C200: How to shoot anamorphic

chris f

chris f

Veteran
Looking at potentially shooting anamorphic for a short film on the C200 and here's what I'm coming up with:

Wooden Camera PL Mount Modification Kit:
https://www.woodencamera.com/pl-mount-modification-kit-canon-c200-c200b-p/257700.htm

SLR Magic 1.33 Anamorphic Lenses:
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/slr-magic-anamorphot-cine-1.33x-three-lens-set-pl


Since C200 is a 17x9 sensor that limits anamorphic options to 1.33x and it seems like this SLR Magic set is the only real option out there. Am I overlooking or not considering anything here?
 
Those SLR Magics are pretty much your only option for anamorphic 1.33x and if I’m being honest, they aren’t all that great. Under the right conditions they can look good but it’s not quite as easy to shoot anamorphic as it is spherical. My Canon C200 with PL mod was used with those lenses on a short film call Ballistic. I actually think they had the EF mount option as well, thus negating the need for the Wooden Camera PL mount.

I really think if you want to go for the PL mount, there are so many better lens options at your disposal, albeit spherical, that would end up looking better. I would check out some vintage lenses or the new Cooke Panchro Classics (I’ve recommended these to a lot of folks hoping to shoot anamorphic but not having the budget and they end up loving the look and flaring).
 
chris f said:
what do you mean?
Click to expand...

I think he means, what are you really getting out of it? Does the subject matter fit it and benefit from shooting in the format(like an epic, visually arresting western, as opposed to a largely dialog driven, pedestrian rom-com)? Is it really adding anything to the end product, besides just saying, "We shot anamorphic"?
 
Run&Gun said:
I think he means, what are you really getting out of it? Does the subject matter fit it and benefit from shooting in the format(like an epic, visually arresting western, as opposed to a largely dialog driven, pedestrian rom-com)? Is it really adding anything to the end product, besides just saying, "We shot anamorphic"?
Click to expand...

Bingo! Yes, exactly. Anamorphic is a very specific look and feel and is really only appropriate for certain situations. I was just curious if you have a legitimate reason for going through the hassle and expense or if your just doing it on a whim? To what end was one of my old bosses favorite questions and it cuts right to the heart of the matter. To what end means what is the end result you are hoping to achieve by taking a specific tact or direction or making a decision. If you can't answer, "To what end?", it usually means there is not a good reason to do something or a poor decision is being made. If you have a specific plan, action and result desired and the actions make sense within the context of a given situation, you have an end result you're going for, whether it is a wise or not so wise goal.
 
Dustin Svehlak said:
...they aren’t all that great...
Click to expand...

Personally I thought they weren't anamorphic enough to truely give you the anamorphic look, but distorted enough to look like a poor quality lens. So the worst of both worlds really.

Ended up feeling like people who add film grain to make their video look filmy, but really they are confusing "film" (the physical medium) with being "filmic" (making a movie look like a movie).
 
Yes I have to agree with the earlier assessment of the SLRMagic...with just the right conditions it can work, but that window would be quite small...IMO if time wasn't a large constraint and you really want the flare and squeeze, a more budget friendly option would be a Kowa 16-H with a taking lens..it a 2X so you'd have to crop in post which is fine...you can then use it with an appropriate EF mount taking lens, but the double focussing can be time consuming...the Kowa can look great though! Edit: just noticed a member has a Kowa for sale a couple of posts down.
 
Last edited:
Whatever happened to the long rumoured Canon anamorphic lens, they've had a patent since 2016. Probably get more interest than a CN-E 20mm too.
 
To the OP Chris,
You need a strong solid PL mount and a monitor to desqueeze the anamorphic image. Beyond that you may be overthinking it (big oversimplification, but basically- yeah.)

I used to co-own a full set of Lomo roundfronts and owned a small set of Cineovision anamorphics. Shot (with anamorphics) a number of music videos, several features and 24 episodes of a kid/teen sci-fi tv show. I've also shot a feature and short with Kowa anamorphics. Cameras used: Alexa XT, Red Epic MX, Red 1MX, Sony FS100, Sony FS700, Canon C500, Canon 5DM2 with Magic Lantern RAW hack using a PL mount by Steve Morton. I literally ripped the mirror off with pliers- director's 5DM2- he had to have it...

Unless the short had zero focus pulls, I could not imagine trying to use an adapter and trying to focus the spherical and anamorphic elements at the same time. Could be done- but for the whole shoot? Why? There are enough anamorphics available (in PL) to not deal with that- so you have time to deal with all the other problems of production instead.

Biggest limitations are lack of options wide and long. For the TV show I mixed sphericals with anamorphic. I used an ancient Cooke Series 1 18mm for wides and PL mounted 180mm Jupiter, 300mm Canon and 600mm Canon (yes for a kids TV show.)

Older anamorphics can be BRUTAL on close ups, especially if you start to play the edge of frame.

