Mixing lens for a shoot? Anamorphic and non Anamorphic lenses for an Anamorphic film?

A

analogs

Well-known member
I am considering one anamorphic lens, and for some shots I will likely mix shots with an anamorphic crop on footage taken with non anamorphic lenses. This is due to budget, convenience, limitations, or B-rolls I may already have that I want to use.

Anyone would like to share their thoughts on mixing lenses for an anamorphic style film? Is it common, what are the cons, how does it affect the film, etc.

Thank you.
 
I think it's generally going to be a bad idea. Scope and Spherical are very different modes of capture, and the jump in rendering can be very jarring (especially if it happens within a scene).

If you really want to shoot scope, save up until you can afford one of the affordable sets (pretty much just the Atlas Orions at the moment, but the Xelmus will be available soon as well). And then get yourself a set of three. Three's enough to cover you for a decent range of things.
 
Hi Grug, thanks for your reply. What focal length do you think would be the most useful if you only want one Anamorphic lens and plan to shoot a whole film with that lens only?
 
I think it depends on how good of a job you do in faking the anamorphic look. Cropping the footage to 2.39:1 isn't enough, you need to mod a lens with an elliptical iris and apply optical distortion in editing software.

If you do a good job in faking the anamorphic look, I doubt non filmmakers would notice the difference.
 
I was thinking using the 50mm and 70-200mm lens for close ups and my one Anamorphic lens for shoulder/head to wide shots, as I do not think it is going to make a noticeable impact when mixing these shots unless the cropped shot shows some bokeh or flares.

The image perspective or distortion from Anamorphic lens, is it really noticeable between a close up Anamorphic cropped shot against an actual close up shot using 1.33 anamorphic lens? Are the background blurs between these two lenses have distracting or prominent differences when using short depth of field?

What are the noticeable image quality differences in a close up shot between these two lenses - 35mm Anamorphic 1.33 vs 70-200mm both rendered at 2:40:1?
 
analogs said:
I was thinking using the 50mm and 70-200mm lens for close ups and my one Anamorphic lens for shoulder/head to wide shots, as I do not think it is going to make a noticeable impact when mixing these shots unless the cropped shot shows some bokeh or flares.

The image perspective or distortion from Anamorphic lens, is it really noticeable between a close up Anamorphic cropped shot against an actual close up shot using 1.33 anamorphic lens? Are the background blurs between these two lenses have distracting or prominent differences when using short depth of field?

What are the noticeable image quality differences in a close up shot between these two lenses - 35mm Anamorphic 1.33 vs 70-200mm both rendered at 2:40:1?
Click to expand...

oof, if you are mixing lens types in the same scene, then all bets are off my friend. that is something you may have to navigate to your own judgment and taste.

I think in the same scene cutting between anamorphic and spherical is very difficult to hide. You are on the right track in a sense, that you could just shoot the wide on an anamorphic and then spherical for close ups, but much safer to keep lenses more specific to each scene. Like for one scene only use anamorphic, and then for a difference scene only use spherical, but typically not mixing the lenses in the same scene.
 
Last edited:
OK, I'll be that guy... Why do you want/need to use an anamorphic if you are only going to squeeze 1.33x?

I'd rent an SLR Magic adapter and give it a try, just make sure it has the focus unit thingy, otherwise you'll work harder trying to deal with focus, and find out you need some expensive macro filters in odd strengths to get what you need.
 
analogs said:
I was thinking using the 50mm and 70-200mm lens for close ups and my one Anamorphic lens for shoulder/head to wide shots, as I do not think it is going to make a noticeable impact when mixing these shots unless the cropped shot shows some bokeh or flares.

The image perspective or distortion from Anamorphic lens, is it really noticeable between a close up Anamorphic cropped shot against an actual close up shot using 1.33 anamorphic lens? Are the background blurs between these two lenses have distracting or prominent differences when using short depth of field?

What are the noticeable image quality differences in a close up shot between these two lenses - 35mm Anamorphic 1.33 vs 70-200mm both rendered at 2:40:1?
Click to expand...

Can't you test the set-up? I feel like until you shoot a test with the lenses and see how they intercut, you won't know how you feel about it. Maybe you take a look and it doesn't bother you. Or maybe you say "what was I thinking?" It's against the rules, but rules were made to be broken. The question is - will it feel jarring? And it can be jarring even to intercut 2 different lines of spherical lenses if their color, coatings and sharpness are different enough. Maybe the specific lenses you're using will be ok or maybe, as you say, using anamorphic just for wides and spherical just for close-ups will help hide the differences
 
Budget says shoot spherical lenses and crop like so many other people end up doing. From the messing around I've done with my 1.33x converter, I'd want a really good reason to shoot something real with it.

Having a variable diopter in front to handle focus would make life better, and renting real anamorphic lenses would probably be better than that.

With the adapter I have, you'll get super shallow depth of field, forcing you to shoot at f4 or darker, so now a light level issue. Since mine doesn't have a variable diopter, I'd need to constantly mess around with small value fixed diopters, which I bought. And due to the weight, I'd really need a lens bridge to support it hanging on the end of my lenses.

All that said, I'd guess that most movies shot with anamorphic lenses, also have a few scenes shot with spherical lenses. The only real answer is to give it a try, see what you can rent or if you have a rental shop nearby, go in and ask if you can try some options in house to get a feeling for what you might like.
 
I have a Schneider ES Cinelux Anamorphic 2x Scope projection lens with a SLR Magic Rangefinder and I use Nikon stills glass from the 70s as taking lenses. For $500 I am shooting anamorphic and I love it. That said, Fincher hates anamorphic lenses. He adds barrel distortion and vignetting in post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBmXdt6fq-Q

If you combine that with manipulated boke and flares, you'll be in business at a total cost of 5 bucks:
https://nofilmschool.com/2017/11/tutorial-how-get-anamorphic-look-without-anamorphic-lens

Or you could just rent the lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top