optical anamorphic

[Guest]

I heard that the anamorphic lens attachment (used for 16:9 image capture on the dvx) "softens" up the image, or creates an illusion of shallow depth of field. How true is this? If it is true, how does it compare to the in-camera digital squeeze?

 

[Barry_Green]

Re: optical anamorphic

There is no effect of shallow DOF. However, there is a different feel to the image. David Mullen, ASC, describes the look as "smoother" -- not sharper, not softer, but with a smoothness applied to the image. It's the same effect (but to a lesser degree) that you see in the cinema on widescreen 2.35:1 movies.

 

[Guest]

Re: optical anamorphic

is that due to the way the glass is designed? also, are there any downsides to using it, like zoom limitations, focus limitations, light exposure? i'm considering one.

 

[Bart_Boge]

Re: optical anamorphic

The LA7200G is KICK ASS.  You can take mine when you pry it from my cold, dead mounting ring!

People have to pay me extra NOT to use it.  I am so proud of how things look that I much prefer my stuff out there to feature 16:9 with this baby.

4:3 is going the way of 8-track.

As far as limitations are concerned, they are livable.  When at full zoom I detect a bit of fuzziness (backing off just a frog's hair clears it right up).  You also have to be about 6-8 feet away from the subject when zooming in as well.  When at the widest zoom setting you get some barrel perspective distortion, but you might get that with the stock lens as well, and its not enough to be distracting, IMHO.

Most importantly, no viginetting and no "smearing" of the image.

Here's my sample:
http://www.divineinsightmusic.net/bob/480video.html

Some of the softness of the focus on the fretting hand is because I was too close (live & learn).

 

[Guest]

Re: optical anamorphic

[quote author=Bart_Boge link=board=news;num=1084592307;start=0#3 date=05/15/04 at 02:03:22]You also have to be about 6-8 feet away from the subject when zooming in as well.  When at the widest zoom setting you get some barrel perspective distortion, but you might get that with the stock lens as well, and its not enough to be distracting, IMHO..[/quote]

So you have to be at least 6-8 feet away from a subject before you zoom... what happens if you zoom under 6-8 feet? How hard is it to focus?

 

[Barry_Green]

Re: optical anamorphic

Panasonic recommends a minimum distance of 3 meters when using the lens on full telephoto. If you're on full wide angle, you can focus pretty much up to the surface of the lens (depending on your f-stop, probably).

It doesn't become difficult to focus at telephoto/close distance, it becomes impossible to focus (again, depending on f-stop).

The anamorphic adapter has an inherent astigmatism that causes it to focus on the verticals at a different plane than it focuses on the horizontals. This effect only really becomes noticeable the more telephoto you are. I find it perfectly acceptable up until about Z90... after Z90, it becomes just too difficult to find a satisfactory compromise between vertical & horizontal to get an overall "sharp" image. Now, let's spell something out here: even on full telephoto, with the astigmatism at its worst, the lens will produce an image that's just as sharp as stretched-letterbox on a regular DVX100, and probably just as sharp as "squeeze mode" on the DVX100A. But it won't be sharp enough to easily intercut with other anamorphic footage, so it's best to stay below Z90.

 

[Guest]

Re: optical anamorphic

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=news;num=1084592307;start=0#5 date=05/15/04 at 10:18:13]Panasonic recommends a minimum distance of 3 meters when using the lens on full telephoto.  If you're on full wide angle, you can focus pretty much up to the surface of the lens (depending on your f-stop, probably).

It doesn't become difficult to focus at telephoto/close distance, it becomes impossible to focus (again, depending on f-stop).

The anamorphic adapter has an inherent astigmatism that causes it to focus on the verticals at a different plane than it focuses on the horizontals.  This effect only really becomes noticeable the more telephoto you are.  I find it perfectly acceptable up until about Z90... after Z90, it becomes just too difficult to find a satisfactory compromise between vertical & horizontal to get an overall "sharp" image.  Now, let's spell something out here: even on full telephoto, with the astigmatism at its worst, the lens will produce an image that's just as sharp as stretched-letterbox on a regular DVX100, and probably just as sharp as "squeeze mode" on the DVX100A.  But it won't be sharp enough to easily intercut with other anamorphic footage, so it's best to stay below Z90.[/quote]

For those of you who have worked and tested footage with the anamorphic lens adapter, would you say that the advantages (wider field of view, overall "smoothening" of image, etc.) is worth the slight limitations that the lens has? Are there ways of working around the limitations? how difficult would it be? (assuming that i'd want to get a 16x9 image, perhaps squeeze mode would be better given the limitations?)