My 2cents: 2x anamorphics will give you that classic "anamorphic" look. Worried about loss of resolution from post resizing? The audience won't notice- they (audience) will notice all the other problems of production way before anything technical with the C200/anamorphic combo. PL gives you the greatest options. If possible test a few combinations first. At least make sure a whacky combo is going to work for production- or you will lose so much time fiddling on set- you'll lose the show.
 
Last edited:
Since the Canon Cinema cameras don't have the DSLR mirrors, can't just about any PL lenses be used with a simple PL to EF adapter? (Never done it myself)
 
Dustin Svehlak said:
Those SLR Magics are pretty much your only option for anamorphic 1.33x and if I’m being honest, they aren’t all that great. Under the right conditions they can look good but it’s not quite as easy to shoot anamorphic as it is spherical. My Canon C200 with PL mod was used with those lenses on a short film call Ballistic. I actually think they had the EF mount option as well, thus negating the need for the Wooden Camera PL mount.

I really think if you want to go for the PL mount, there are so many better lens options at your disposal, albeit spherical, that would end up looking better. I would check out some vintage lenses or the new Cooke Panchro Classics (I’ve recommended these to a lot of folks hoping to shoot anamorphic but not having the budget and they end up loving the look and flaring).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice Dustin! That was kind of my gut feeling about the SLR Magics, probably wasn't going to go anamorphic but wanted to kick the tires as my project I'm working on is probably the first project I've done in a long time that would make sense from a story side of things to utilize anamorphic. I'm still in talks with my DP, but we'll probably lean towards using vintage glass and crop 2:35 in post - will definitely check out those new Cooke Panchro Classics.

For your camera did you do the Wooden Camera PL mod?
 
The Hawk 1.3x lenses are really your only option. It’s better to rent an Alexa mini if you want to shoot anamorphic. There are way more options for 2x anamorphics.
 
chris f said:
For your camera did you do the Wooden Camera PL mod?
Click to expand...


When I had the mod done, unfortunately, the Wooden Camera option wasn't available so I paid nearly three times as much to have Canon do it (though it was part of my camera financing and my first rental of the camera paid for the mod, so I was happy with the choice). I think the Wooden Camera PL mod is an excellent option although there's a piece of small print on their site about not supporting all PL lenses that worries me.

THAT SAID - there's a step in the mount swap procedure that gives me pause: there's a ribbon cable that attaches the EF mount to the body of the camera. The removal process is covered in the Wooden Camera video tutorial but there is no instructions on how to reverse this step. It also looks like it takes a good amount of force to remove as the instructor in the video is using bent-nose pliers. I've had my camera back in EF mode since SXSW this year (paid Canon to reverse the mount swap) and I've been pretty reluctant to swap back because of this. I've asked Canon for official instructions on how to swap the mount and although the rep I spoke with was very receptive to this feedback, it was indicated I may never get those instructions.

And I know I've mentioned this in other threads but unfortunately for those familiar with the mount swap on the C300 MK II, they completely redesigned the process on the C200 and it's much more difficult. On the C300 MKII it's about a dozen or so screws and you're done- the EF contacts are just built into the EF mount and it's very easy to remove or reseat. Why they went with a more complex and fragile solution for the C200 is completely beyond me. Also, perhaps if I knew the cost of that EF board and ribbon cable I wouldn't be so hesitant lol.

PS- the Cooke Panchro Classics are really nice. Even the TLS rehoused versions (actual vintage) are worth your time. If you find yourself in Austin, TX, let me know and I can arrange a demo of both. I think you'll find it's much easier to recreate the aesthetic of anamorphic than to shoot anamorphic on a C200.
 
I have shot a couple of shorts with my Iscorama adapters and I thought they looked great. No problem pulling focus, but then again I had them modded to do closer focusing.
Still you can get the PREMIUM OPTICS SINGLE FOCUS for adapters as well...

This was shot on an F3 with the Isco's (00:25 to 00:45 sec) and I think it looks damn good. Doesn't show our focus pulls because I don't have the rushes for those segments, but frankly I see no issues with doing this on a C200. I really don't see why there is so much resistance here to doing it. I think our film benefited greatly from the look vs a standard format.

https://vimeo.com/201847835
 
yoclay, I would agree that the example you posted looks great! I think the resistance to anamorphics you're reading comes from 3 main points-

1) there's not a lot of 1.3x anamorphic options, which is necessary to take advantage of the full resolution of the C200's 16:9 sensor (no 4:3 mode)
2) the 1.3x anamorphic options that are available are pretty expensive
3) if you shoot 1.3x anamorphic, you don't get the same oval bokeh as a traditional 2.0x anamorphic de-squeeze

In my opinion, although shooting with a spherical lens and just cropping to 2.39:1 would lose some of the resolution, the overall look isn't dissimilar enough to justify the added cost of anamorphic lenses or adapters. I would guess you have a different opinion and that's totally fine! We're all just giving our advice here and I'm honestly glad to hear from a different perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top