What are the best practices in simulating anamorphic with spherical lenses?

I

Imamacuser

Veteran
There have been a few posts on anamorphic and simulated anamorphic, which has got me thinking about trying to simulate anamorphic for fun.

I've seen mods that replace a prime's aperture with a laser-cut ellipse aperture, but I'm wondering if that method creates any issues with a zoom lens, as I was thinking about trying it on a Tokina 24-40m f/2.8. Would adding in a 0.71 focal reducer create any issues with that setup?

Here's my current plan: fishing line or streak filter + ellipse aperture lens + 0.71 focal reducer + VashiMorphic40 distortion + cropping to 2.35:1 = hopefully convincing simulated anamorphic.

Do you see any issues with this setup?
 
A streak filter costs <$20, I haven't priced laser cutting the ellipse aperture yet; Tito Ferradans sells ellipse apertures on eBay for $12, but my lens isn't on the compatible list.

By adapter, do you mean something like Vid-Atlantic bokeh filter or a SLR Magic Anamorphot-50 adapter?

I see your point though, no sense in spending more on a DIY project than than it would cost to buy a commercial product.
 
If you are going to open a lens and replace the aperture, that's not going to be especially cheap, or maybe I misunderstand.
 
Run&Gun said:
Isn't it kind of funny the lengths that people go to to re-create what are actually lens defects?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure "defects" is quite the word for it, they're just optical properties.

I'm a bit of an anamorphic junkie, but I've never been able to bring myself to put up with the complexity (and ergonomic nightmares) of the hodgepodge dual-focus, projector anamorphic rigs that people have started making up. And anamorphake seems like a lot of effort to go to unless you absolutely need some spherical shots to cut in more seamlessly with actual anamorphic shots for some reason.

With cheap anamorphics like the Atlas Orions now in wide-spread circulation, I struggle to understand why people would put up with all the pains of DIY solutions, since you can now rent actual scope lenses for little more than a set of cheap spherical primes would cost.
 
Grug said:
I'm not sure "defects" is quite the word for it, they're just optical properties.

I'm a bit of an anamorphic junkie, but I've never been able to bring myself to put up with the complexity (and ergonomic nightmares) of the hodgepodge dual-focus, projector anamorphic rigs that people have started making up. And anamorphake seems like a lot of effort to go to unless you absolutely need some spherical shots to cut in more seamlessly with actual anamorphic shots for some reason.

With cheap anamorphics like the Atlas Orions now in wide-spread circulation, I struggle to understand why people would put up with all the pains of DIY solutions, since you can now rent actual scope lenses for little more than a set of cheap spherical primes would cost.
Click to expand...

Maybe unintended artifacts/characteristics would have been better? I'm not sure if oval highlights and 'blue streak" flares were ever originally intended in certain anamorphic lenses or if they were just side effects of the design. But became both characteristics that people came to like, for various reasons and became associated with anamorphic lenses/shooting. And now people try to mimic/replicate those characteristics mostly for vanity(to make people think they are shooting on "expensive anamorphic lenses").

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking anamorphic. I like it. But most likely if you're going through all of that trouble to make a spherical lens appear to have those tale-tale characteristics of an anamorphic lens without the actual benefits, you're just trying to fool someone. Like people that wear a fake Rolex.
 
Forgive me but what exactly are we trying to achieve here? The 'look' of a wide image squished into a narrower one, or the expansion of a narrow one into a wide one? Perhaps somewhere in between, or what. I can't figure out what we're talking about here. Surely we're talking about distortion of geometry. Is there something else I've missed going on? As you can compress or expand in just a horizontal plane electronically, surely the lens is only one way, or are we saying that the optical process has nice distortion, like in audio where tube distortion is sought after by a few with golden ears?

This is something I just don't get. What is this topic about?
 
paulears said:
Forgive me but what exactly are we trying to achieve here? The 'look' of a wide image squished into a narrower one, or the expansion of a narrow one into a wide one? Perhaps somewhere in between, or what. I can't figure out what we're talking about here. Surely we're talking about distortion of geometry. Is there something else I've missed going on? As you can compress or expand in just a horizontal plane electronically, surely the lens is only one way, or are we saying that the optical process has nice distortion, like in audio where tube distortion is sought after by a few with golden ears?

This is something I just don't get. What is this topic about?
Click to expand...

"Anamorphake" is about modifying spherical lenses to present certain anamorphic optical characteristics - namely oval bokeh, and horizontally streaking flares.
 
