@ed_lee83

Your video is about 3.75:1.

To calibrate your anamorphic lens, photograph a perfect square or circle. (You can generate one on the computer.) Then stretch a single frame in an image program like FCP, AE or Photoshop until the image is correct. From the amount of stretch, you can work out the power of your lens.

@bleach551

Even though shooters still call it "235," modern anamorphic is 2.39:1. Check the wikiP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic

"from August 1993 (SMPTE 195-1993), slightly altered the dimensions so as to standardize a common aperture width (0.825-inch, or21.0 mm) for all formats, anamorphic and flat. At these modern dimensions, of 0.825 × 0.690 inch (21.0 × 17.5 mm), or 1.19:1, the unsqueezed ratio remains at 2.39:1.

Anamorphic prints are still often called Scope or 2.35 by projectionists, cinematographers, and others working in the field, if only by force of habit. 2.39 is in fact what they generally are referring to (unless discussing films using the process between 1958 and 1970). With the exception of certain specialist and archivist areas, generally 2.35, 2.39, and 2.40 mean the same to most professionals, whether they themselves are even aware of the changes or not."

@bleach551 - Unfortunately for 2X anamorphic lens users, digital video formats have evolved to strongly favor 1.33X anamorphic ratios. This started with the DVD anamorphic format, which squeezes an 854x480 square-pixel 16:9 video frame into a non-square-pixel 4:3 SD resolution of 720x480. The early 1.33X anamorphic adapters enabled NTSC DV camcorders to shoot in this 16:9 aspect ratio using 4:3 SD video tape. When these camcorders were upgraded to HDV resolution, the same 1.33X anamorphic ratio was hard-wired into their non-square-pixel 1440x1080 HDV tape formats. When unsqueezed by 1.33X, the 1440x1080 HDV format produces a standard 1920x1080 video frame.

Nowadays, 1.33X anamorphic adapters have been repurposed for use with modern camcorders that shoot at a native 16:9 aspect ratio. This produces a "21:9" (actually 64:27) aspect ratio that works out to exactly 2:37:1. This digitally-generated widescreen aspect ratio neatly bridges the discrepancy between the legacy 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 cinemascope frame sizes and provides a rationalized 2560x1080 widescreen standard for the future.

Given these standards, I think the most practical way to work with 2X anamorphic adapters on the GH1/GH2 is as follows:

1. Shoot in 4:3 MJPEG VGA 1920x810 anamorphic mode with a 2x anamorphic adapter.
2. In post, stretch the frame size to 2160x810, producing undistorted square pixels.
3. Crop the 2160x810 frame to 1920x810, producing a 2.37:1 aspect ratio.

For 1080p resolution on the GH2 only, I'd suggest the following 2X anamorphic workflow:

1. Shoot in 4:3 MJPEG VGA 1920x1080 anamorphic mode with a 2x anamorphic adapter.
2. In post, stretch the frame size to 2880x1080, producing undistorted square pixels.
3. Crop the 2880x1080 frame to 2560x1080, producing a 2.37:1 aspect ratio.

Looks like I need to go back to anamorphic school again.

@AdR Yeah thanks, I had thought I was shooting in 4:3 but turns I wasn't hence the wrong ratio. I've re-uploaded the way I usually export with a Lomo anamorphic 2x. Actually f*ck it, I don't really know what I'm doing.

@LPowell
1. So I should change the 480p setting in PTools to 1920x810? Is that stable?
2. Change my sequence setting (FCP) to 2880x1080
3. How do you mean by 'cropping' it? Exporting it as 2560x1080?

thanks everybody in advance for their guidance

of course, it is the same thing to shoot 16:9 in 1920x1080 AVCHD mode and only use 1440x1080 in post, stretching this out to 2.66:1. It is the same difference resolution-wise, correct?

(And not that I'm a lazy composer . . . quite the opposite . . . but you could technically take the 1440 out of the 1920 from somewhere other than the center of the image.)

you just have to have some method (even just a crude cutout over your screen) to show 1440 "safe" lines.

Thanks @LPowell

I'll test both methods and see which I prefer.

Anamorphic 35mm cinema lenses are 2x. The flares, bokeh and distorted blur all get their look from the strength of the optical "squeeze." To get the closest results to 'Scope, shoot like EOSHD recommends, then crop the 2.66:1 down to 2.39:1. You'll be getting the 2x optical qualities, but at the proper aspect ratio.

go for a Kowa or similar model. EOSHD can help you out. otherwise, the Century is much easier to use, but does not flare as nicely, and is a bit spendier.

A century optics anamorphic converter sold on E-Bay over the weekend for $749. Might possibly have been more except that the sale ended at 4 in the morning (pacific standard time). A few days earlier, an LA7200 sold for $770, which I thought was a bargain. Maybe it's just my impression, but people seem much more willing to shell out big bucks for the Panny/Century converters as opposed to the true anamorphic lenses. Maybe it's because of scarcity of the really nice, true anamorphics, or maybe it's that people perceive the Panny/Century option as much less of a headache to use. But I'm not sure that's accurate.

If all you want is to take full advantage of resolution, the LA7200 and Century are the best. They give you no-hassle wider aspect ratio without need for cropping or strange focus.

The LA7200 and Century optics lenses have a limited use for me, I only use them for wide angle landscape shots, you can't really get fast apertures or shallow DOF with them without close focus + diopter.

The look you get from a Kowa or Sankor is far superior for most filmmaking, but you cannot rack focus during a shot and they take longer to nail focus with. Locked off shots are doable fine.

The reason the Iscorama is so expensive is because it has the best aesthetics (LOMO aside) yet you can focus just the anamorphic, and it doesn't breathe like the LOMO OCT18s do.

@Mark_the_Harp

Normally it mean change of FOV during focusing.
Samyang 35mm has quite noticeable breathing, for example.

@B3Guy

Interesting thing is that according to guys who actually use pro cinema lenses many of them have breathing.

Also the less breathing you want the more complicated will be design, same for distortions.

Has anyone tried a 60p anamorphic setting for slow motion work?