anamorphic lenses

ollywood88

ollywood88

Well-known member
Hey all,

looking for new optics and going anamorphic for optical flares.

what are your suggestions? this is for my 60d

Thanks

Ollie
 
This is something I have already posted around here. It is not everything about anamorphics, just an introductive summary to give you an idea. I suggest that you read the anamorphic shootout thread.

I would classify anamorphic lenses into 3 large categories, depending on aspect ratio:

1) 1.33x anamorphic lenses. These lenses give you a cinemascope 2.39:1 aspect ratio starting from 16:9. Lenses in this category are the Panasonic LA7200, the Century Optics, the Soligor, the Optex etc. All of the above lenses are focus through, this means that you just need to focus your slr lens (there is no focus ring on the anamorphic) and you can use a follow focus. They also work nicely with wide lenses, which is often a problem with anamorphics. Therefore, they are very user friendly and much sought after.
The drawbacks of such lenses is that they often become blurry below f=5.6, and/or with telephoto lenses. So it gets difficult to shoot lowlight or shallow dof scenes.
However, I have found out that you can overcome such drawbacks by applying low power diopters in front of your lens. These enable you to shoot even wide open for lowlight or shallow dof (check my tests here http://vimeo.com/28327869 and here http://vimeo.com/28732484).

2) 1.5x anamorphic lenses. They give a 2.65:1 aspect ratio from 16:9 which is very cinematic. Lenses in this category are the Iscorama (also the Iscorama 36 or 42 or 54), and also some smaller 8mm anamorphots like the Bolex Moller anamorphot 8/19/1.5x. The $3000 Iscoramas are considered to be the holy grails of anamorphics. They are the only lenses where you set your taking lens to infinity and focus only with the Isco (you can use a follow focus on the Isco). Minimum focus distance is 6.5 ft so you need low power diopters to focus closer and shoot shallow dof. Sharpness is amazing from wide open. The smaller anamorphots are also very sharp, but need to be double focused, that is you focus both your slr lens and your anamorphic. It is a bit fiddly and you cannot pull focus, but in a controlled environment it works nicely, once you are used to it.

3) 2x anamorphic lenses give you an epic 3.56:1 aspect ratio from 16:9. Such ratio is good for some applications but I find it to be too extreme generally speaking, so you have to crop a bit on the sides to make it less wide. Lenses in this category are the Sankor 16F and 16D, the Kowa Prominar 16-H, 16d, 16c and 16a, the Proskar, the Singer, the Panavision Superama etc...
I consider all of these lenses to be similar in performance. Maybe the Kowa is the best in sharpness after the Iscorama. What may differ between lenses is the coating, that is the color of the flares they will give you (some are orangeish, some are blue, some are purple). All of the above lenses need to be dual focused (both taking lens and anamorphic), so you cannot rack focus and cannot use a follow focus. But once you get used to it, it becomes almost second nature (although not as simple as with a single focus lens, so it is less suited for run and gun filming).

As you may understand, there is no "perfect" anamorphic lens. They all have drawbacks, plus and minuses. You just need to figure out what is best suited for your needs.
You can check some of my tests with anamorphics here http://vimeo.com/22498245 and on my youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/Anamorphics
Hope this helps.
 
Depends on the lens.
On APS C, you can go down to 15mm on the Panasonic lens, and to 22mm with the Soligor (though there may be notable barrel distortion).
Most other anamorphic lenses do not vignette at 50mm or longer on APS C. On the Iscorama you can go down to 35mm, although it was conceived to work with 50mm or longer.

Consider that when using an anamorphic you multiply the horizontal field of view by the corresponding anamorphic factor. Therefore a 2x lens on 50mm is plenty wide since it gives an horizontal fov of a 25mm lens.
 
I really don't see wanting to use a 1.5x adapter....its 2.65:1, in my opinion its too much. I guess you can crop the edges to come back to cinescope but you would lose resolution that way no?

As far as the 1.33x adapters my issue with the panasonic would be the inability to use a real matte box with it. So i guess i's need a round one like the optex. What would you say is the best 1.33x outside of the la7200?

Also do you or does anyone know what the pro's do to get cinescope. I know there are many films we see in theatres and even tv show are shot on digital cinema cams that are 16:9 to start. George lucas cropped to get cinemascope on the starwars film.........but what are the others using when they film on something like the f35........also see it in the high end dslr films from guys like hurlbut/laforet......any thoughts?
 
Personally I prefer 1.5x anamorphic lenses anytime. They are by far sharper and more versatile, and for my taste 2.65:1 is just about right. You could even unstretch partially to 2.39:1 without notable distortion.
I also like a lot the quality and bokeh of 2x lenses but of course 3.56:1 is too much. Only solution is cropping.
Some argue that 1.33x lenses are similar to using a wider angle lens and cropping.
I have had several 1.33x and sold them all. The Panasonic is probably the best followed by the century optics and Optex
 
Good points, any knowledge of how the higher end projects aceive cinescope........anyways thank you for your input, are you saying outside of the unstreatching method that cropping Vertically (2.65:1 - 2.39:1) is better that cropping horizontally (16:9-2.39:1)

I mean what is your actual pixel resolution with an adapter as opposed to cropping at 16:9?
 
I guess that cinescope can be achieved either by just cropping vertically, or by shooting anamorphic, or a mixture of both.
What I intended regarding 1.5x lenses was that instead of changing the pixel aspect ratio to the exact one that ends up with a 2.65:1 ratio, to unstretch it only partially so that your final project is 2.39:1. You keep your original resolution, only your image will be stretched by a tiny amount (people will look a bit skinnier than what they are). I am just saying that this could be ok.
But anyway 2.65:1 is very close to 2.39:1 so I don't mind.
The reason I like 1.5x and 2x lenses is mainly the oval bokeh which is more pronounced with such lenses.
Also, if you are using anamorphic lenses it is better not to be a pixel peeper, because obviously you will loose some apparent sharpness. For me this is not a bad thing and just adds to the organic look. Also I have seen some projects shot on 2x lenses and cropped to 2.39:1 which were fantastic nonetheless and the loss of resolution didn't bother me at all.
 
I guess i was asking that if you shoot with the 1.5X, would your actual resolution be 2880 x 1080? if so then cropping down to 2559 x 1080 would be a lot better then vertically cropping a 1920 x 1080 image to 1920 x 810?........in other words if you maintain the horizontal resolution then cropping the vertical isnt an issue.....for isnt the horizontal rez what we measure everything by anyway?
 
Your numbers appear to be correct.
But both horizontal and vertical number of lines define resolution. So both are needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top