Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    58
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Zak Forsman View Post
    Interesting that these give you the expanded horizontal field of view of a shorter focal length with the defocus properties of a longer one that you expect from anamorphic lenses, but they retain a circular bokeh like a spherical lens.

    Doesn't this basically mean that the look is similar if not identical to using spherical lenses on a larger format - or faster spherical lenses on a small format? I just don't understand how the extra expense of rear anamorphics is justified since classic anamorphic artifacts such as elliptical bokeh are absent.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Gross View Post
    Anamorphic doesn't just have to be used for sweeping landscapes and epic moviemaking. A couple of old favorites in the format are The Apartment and Spirit of St. Louis, which were both rather purposefully claustrophobic films.
    I was being facetious. ;) Considering the comments about 'circular bokeh', I felt like stirring the pot.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member stoneinapond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,346
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by brianc1959 View Post
    Doesn't this basically mean that the look is similar if not identical to using spherical lenses on a larger format - or faster spherical lenses on a small format? I just don't understand how the extra expense of rear anamorphics is justified since classic anamorphic artifacts such as elliptical bokeh are absent.
    Anamorphic lenses produce a different image to spherical lenses that is not negated by the absence of oval bokeh. The final IQ from an anamorphic lens is different from merely cropping a spherical capture. If you haven't already, you should check out the YouTube clip that follows the one above, where a Zeiss lens is thrown in for comparison.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Central NY
    Posts
    2,232
    Default
    The Scorpio don't seem to flare very much when a highlight is present. Hard to be definitive about quality from the Youtube, but they certainly look good.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    lOwEr CaSe Member ryan brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,492
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by stoneinapond View Post
    If you haven't already, you should check out the YouTube clip that follows the one above, where a Zeiss lens is thrown in for comparison.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPnVKEnpg9U


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    6,643
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ryan brown View Post
    I agree that this comparison video shows what I find most interesting about anamorphic photography. Those that don't get it only look for the "flaws" of the image such as oval booked, heavy field curvature and horizontal flaring to give a look of anamorphic. But to me anamorphic is about the spatial dynamics and sense of depth. There is a far greater compression of the frame that comes with shooting with what is effectively a longer focal length lens. I like the shot at night with the guy holding the flashlight for this. He feels much closer to the girl when he appears thanks to the compression of depth in the image. It looks like it was shot in 65mm. To me that's what anamorphic is about. I tend to avoid the obvious artifacting in the image anyway.

    Stuff like flare & oval booked is like a post program that creates a "film look" by adding phony dirt and emulsion scratches to the image. They just don't get what we actually like about the image.
    Mitch Gross
    Cinema Product Manager
    Panasonic System Solutions Company


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    58
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by stoneinapond View Post
    Anamorphic lenses produce a different image to spherical lenses that is not negated by the absence of oval bokeh. The final IQ from an anamorphic lens is different from merely cropping a spherical capture. If you haven't already, you should check out the YouTube clip that follows the one above, where a Zeiss lens is thrown in for comparison.
    I had watched the clip, and with respect to those who feel differently I still think it supports what I stated - namely that rear anamorphics look no different than spherical lenses shot on a larger format, or spherical lenses shot on a similar small format with a faster aperture. I agree that the Zeiss images look different, but the main difference I was able to see was a deeper DOF for the Zeiss, presumably due to a smaller entrance pupil diameter. Other differences were due to variations in camera position and subject since it wasn't a controlled test. The Hawk images look obviously different because of the distortion and front anamorphic artifacts.

    Of course, its completely possible that I missed something, and just need to have it pointed out to me. I'm certainly open to being convinced that rear anamorphics really do produce an image that can't be reproduced with spherical lenses, but it would help to see a carefully done comparison with still images of an identical subject shot at an identical pupil diameter etc..


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Greater LA
    Posts
    159
    Default
    Wait what? People "don't get it" just because they see, not flaws, but different characteristics of the format than you? Easy Mitch, sounding just a tad bit elitist on that one...


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Director of Photography
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,606
    Default
    I would have been much more interested in the comparison video had they used Master Primes instead of Ultra's, at least attempting to match the depth-of-field characteristic.

    It's a little hard to know what aspect of anamorphic is creating the current interest. There is the aspect of vintage lenses and the flaring/oval highlights/distortion that is part of the anti-digital look. And as Mitch mentions, the telephoto compression. But as we move towards larger sensors, the latter will happen anyway (one gets that now with a full-frame camera), so I'm not quite sure what the true advantage of modern anamorphic lenses will be down the road. We don't need them in the same way that they were originally intended, since we have plenty of resolution for projection.
    Charles Papert
    charlespapert.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    6,643
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by brianc1959 View Post
    I had watched the clip, and with respect to those who feel differently I still think it supports what I stated - namely that rear anamorphics look no different than spherical lenses shot on a larger format, or spherical lenses shot on a similar small format with a faster aperture. I agree that the Zeiss images look different, but the main difference I was able to see was a deeper DOF for the Zeiss, presumably due to a smaller entrance pupil diameter. Other differences were due to variations in camera position and subject since it wasn't a controlled test. The Hawk images look obviously different because of the distortion and front anamorphic artifacts.

    Of course, its completely possible that I missed something, and just need to have it pointed out to me. I'm certainly open to being convinced that rear anamorphics really do produce an image that can't be reproduced with spherical lenses, but it would help to see a carefully done comparison with still images of an identical subject shot at an identical pupil diameter etc..
    To step it back a bit: YES, these images look like a spherical lens on a larger format. That doesn't just mean shallower depth of field characteristics. It also has to do with depth cues and spatial dynamics. It is a different look and not something that can simply be recreated with an aperture adjustment. Now whether you like this or not or if it is particularly of value to you in your photography is a different matter.
    Mitch Gross
    Cinema Product Manager
    Panasonic System Solutions Company


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •