@teamsleepkid maybe panasonic is reading this topic and they will ressurect the LA7200 or something similar... or the chinese manufacturers will come with something, chinese people are filling all untapped markets.

@matthere +1 I would easily accept to pay close to $1000 for a good 25mm 1.8x! It would fill a huge gap in many anamorphic shooters' arsenal.

@slrmagic et al.

Perhaps there is a third implementation solution - a hybrid between adapter and full prime lens. If the design were carefully considered, perhaps you could produce an anamorphic "adapter" block and a whole set of base lenses designed specifically to be used with it. That is, you could give them a bespoke mating system that ensures a secure and accurate fit, and design the optics of the primes and the anamorphic to be used together. Focus would be omitted from either the prime or adapter and controlled from the other (either because all the focus operations are contained in one of the two parts, or because both parts are mechanically linked).

If it were possible, this sort of design would carry some of the advantages of each of the others - it would greatly ameliorate mounting troubles, but unlike with a set of monoblock primes, it would mean that the expensive anamorphic block would only have to be purchased once and could be used on multiple focal lengths.

And if people really want to be able to use the anamorphic block with their own base lenses, you could make and adapter for the anamorphic block to give it screw threads of the desired size.

Now that said, I don't actually know anything about optics or manufacturing, so I have no idea if what I suggest is possible. As far as I know it hasn't ever been done before. I think it's worth thinking about, though.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/emboschma/5624826676/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/emboschma/5405077806/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/emboschma/5624827104/

I did some research about the LA7200 and i found it is possible to develop the adapter to be used with the 14mm 2.5 / 20mm 1.7 / 45mm 1.8 / 14-42mm 3.5-5.6 / and vintage nikon / canon fd lenses from 20 to 85mm

the LA7200 optical design is not perfect, it was designed for standard definition where aberrations are not so pronounced, there are barrel distortion, chromatic aberration, softness in corners, an adapter for GH2 need better optical formula, but its aproach in IQ is very good and it is not to much heavy.

The block idea is interesting. Problem is an anamorphic attachment has really only one focal length prime lens with which it matches. Take the iscos or the kowas as examples. They are really only designed to work with a "normal" lens (roughly a 50mm full frame equivalent). Go wider and you get cutoff at the sides. Go narrower and the taking lens is only using the center portion of the anamorphic, thus not getting the full stretch of the adapter. This problem might be deminished somewhat by a block mating system that has say three primes in it. A wide, maybe around 35mm ff, that mates closest to the anamorphic, the medium or 50 mm ff, that mates somewhat back from that, and a tele or 85mm ff, that mounts still further away. In other words, the outermost edge of the tele is further back from the back portion of the anamorphic than the other two. The outermost edge of the wide would be the closest, right up against the anamorphic rear element. The normal length would be somewhere between them.

A rear anamorphic element would be needed for a zoom. But that gets complicated fast.

Overall, you want the anamorphic elements to be as wide at the rear as possible and as short in depth as possible.

A 1.5x or weaker 50mm (in the vertical) anamorphic is not a wide enough horizontal FOV after cropping to get 2.39:1 to be especially attractive. Too many headaches both during and after shoot. Shooting anamorphic is hard enough as it is -- light loss, focusing, stability, etc. Best to pair a 1.5x with a wide lens, 40mm ff equivalent or wider.

If you need tight shots just move in. But watch out you don't catch the mumps.

Another reason for 1.5x: if 4:3 video ever returns to the masses, the 1.5x will result, uncropped, in a 2.0:1 aspect ratio. 2.0:1 is a good choice because all other aspect ratios can be extracted from it. As sensor resolutions increase in density, this will provide the most flexibility.

Here, from Red, for what it's worth:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-60740.html

@JosiahSjostrom

There's nothing logical about reviving an analogue techique developed in the 1950s to distinguish movies from TV to the digital age. it's a backwards step and makes no sense from a digital perspective. it's pure fetsh.