Sometimes unintended consequences are nice. I loved the opening of Mandingo, which had a very pretty, soft, low-contrast feel. Then the opening credits ended and the picture became sharper and more contrasty. Clearly, the optical printing process (or whatever) had degraded the footage and the effect was unintentional. But it was prettier than the rest of the movie, which was also garbage for other reasons.

Why not use the same process to intentionally achieve the effect, if you were so inclined? Plenty of experimental filmmakers rephotograph their film in some manner (shooting the video screen with a super 8mm camera for example) to screw it up a bit and give it a texture, particularly a consistent texture.

I just watched an episode of the animated series Star Trek: Lower Decks that just aired where they had a movie-within-a-movie sort of parody of the Star Trek films. The aspect ratio cropped to 2.35:1 from 16:9 and they also added a little film grain. They're not going to fool anyone that it was shot on film, that's not the point. It's just a nod to the characteristics of the films they're emulating.

But - separating my conscious understanding of the film grain, its meaning, and how it was applied - it was nice to have that bit of random texture disrupting such clean, consistent colors/imagery. I've never been one to add film grain to a video, but I think it can be nice, just like a bit of pleasant noise.

Which is all just to say that if you like something about the effect of an anamorphic lens or an anamorphake effect, even if it's just the associations that it conjures up, I say go for it. But you certainly don't want it to look like s*%t in the pursuit of something cool.

I think Grug has a good idea - renting the Atlas Orions and a GH5 or BM Pocket or something that can record 4:3.
 
So it IS hi-fi enthusiast style technique. Deliberate distortion for style? Genre? I think it's too far away technique wise for me. Have fun guys.
 
Grug said:
I'm not sure "defects" is quite the word for it, they're just optical properties.

I'm a bit of an anamorphic junkie, but I've never been able to bring myself to put up with the complexity (and ergonomic nightmares) of the hodgepodge dual-focus, projector anamorphic rigs that people have started making up. And anamorphake seems like a lot of effort to go to unless you absolutely need some spherical shots to cut in more seamlessly with actual anamorphic shots for some reason.

With cheap anamorphics like the Atlas Orions now in wide-spread circulation, I struggle to understand why people would put up with all the pains of DIY solutions, since you can now rent actual scope lenses for little more than a set of cheap spherical primes would cost.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate what Atlas is doing, projector anamorphics can be way sharper at a fraction of the cost: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS9Tngf0wk . Plus you can use just about any taking lens, so you have exponentially more options for what kind of image you can get.

Dual focus IS a mess, especially because the squeeze on projector anamorphics is designed to be 2x from hundreds of feet away, not up close. A projector lens I have goes from a 1.8x squeeze at 15 feet to a 2x squeeze at infinity. That gives you mumps up close.

The newer options of a variable diopter makes things relatively easy. You just focus each lens to infinity and then focus using that. It's certainly not as easy as using a purpose built lens, since the taking lens and anamorphic attachment need to be aligned precisely, but if you can do that, the results are so good and so cheap (relatively speaking). I have a setup I'm working on right now that looks better to me than anything else out there except maybe Panavision lenses (and I'm talking better than Arri Master Anamorphics.)
 
Last edited:
A number of people seem to have misunderstood my questions, so let me clarify a few things:

• This is for FUN, I'm not sabotaging a paid gig with dubious faux anamorphic.
• Posing the question wasn't meant to assert that simulated anamorphic is equal to or better than actual anamorphic.
• I enjoy DIY projects, and would be installing the ellipse aperture myself, not sending it off to a lens technician. The original aperture diaphragm doesn't have to be removed, I would just have to make the ellipse aperture around f/4. My Tokina's zoom range accommodate the VashiMorphic40 preset on APS-C or full frame. It has some haze between two fuzed elements, so I'm not too nervous about taking it apart.

Most people on DVXUser can spot the difference between real anamorphic and simulated anamorphic, but I'd like to try simulated anamorphic and hear the response from untrained eyes.
 
One way to look at anamorphic lenses is that the oval bokeh is created from the 2x squeeze horizontally, making the depth of field deeper horizontally. So on a 50mm anamorphic lens, you have a 50mm vertical focal length, along with a 25mm horizontal focal length. However, that is before you unsqueeze.

