So I've been looking at the Atlas B Series anamorphic lenses. I have a C300 III and Canon includes a 2x and 1.3x desqueeze for anamorphic lenses on that camera. However, I recently read on Wolfcrow's website that the C300 III cannot do true anamorphic due to the smaller sensor height. He states that the sensor needs to span at least 21.95mm x 18.6mm. Why does Canon even include these options if it can't even shoot true anamorphic? And how does the GH5, a micro 4/3rds camera with a sensor even smaller than the C300 III, can shoot true anamorphic and the C300 III can't?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Canon C300 III Sensor Size and Anamorphic. So CoNfUsEd.
- Thread starter robotfist
- Start date
digitalinnovations
Well-known member
I’m sure someone else can chime in with more technically accurate information but I don’t think the actual physical size of the sensor matters - it’s the proportions / ratio of the sensor that provides the “correct” anamorphic ratios.
The sensor size (4/3, S35, or FF) only affects the crop-factor or coverage of the lenses you’re using not the aspect ratio of capture. Resolution (4K, 6K, 8K, etc.) does not play a role other than meeting what’s necessary for your deliverables.
Over the years, I’ve shot 16x9 footage in everything from 480 to 720 to 1080 to 4K to 6K to 8K and on sensors from 1/2” to Vista Vision but it’s all still the 16x9 aspect ratio.
That said, a lot of people shoot anamorphic on a wide variety of 16x9 / 17x9 sensor cameras and then reframe in post to bring the footage into a “correct” aspect ratio for delivery. You just have to do the maths to sort that out based on your camera / sensor dimensions.
The sensor size (4/3, S35, or FF) only affects the crop-factor or coverage of the lenses you’re using not the aspect ratio of capture. Resolution (4K, 6K, 8K, etc.) does not play a role other than meeting what’s necessary for your deliverables.
Over the years, I’ve shot 16x9 footage in everything from 480 to 720 to 1080 to 4K to 6K to 8K and on sensors from 1/2” to Vista Vision but it’s all still the 16x9 aspect ratio.
That said, a lot of people shoot anamorphic on a wide variety of 16x9 / 17x9 sensor cameras and then reframe in post to bring the footage into a “correct” aspect ratio for delivery. You just have to do the maths to sort that out based on your camera / sensor dimensions.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Anamorphics compress the image in the horizontal axis so you can 'fit' 'more' horizontal view for a given lens MM focal length. Anamorphic lenses compress by 1.33 (the least) up to 2 (the most)
You stretch it back in post.
The classic anamorphic 2x at 50 will delivery the DOF of a 50 and FOV of a 25 which is considered to be very very cool. (25 = 50x1/2)
The higher the stretch number the taller the out of focus elipses (bokeh ovals) become.
With a 1.33 lens you dont get deeply distorted bokeh ovals or a huge drop in DOF, just a factor of 1.33 - less sexy but still nice
----
16:9* (canon and other s35 chips) X 1.33lens= 2.35 deliver ration which is a nice size with a 1.33 anamorhic lens
16:9 * 2 = 32*9 is too wide for typical viewing, chop 40% off of this to get back to 2.35 and you have knackered your resolution by throwing away 40|% of pixels
4.3 * 2 = 8 x3 is a sexy ratio and if you have a 4.3 chip will involve throwing no resolution away
basically 16:9 chips work best with 'not very anamorphic 1.33x' lenses which dont deliver a full oval bokeh with an aspect of 2:1 just an oval of 1.33-1 - not very oval.
4:3 chip cameras deliver full bokeh and you dont crp off any pixels.
of course you can shoot 4:3 on a c300 by cropping off 30% of the resolution (the side) and that will deliver a great 3k anamorphic image maaybe not with a very wide field of view.
you will need to understand image circle. and how chip size affects FOV for a fixed mm of lens.
I dont think canon 'desqueeze' on onboard monitors or output feeds..so you will need to film viewing an odd aspect ratio or get an external monitor with anamorphic desqueeze as a spec.
easy.
*16:9 or 17:9 depending on shooting mode. all my maths above is rough.
1.33 anamorphic is the highest quality file for a 16:9 sensor delivering to a 2:35 client as you dont obscure image (and lose pixels) with 'black bars'
You stretch it back in post.
The classic anamorphic 2x at 50 will delivery the DOF of a 50 and FOV of a 25 which is considered to be very very cool. (25 = 50x1/2)
The higher the stretch number the taller the out of focus elipses (bokeh ovals) become.
With a 1.33 lens you dont get deeply distorted bokeh ovals or a huge drop in DOF, just a factor of 1.33 - less sexy but still nice
----
16:9* (canon and other s35 chips) X 1.33lens= 2.35 deliver ration which is a nice size with a 1.33 anamorhic lens
16:9 * 2 = 32*9 is too wide for typical viewing, chop 40% off of this to get back to 2.35 and you have knackered your resolution by throwing away 40|% of pixels
4.3 * 2 = 8 x3 is a sexy ratio and if you have a 4.3 chip will involve throwing no resolution away
basically 16:9 chips work best with 'not very anamorphic 1.33x' lenses which dont deliver a full oval bokeh with an aspect of 2:1 just an oval of 1.33-1 - not very oval.
4:3 chip cameras deliver full bokeh and you dont crp off any pixels.
of course you can shoot 4:3 on a c300 by cropping off 30% of the resolution (the side) and that will deliver a great 3k anamorphic image maaybe not with a very wide field of view.
you will need to understand image circle. and how chip size affects FOV for a fixed mm of lens.
I dont think canon 'desqueeze' on onboard monitors or output feeds..so you will need to film viewing an odd aspect ratio or get an external monitor with anamorphic desqueeze as a spec.
easy.
*16:9 or 17:9 depending on shooting mode. all my maths above is rough.
1.33 anamorphic is the highest quality file for a 16:9 sensor delivering to a 2:35 client as you dont obscure image (and lose pixels) with 'black bars'
Last edited:
I've used 2x Anamorphics on C300mk2 with external de-squeeze. The sensor is not as tall as 4 perf 35mm film, so you'll get a narrower field of view. A 1.3x Anamorphic will use the full sensor width so might be preferable. Or not. Depending on look and resolution you need. If you consider 4 perf 35mm 'true', then I guess all the other sensor heights that are different, both shorter and taller, aren't 'true'. I tend to think that 'true' is a silly term in this regard. In the end it's about if you get the look and spec you need. It can be tricky to find really wide Anamorphic lenses, hence why many DPs prefer to not use shorter sensors than 4 perf 35mm. But it's perfectly doable to use a Canon C300, both mk2 & 3. Oh, and btw. In Anamorphic you're tossing away some pixels almost regardless of which sensor format you use.