Anamorphic lens- worth it?

S

seher

New member
Hello Everyone,

I'm currently producing a low budget short film that we hope to eventually enter into film festivals throughout the country. We're trying to figure out if buying the anamorphic adapter would be worth it in regards to the improvement in quality for showing on the big screen compared to the built-in letterbox mode on the camera. Given our very modest budget, would we do just as well to use the method that disjecta detailed instead? Any advice is appreciated.
 
If you letterbox and use the adapter you could practically get 2.35 to 1. The letterbox mode loses vertical res, but gives pretty much the same quality with out all the problems that come about with the animorphic lens. I am not positive, but I think it creates a lot of problems with the zoom and focusing. I heard that I turns the lens into a prime lens so you probably should get a dolly track if you are gonna get one, I wouldn't get the adapter.
 
On paper, the anamorphic lens is fully zoom-through; as a practical matter you'll be limited to roughly z25-z75. Anything under z25 and barrel distortion becomes a problem; over z75 and you have to crank the aperture down so far that in anything other that direct sunlight the camera is useless. You also lose at least one stop of sensitivity with the extra glass on the front.

The lens has it's place and can be a useful tool, and those characteristic anamorphic lens flares are simply beautiful. But it adds a lot of extra work to a production, and for most cases it isn't needed. A little bit of resolution isn't going to make an otherwise awesome film get called "crap".

I really only break mine out for narrative projects with a planned A/R of 2.35. I don't use the letterbox trick; I prefer to mask in post, that way I can fine tune framing.

O a modest budget, that $900+ dollars would be much better spent and would be much more noticeable somewhere else, like lighting or sound gear.
 
Yeah, the anamorphic adapter made sense back before there was a "squeeze mode", but nowadays it's usually more trouble than it's worth. It can make the sharpest 16:9 footage if you need that, but the convenience of squeeze is just so much nicer. The anamorphic has a lot of limitations.
 
Thanks a lot for the info everyone, I knew this would be the place to ask. The conversation actually came up because my director was reading your book and called me frantic saying ""Oh god, are we going to need this lens?" He's very concerned with it looking the best it can when put up on the big screen but from m reading the price/improvement ratio didn't seem to make it worth the money, especially considering we're running two DVX100Bs. And I agree with you anchoryanker, I'd rather put the money into better sound gear (which is a debate for another thread).
 
Well, here's the thing: if you want it to look its absolute best on the big screen, you have to determine where your budget draws that line. An HVX200 is going to look way, way better (WAY) better than a DVX100 with anamorphic adapter. And an HPX2000 is going to look way better than the HVX200. And an HPX3000 or Red One is going to look way better than any of them.

So, obviously, at some point you have to draw the line as to how much quality you need, vs. what you will spend. The straight DVX can look fine on the big screen (witness the multiple academy award nominations and Sundance "best cinematography" awards that straight DVX films have earned). Personally, if I had the choice of DVX+anamorphic, or HVX, I'd go HVX in a heartbeat. While the anamorphic does produce the sharpest 16:9 that you can get from a DVX, it really is a hassle to work with and for the hassle factor alone, I think squeeze mode is usually the better option.
 
anchoryanker said:
On paper, the anamorphic lens is fully zoom-through; as a practical matter you'll be limited to roughly z25-z75. Anything under z25 and barrel distortion becomes a problem; over z75 and you have to crank the aperture down so far that in anything other that direct sunlight the camera is useless. You also lose at least one stop of sensitivity with the extra glass on the front.
Click to expand...

I noted the barrel distortion the first time I tried it on my camera. It really Pi$$ed me off that I wasted $900 on something that solved one problem but added new ones. Still, for some shots, it does work quite well, as long as you stay away from both ends of your zoom range. But, I would not recommend it.
 
grjohnson said:
I noted the barrel distortion the first time I tried it on my camera. It really Pi$$ed me off that I wasted $900 on something that solved one problem but added new ones. Still, for some shots, it does work quite well, as long as you stay away from both ends of your zoom range. But, I would not recommend it.
Click to expand...

On my last narrative project we ended up deliberately introducing barrel distortion into one scene for artistic reasons. The scene was shot in a famous, rickety, Mississippi Delta juke joint (Po' Monkey's) so we ended up going full wide to accentuate just how run down and shoddy the place is, using the barrel distortion to make the interior look even more crooked and warped .

