Atlas Mercury 1.5X Full Frame Anamorphics
- Thread starter sleekmedia
- Start date
Grug
Veteran
What are people's thoughts from the sample footage?
I have to say (from the samples I've seen so far) the 1.5x squeeze seems to really stand out as a bit "neither-here-nor-there" in terms of rendering. Obviously it is (quite literally) half-way between a spherical lens and normal 2x squeeze, so I suppose that's to be expected.
The advantages in size/weight/close-focus are really nice to have, I'm just not sure they're worth it for the lost anamorphic character (compared to a conventional 2x squeeze).
I have to say (from the samples I've seen so far) the 1.5x squeeze seems to really stand out as a bit "neither-here-nor-there" in terms of rendering. Obviously it is (quite literally) half-way between a spherical lens and normal 2x squeeze, so I suppose that's to be expected.
The advantages in size/weight/close-focus are really nice to have, I'm just not sure they're worth it for the lost anamorphic character (compared to a conventional 2x squeeze).
i’m sort of with you, but at the same time, for 16:9 sensors, it is great.
Jojo Rabbit was shot under 2x’s, something like 1.5x’s squeeze
What i like about the 1.5x’s squeeze factor is that it has a beautiful inbetween sharp and soft. I might prefer 2x’s bokeh, but for sharpness and falloff, i think the 1.5x’s look amazing.
I just saw an ad for the Sirui anamorphics, and they tried to shoot it “anamorphicy” with a lot of shallow dof and lens flare work, and in that case, i think i 100% agree that the ~1.5 squeeze looks neither here nor there. I think if someone is going for the anamorphic look, then 2x’s is it. However, if used just to get full resolution into a 2.40 aspect ratio, then i think these lenses can look really good.
DustinSchmidt
Well-known member
I just bought a pair of the Mercury's (42 and 72) during their Black Friday promo.
I had considered a lot of the cheaper anamorphic options available but ultimately went with the Mercury's because it seemed like they had a lot less CA, were a bit sharper wide open than some of the other 1.5x options available, and the 1.5 squeeze kind of sits in a sweet spot for the cameras I own and the formats I deliver in.
Most of my clients aren't going to want a 2.39:1 deliverable, which I can get to without too much issue and a bit of cropping here and there, but from some early tests I can still get some nice anamorphic character for a lot of the in-between ratios I do export in.
Also, my primary set of cine primes are the Sigma's. They're great, clean and sharp, but don't have a whole lot of "character", so the Mercury's are a nice counterpoint for me.
I'll have to report back when I've been able to do more testing, but liking them so far.
42mm on Canon C500 II - 2.39:1 delivery.
I had considered a lot of the cheaper anamorphic options available but ultimately went with the Mercury's because it seemed like they had a lot less CA, were a bit sharper wide open than some of the other 1.5x options available, and the 1.5 squeeze kind of sits in a sweet spot for the cameras I own and the formats I deliver in.
Most of my clients aren't going to want a 2.39:1 deliverable, which I can get to without too much issue and a bit of cropping here and there, but from some early tests I can still get some nice anamorphic character for a lot of the in-between ratios I do export in.
Also, my primary set of cine primes are the Sigma's. They're great, clean and sharp, but don't have a whole lot of "character", so the Mercury's are a nice counterpoint for me.
I'll have to report back when I've been able to do more testing, but liking them so far.
42mm on Canon C500 II - 2.39:1 delivery.