question honestly and I also linked a demo video showing the bad IQ...
    ...I sold both "used" adapters for nearly 10 times the "new" price. And just because they "will give everyone the film look".

    Bottom line, the actual prices for anamorphic lenses or attachments are not justified by the product. They are just a result of wanabe-filmmakers with lot of money but no idea of actually using them outside of some test footage.

    Important: I consider most of the people on this forum (and on many other) to be more the geek that wants to put its dreams on screen;-)
  • Its no problem to get good widescreen by recording 16:9 with a good lens and croping top and bottom. You can also use a wide and fast lens to get nice pictures. Flares can be added with an "anamorphic effect lens". Even the oval bokeh can be added with a cheap trick.

    The whole pakage won't be as good as a good(!) anamorphic lens, but most people would not see the difference when watching a movie. (A 20 second flare test with a flashlight has nothing to do with a movie!)

    The big problem is to get a good anamorphic lens - yes, they do exist, but cost as much as a new car. Thats why nobody is buying them, they just rent them.

    I have not seen any sharp footage of the normal anamorphic attachments. Look at the LA7200 footage, look at the IQ on the side of the frame - chromatic abberation, blur,...
    ...I guess this degraded IQ outside the centre of the frame is part of the "look" many people like. It directs the eyes more to the centre. Thats ok if you like that, but on a big screen the effect will be much stronger!

    So, I came to the conclusion thats its not worth to spend that much money and time (setup) and get myself into all the odds of using such an adapter (fokus?). I also can't find an adapter that will work with my Olympus 14-35mm as the front glas element is 70mm wide - all attachments will vignet on that lens. I will just mark the 2.35:1 frame on the display and cut it in post. That also allows to monitor things that might get into frame (like microphones,...) and re-frame in post if necessary.

    By the way, on professional film sets the director always has bigger frameing on his monitor. They use 16:9 display with the top and bottom part displaying darker to get the framing right and keep track of the surrounding.
  • http://www.btlnews.com/gear/panavision-50th-anniversaryhistory/ talks about history of Panavision whose life began with anamorphic lens. Just look at their logo. Anamorphic all over.
    image
    BTW panavision's Takuo "Tak" Miyagishima passed away on this Monday.

  • What's future for GH & anamorphic lens & hack? Something like this?

    Horizontal resolution exceeds 2560. Use hack to stretch 1920x1080 horizontally to 2560x1080. Use 1.33x anamorphic lens to stretch vertically?
  • @Psyco , very well said. 100% agreed, you explain my idea of this topic using much better words than I did : )
  • I guess there's two discussions at play here, whether you want a 'scope' look or specifically 'anamorphic' look. Filmmakers like Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino and many more weren't stupid when they chose to shoot certain movies in Super 35 (based on evaluating actually pretty similar pros/cons as in the 1st post), using spherical lenses and cropping for 2.4/1. Michael Ballhaus, maybe referring to Age of Innocence, even said he liked having the option of re-framing with the cropping! Inglourious Basterds in Panavision looks different than KIll Bill (S35), but not necessarily 'better', and I don't just mean in a "my Aunt Nancy would never notice watching on her plasma" kind of way. One thing anamorphic in 35 never brought to my mind, though, was 'soft'. Maybe in the diffusion crazy days of McCabe & Mrs. Miller and the like.... How any motion picture shooting on 35mm really relates to shooting on DSLRs and the like I'm not technically minded enough to wade real deep into, but the image-making essentials are the same and as such there's really no hard rule to follow, unless you're concern is purely in being "professional" over "artistic" (which is understandable). I don't personally love flares all over the place, but then you see Punch-Drunk Love or something, could understand going that way.... I just wanted to talk about my Aunt Nancy though......
  • Aunt Nancy is da bomb baby!!!

    @Psyco ,,,now that's what I'm talking about.
  • Does anamorphic lens make deeper DOF?

    Let's say... center crop on the processed image from anamorphic lens. Then compare it with the image with no anamorphic lens.

  • I'm a beginner in both video and anamorphic.

    I'd never buy an anamorphic over $350 since this is just a hobby.

    But since this is a hobby it has to be fun!

    So even though I constantly complain that my eiki 16f is so hard to focus and my generic century-type knockoff anamorphic could be sharper at the edges, I still use them because they are fun and have A different look.

    As for sharpness those cheap eiki, sankor type projector lenses are actually pretty sharp up to f2.8 edge to edge on the right lens.

    The century, soligor, and even the la 7200 will never be sharp at the edges simply because of the way light enters from more angles versus the sankors and eikis which have longer barrels and smaller front elements (this according to redstan)

    Here's a test video I shot with the generic century-type I have. I shot lots of trees and landscapes just to see how bad the edges were. They were bad but not to the point that you would say "thats SD crap!" (to my beginner eyes anyway)

    So if you're just a hobbyist like me and find one cheap enough you think you'll be able to resell for the same price go for one!

    If you're a pro then I guess spend the money on one of the $3000 ones on ebay since you're making money off of it anyway :D if you get tired of it resell it at a loss and charge it to the books and pay less taxes!

  • @stonebat, it seems to me they "make" shallower DOF in the same way full frame does versus crop sensors. You're taking the same lens/aperture and giving a wider field of view, so equivalent compositions (say shooting for a 2.4:1 crop on a spherical lens) require longer lenses, hence shallower.

    In actual practice, some of the lenses perform well only after f/4 or so, and anamorphic often lends itself to wider, more vista-like compositions where the focus is near infinity or at any rate more than a few inches from the lens. But once you get into close-ups it is very shallow.

  • @odedipax You meant wider lens would give equivalent composition which would give deeper DOF than anamorphic lens? Thanks.

  • @stonebax, yeah pretty much. With anamorphic you get the FOV equivalent (sort of, not exactly) of a wider lens with the DOF characteristics of a longer one.

  • I got it. Thanks!

  • Haha. Another nice work by Seb Farge. 16 / 9 * 1.75 = 3.1. So I guess it's 3.1:1 anamorphic :)