@slrmagic I don't get why anyone would want more than 1,35x.

Personally, I don't want to crop my footage. And above all I really don't want to lose THAT MUCH of resolution. This would be just nonsense. In this case the worsening wouldn't justify the betterment at all.

I totally vote for 1,33x or 1,35x. Anything more won't be interesting for me.

I agree with posters who favor a 1.5x anamorphic adapter designed as a replacement for the 1.5X ISCO adapters. As an example, the relatively inexpensive ISCO 1.5x Widescreen 2000 MC can often be found on ebay. This adapter can work without vignetting on prime lenses as wide as 28mm.

To work with lenses of wider focal lengths, the rear element of the anamorphic adapter needs to be enlarged. I would recommend designing the rear filter ring mount to fit lenses with a 72mm front filter ring.

You might also consider masking off 5% of the left and right vertical edges of the front element, eliminating the soft edges along with the excess frame width that would be cropped off anyway, to achieve the standard widescreen aspect ratio. Used on a 1920x1080 video camera, a 1.5x anamorphic adapter would need to be stretched horizontally in post-production to a 2880x1080 frame. This frame size would then need to be cropped by 5% on each side to produce a 2560x1080 frame for display on a compatible widescreen cinema monitor or projector. Here is an example of such a display:

http://www.philips.co.uk/c/televisions/cinema-219-gold-series-127-cm-50-inch-ultra-wide-screen-easy-3d-50pfl7956t_12/prd/;jsessionid=575BD040406CF3BDA7576E6FD2E6A08C.app102-drp3?t=specifications

@kholi that's the way of life haha.

@LPowell: why as wide as 72mm?

Funny story, kholi. :)

@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.

@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.

@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

@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/

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

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?

@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

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