I don't know much about crop ratio's or anamorphic lenses in general, so I have been abstaining from voting, but IF it matters at all, Whatever ratio this is gets my vote:

I've seen some SUPER wide stuff, and I love it for composition but I understand that it's too wide for most people to want to watch on computer/television. Whatever the ratio Seb Farges used in that video is perfect IMHO. I can see myself cropping it wider if i need to, or punching in 5% and getting a more "normal" look.

I really think this offers the best of both worlds. Cheers.

I know most the talk here has been about how to achieve a specific anamorphic look, but I will take the approach of explaining my intended applications and leave to @slrmagic to find the best solution.

I often shoot wide. I do not just mean focal length, I mean framing. My work is a combination of video, stills and timelapse and while I use a variety of cameras, the GH2 gets called on to handle all of the above. On my APS-C bodies, I routinely employ 10mm (16mm FF equivilent FOV) either for master shots or at a distance from actors (not to get a distorted "fun-house" effect). Good infinity focus is very important.

My most common subjects are nature scnes and night scenes, often with a very wide vista that could fill a wide FOV. For the twilight and night shots, F2.8 or faster is required in order to avoid having to boos ISO or switch out of movie shutter speeds to timelapse.

Due to relative inexperience with anamorphics, the simpler the setup, the better.

Prices in the $400 to $1,200 range are of the most interest. On the topic of squeeze ratios, I defer to those with greater experience for the time being.

With thatv in mind, I hope that whatever solution you come up with is fast aperture, simple and 25mm or wider, but I have no comments on build approach as long as IQ is of sufficient quality.

@010101

Not only have I seen 2X anamorphic, I shoot with it 90% of the time at this point. It can be however wide you want it to be, just crop the sides off. People get extremely concerned about "loss" of resolution, but honestly, because you still have full vertical resolution, it hides the loss really well. I watched a ton of footage before I even bought my anamorphic, and (this is just my personal take on things) the 1.33X LA7200/Century/Optex look downright crappy unless you're stopped down or have an expensive diopter (which disables infinity focus). What's more, they don't really give you much the anamorphic "look", so they're really just a deep DOF way to change aspect ratio.

And just an FYI, at least with my Kowa, 2X is the extreme end of the squeeze factor. Most often, I'm desqueezing by 1.8X, and when shooting closeups of actors to get their faces to look natural, I desqueeze almost at 1.5X. Desqueezing seems to be a bit of an inexact science.

I still say 2x squeeze to match my 16h b&h,16c and panavision lenses. If an adapter is the way these are being made, it needs to stay around a few hundred dollars. If prime anamorphic are made if they can cover other bodies besides the m4/3 i would be willing to pay alot more. I shoot on other bodies besides the gh2 and don't want to be limited to using it just on gh2

@JosiahSjostrom , That is a great anamorphic sequence. I have been away from GH1/2 hack for a while ( blame the FS100 ). Could you name the 4:3 hack you used or provide a link. I think it's the time to dust off those old Kowa X2s again.

I think the block design is very viable, and perhaps it should not be so complicated at all! Check out Lomo anamorphics for ideas about this. I think the squarefronts were designed with this in mind, and the taking lenses were equipped with a special mount in front. I don´t know if they altered any optical schemes to accomodate the anamorphics though. I think not as the taking lenses seem like the usual optical blocks in a different housing.

1. Decide on the wide maximum that the anamorphic adapter block should be capable of and design it to fit with that.
2. Design the wide lens to go with it. Now, design two lenses which are of longer focal length. As long as the focal plane of the first lens is reproduced, it will act like it is merely cropping the first image. Focal plane and close focusing properties of the taking lens is crucial to the performance of the whole package.

The idea by @jackdoerner that you can only get one anamorphic attachment to go with the lineup makes financial sense for many. Some might spend more and have the whole set and anamorphic attachments for each.