Stupid, newbie question time ... "Anamorphic"

[Russ.W.]

Apologies for the numptiness of this question (and my lack of general participation on this forum), but here goes ... as an example, let talk Canon.

With Canon's delve into the world of "Cinema" cameras - 1D-C, C100/300/500 - and their designated "Cine" lenses, why have they not ventured into the world of Anamorphic lenses?

They have the financial backing, and definitely have the ability and motive to do so. Not to say they would be cheap, but with the market they have with consumers wiling to drop $10k on a camera with every new generation, and $5K+ on a "Cine" lens ... and their insistence the Cinema line is just that (true Cinema quality), wouldn't a venture into Anamorphic lenses be a logical step?

Sure they'd still be expensive, but with their financial backing and industry marketplace, they'd still be able to sell a quality product cheaper than a comparative Hawk or Cooke offering.


Is it plausible, or am I being an uneducated uninformed moron?

 

[Egg Born Son]

Not a stupid idea but one with a simple answer. Low demand. Internet buzz will not turn into sales. Most who like the look don't like it enough to do the extra messing around or pay extra for it. Even back in the day they have never as far as I am aware been tooled up for mass production, they have always been a low volume specialist item. Most anamorphics have come into existence to solve a problem, it is only the artists that then sought them for the look. The technicians were just looking for a cheaper solution to a different problem. For example more recently 1.33x only exists because of the transitional period between 4:3 and 16:9. If the anamorphic had cost more than a replacement camera there would be no such thing.