Overall, for a micro-budget I think the money would be better spent in other areas(the aforementioned lighting/sound/production gear) while a budget that could actually afford to splurge on an adapter would be able to afford better cameras anyway.
 
On Poo-Poo'ing

On Poo-Poo'ing

I would say it’s probably due to the tight budgets of DV productions (time equals money and if you spend time getting the shot right with the ana-lens you are either losing money or causing someone else to spend more. But more than likely it is a combination of lack of experience working with motion picture cameras and lenses and pure laziness.

If a DVX user cannot afford to purchase a lens, that’s one thing. To tell someone not to buy it just because it’s a pain to work with? I can’t bite that one. A camera operator should have as many tools in his/her kit as possible to accommodate any possible shooting situation or needs of a potential client. My ana-lens paid for itself on the first shoot a client requested 16:9.

So if you can afford it (and there are pre-owned options available), get it and use it as often as possible and like any other tool, the more you use it, the more proficient you’ll get using it.
 
massmusic said:
I would say it’s probably due to the tight budgets of DV productions (time equals money and if you spend time getting the shot right with the ana-lens you are either losing money or causing someone else to spend more. But more than likely it is a combination of lack of experience working with motion picture cameras and lenses and pure laziness.

If a DVX user cannot afford to purchase a lens, that’s one thing. To tell someone not to buy it just because it’s a pain to work with? I can’t bite that one. A camera operator should have as many tools in his/her kit as possible to accommodate any possible shooting situation or needs of a potential client. My ana-lens paid for itself on the first shoot a client requested 16:9.

So if you can afford it (and there are pre-owned options available), get it and use it as often as possible and like any other tool, the more you use it, the more proficient you’ll get using it.
Click to expand...

Considering that we have an Emmy-award winning producer/director (Barry Green) in this thread discussing the limitations of the anamorphic adapter, I hardly think that a"combination of lack of experience working with motion picture cameras and lenses and pure laziness" is the reason.

I have an anamorphic lens that I use often and love, but the fact is that at 900 bucks it is overpriced. That 900 bucks would make a far bigger impact when spent on lighting/audio gear shooting squeeze mode in the dvx than spent on the anamorphic adapter alone. The cost/benefit ratio simply isn't there.

I've been using the anamorphic lens regularly for over 2 years, and while I appreciate some of it's attributes I also recognize the fact that it has some limitations that may not make it the best choice for alot of situations. It's not perfect, but it's not crap either, just be mindful of the drawbacks.

I'm not saying don't buy it, just that the money would go a lot farther if spent in different areas. You'll get alot more bang for your buck with some good lighting/audio/production gear that you would spending the coin for a small increase in vertical resolution.
 
bilgami said:
why do ppl poopoo on the ana lens? is it cuz the focusing is difficult?
Click to expand...

reading is fundamental.

In this thread, we have discussed in detail the pros and cons of the anamorphic lens, please read the earlier posts so that someone doesn't have to condense and regurgitate them for you.

ETA: What the hell, I'll go ahead and do it for you.

Drawbacks:
Barrel distortion
loss of 1 stop of sensitivity
practically limited to z25-z75
much trickier focusing

Advantages:
Increase in vertical resolution
really attractive characteristic anamorphic lens flares.


The question being discussed in this thread is not "does the anamorphic lens increase the resolution" but instead is "is the anamorphic lens a sensible investment, or would my money be better spent elsewhere?"

The answer to the first question is undoubtedly yes, the answer to the second in my opinion as an owner and user of an anamorphic lens is that the money would be spent much more wisely in different areas that would provide a much better bang for the buck.
 
Last edited:
Out of the eight posts prior to Bilgami’s question, two were from the Emmy-award winning producer/director you mentioned. The remaining eight can still fall in the area of lack of experience and ANYONE, even Oscar winners can be lazy. And yes, I know some.

I agree with you in principal that the weakest areas of a camera package should be addressed prior to purchasing an expensive extra. That’s as senseless as buying a Blu-Ray player with your electric bill money after getting a shut off notice. But if the bills are paid, and ya got some extra.....save for a HVX?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top