@jackdoerner and everyone else.

We were not interested to make a 2X lens before for a few reasons.

1) 1.33X lenses are expensive and we want to make it affordable 2) 1.5X is already far from our original consideration. 2.66:1 ration however is still acceptable 3) 3.55:1 ratio is a joke and we DID consider it silly at one point

However, after all we have read we are convinced 1.35X for cropping convenience is not the point since we want to go for the anamorphic look. 1.35X has much better IQ than 1.5X and 2X but sometimes we go for feel an not the best possible IQ. Anamorphic was meant to be 2X to give that extreme look. The new 16:9 format does not translate well after 2X but regardless the recording format is 1:1 or 4:3 or 3:2, or 16:9 anything less than 2X will be less than the original anamorphic look. As so many effects such as horizontal flare, oval bokeh, 2.35:1 can be done in post the only thing that cannot be done in post is the dramatic anamorphic look. If we need to crop 1.5X then it is not much of an extra job compared to cropping a 2X squeeze footage. We shoot anamorphic for a reason and post production is worth it if we want that certain look so dealing with 3.55:1 is worth the extra work. If we want convenience with 1.33X on 16:9 it is not much different from using a 0.7x wide angle adapter.

It seems 1.33X should be out of the question for the reasons above and 2X should be the way to go. Anyone on the same page as I am or we still in disagreement?

Kind rgds., Andrew

@slrmagic Here's my ideal widescreen workflow compatible with both 2K DCI and Blu-ray release formats:

1. Shoot in 1080p24 mode with a 1.5x anamorphic.

2. In post, stretch horizontally out to a 2048 frame width (DCI spec).

3. Squeeze vertically down to an 810 frame height (both DCI and Blu-ray).

4. Letterbox out to a 2048x1080 frame size (DCI spec).

5. Crop to a 1920x1080 frame size (Blu-ray spec).

This workflow preserves the full resolution of the 2K master without losing any image quality or screen height in the Blu-ray release. With attention to framing, the slight horizontal crop of the Blu-ray release is negligible.

In some of the emails I received, the 2x and 1.5x are more desirable because the anamorphic stretch mode is an available option on most monitors. 2x is more desirable than 1.5x because it is what anamorphic should be like and it is in-camera native option for 2x in Red Epic and Scarlet and most other cameras supporting anamorphic setting.

As for wastage vs anamorphic feel it is a subjective matter. It is just like saying the sports car waste gas even when cruising but the point of it is not the wastage part. Or the 0.87 Carat diamond is just the same as 1 Carat but to some 1.03 Carat makes more sense as 1 Carat than 0.87 even when that extra bit cost a whole lot more.

Not my opinions. Just emails I received.

Kind rgds., Andrew

@slrmagic, I started reading this thread with strong opposition to X2 squeeze. That was with the consideration to 16x9 being the most common format for HD these days. Without cropping this combination creates 3.55:1 which is unusually too wide for any taste. On the other hand X1.3 squeeze doesn't provide a significant anamorphic bokeh and the rest of characteristics of anamorphic visuals. At this point I think an acceptable compromise would be the X1.5 squeeze. We will enjoy a moderate anamorphic visuals and the 2.66:1 which is beautiful format. Also 2.66:1 require less cropping to get to the academy standards. For the FOV I think we all tend to be attracted to as wide as possible. So on an average s35 imager it would be great if we get a 17mm-28mm adapter. The close focus could be enhanced with diopter doublet achromats.

@slrmagic

In reply to your emailer (I understand that their opinion is not yours), wastage is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of math. Different amounts of wastage may be acceptable to different people and for different applications, but it can be measured and objectively quantified, and (all other things being equal) less wastage produces objectively higher image quality, which is important in many applications. I will admit, however, that sacrifices in absolute image quality are sometimes desirable for the sake of art. Only heartless pixel peepers and Zeiss engineers would deny that.

I'll chime in one more time here, but I feel I'm beating a dead horse. 1.33x lenses are glorified aspect ratio changers, not anamorphic lenses created with the intention of simulating cinema anamorphics.

To those who keep bashing 2x lenses for their "resolution loss", I ask, have you ever used a 2x lens the way it was intended (that is, maintaining 1080p vertical resolution and stretching it out horizontally)? It looks gorgeous, even when cropped to 2560x1080. The retention of 1080 vertical lines brilliantly hides the loss of horizontal resolution. But if you're squeezing your footage down to 1920x810, yes. It will look lower res. (I've even done experiments upscaling anamorphic GH2 footage to 4K and then applying a 4K grain overlay effect. It holds up. If there's one thing the GH2 couldn't have much more of, its resolving power.)

@slrmagic If you're going to make an anamorphic, it ought to have at minimum a 1.5x squeeze factor, but something closer to 2x would be better.

If you want to make a 1.33x, that's fine, but I have a suspicion that unless it has some form of oval aperture, people who are after an "anamorphic look" won't be particularly interested. You'd instead be catering to those who want to change aspect ratios without loosing any resolution (which is a tricky thing to try and do. 1.33x Anamorphics aren't exactly known for their ability to resolve detail.)

P.S. in order of importance from most to least for me personally: 1. Out of focus stretch 2. Usability and sharpness at wide apertures 3. Wider than 35mm 4. Flares 5. Mount other than m4/3 and APS-C image circle. (I love GH2, but I won't be using it forever. EF-s lenses are adaptable to lots of stuff, M4/3 lenses are adaptable to almost nothing else. Be wise and widen your market with a longer FFD lens mount. GH2 users will just have to gasp use an adapter.)

From what we have read here it seems we have decided 2x is good for 4:3 and 1.5x is good for 16:9 in terms of look and not loosing too much information/pixels

A our primary goal is to provide a solution for 16:9 HD shooting we need to choose a squeeze 1.5X or more to achieve the anamorphic look. As 1.5X and 2X are standard for most HDMI LCD screens it makes sense we do not choose a format in-between. 2X with a crop is good on a 60" LED/Plasma screen viewing but many feel it is not good for large screen cinema viewing for those with a purpose of putting their work for cinema display and 1.5X is the best compromise between IQ and Anamorphic feeling.

We will see what we can do about it =D

Thanks all for the suggestions!

Kind rgds., Andrew

I think 2x will hurt IQ when shotting 16:9 and crop for 2.4:1 Main reason people choose GH2 over other cameras is the IQ, so a large crop will decrease resolution and increase softness so much.

This is why i vote for 1.33x, but if the anamorphic oval bokeh look is a must so the 1.5x is the best option between crop amount/anamorphic look. Maybe the 1.5x can Keep a good IQ and a good aproach to the oval defocus when shooting 16:9 to get from 2.35:1 to 2.4:1

the following link shows a filter using the oval shape pupil, i know this is not what anamorph hungry people wants but my idea is to mix the 1.33x with some oval shape pupil in the adapter to get the oval look and the best IQ, take a look:

http://www.vid-atlantic.com/cinemorphic.html

A simple and inexpensive test it to cut some oval pupils in different sizes and put them between the LA7200 and the lens and see what happens. the oval pupil filters can be made in different pupil sizes and can be a removable acessory for the anamorphic adapter.

@christianhubbard @Vitaliy_Kiselev

With the 2.3 digital multiplier ratio it seems our 12mm T1.6 lens is a good offering for that system as it would give 28mm (35mm Equiv) field of view.

If we make some lenses considering the BMC as they mentioned it has a passive mFT mount only should we go wider or longer? Is there anything missing in the range? When we asking about the 12mm T1.6 before people said do not make a 17.5mm because there is already a 20mm f/1.7 lens and no one would buy our lens. We have 12mm covered and it seems there is a 11-16mm and 17.5mm already. Is there still something missing in the range? @Vitaliy_Kiselev can we open a new topic for that?

Sorry, what I was talking about when referring to an oval iris is THE aperture . . . the adjustable aperture within the lens, not some ghetto-rigged oval cutout.

I see no logical reason why it would not be possible to make a functioning oval iris. It should be perfectly possible (if not as a fluid aperture, then certainly the blades could be machined in such a way as to be oval at each stop).

@slrmagic I don't have CAD software, or i'd try to design one myself as example of feasibility. If you've got CAD software and a smart fellow, set him to the task for an afternoon and see what he comes up with. Better yet, hand it to an intern ;)