So, another way to look at it (which I think few realize) is that the squeezed horizontal basically goes back to the same focal length and depth of field as the vertical focal length when you unsqueeze it, but with the f stop doubled. So a 50mm f2 anamorphic is indeed that vertically, but horizontally, the f stop is doubled, ending up at a 50mm f4. (When you unsqueeze in post, it's like using a 2x teleconverter in only one direction).

So, by using an oval aperture, I think you are going to get something close (the same?) to a doubling of the f stop in the horizontal direction. And the aperture is the aperture, there shouldn't be any issue with it in a zoom lens vs. a prime.

The results I've just seen with an oval aperture certainly look very close to real anamorphic: https://vimeo.com/275008686 (worst pronunciation of bokeh, though). Also this: https://vimeo.com/159356608 .

Streak filters do work - I'm a little sick of seeing them, but they do work.

The VashiMorphic, though, seems a little gimmicky to me, especially since it is trying to emulate one specific wide-angle lens. It might look good at 24mm, though. Just test it out.
 
Thanks Joshua,

Since this is just for fun, I'm trying to do this with gear I already own, however, I've been toying with the idea of getting a focal reducer, which is why I'm curious if throwing a focal reducer into the mix creates any problems. I think the main potential problem is an increase in internal reflections, as they use flat black paint for the most part rather than flocking material.

I generally don't like flares, and certainly wouldn't be going for the J.J Abrams Star Trek look.
 
Imamacuser said:
Thanks Joshua,

Since this is just for fun, I'm trying to do this with gear I already own, however, I've been toying with the idea of getting a focal reducer, which is why I'm curious if throwing a focal reducer into the mix creates any problems. I think the main potential problem is an increase in internal reflections, as they use flat black paint for the most part rather than flocking material.
Click to expand...

The effects of the aperture stay the same regardless of the format. Stopping down a full frame lens on a smaller format still stops down the lens, leading to a reduction in light and a sharpening of the image. The focal reducer would have no impact to what you want the oval aperture to do.

I'd rather use flat black paint anyways, as the "hairs" in the flocking material might be seen in the bokeh. I looked and all of the following options would likely be good enough for your purposes:

Krylon Ultra Flat Black #1602: https://www.filmtools.com/krylon-ultra-flat-black-spray-paint.html
Krylon Camouflage Paint, Ultra Flat, Black: https://www.amazon.com/Krylon-K04290007-Camouflage-Plastic-Technology/dp/B00176TH8C
Culture Hustle Black 3.0 (has to be primed with Black 2.0 or something else): https://www.culturehustleusa.com/products/black-3-0-the-worlds-blackest-black-acrylic-paint-150ml
Tetenal Kameralack: https://tetenal.com/en/homepage/consumer-shop/105202/kameralack-spray
 
OK, if it is for fun, then anything goes.

As to that fogged group, you might be able to dissolve the adhesive between the elements, and glue them back together. The popular stuff is a UV cure adhesive and if you look hard, you can find some diy people doing this with decent results.
 
It depends on the solvent used, but in general the coatings are deposited metal. I haven't read of any issues by the people who have done it. If it is new enough to use UV cure glue, there may be no separating them cleanly. I guess in short, I'd do ton of research on this before making an attempt with anything I cared about.

The old lenses that use pine rosin are a completely different matter, they come right apart. Might be worth practicing with some cheapo lenses to see if this is something you want to try with a "decent" lens. Decent in quotes because separated groups make the lens pretty much junk.

I should also mention that if the lens was decent, repairs on modern lenses should be available from the manufacturers, and they are not always stupid expensive.

If you go down this rooad, I can recommend two sets of screwdrivers:

#1 https://www.harborfreight.com/33-piece-precision-screwdriver-set-93916.html

#2 see if you can find the bigger set of these, my set has flat, philips, hex, and some wrenches https://www.micro-tools.com/collections/moody-tools/products/55-0318 I should probably buy the JIS bits for my set.

Found mine, has been well worth the money to me https://www.centraltools.com/59-0247-31pc-mini-tool-roll-set.html and the HF set is cheap enough that you just need it. I often use both on the same projects depending on needs, but the Moody set is the first I grab when I need to work on smaller stuff. Bought it from Micro Tools, but they don't seem to have that set now. I really need to flesh out the extra tips for my set.

Other tools you will need are spanners, rubber stoppers or rubber lens collar unscrewing tools (stopper with a hole in the middle), probably some heilicoid grease (sticky grease), lint free cleaning cloths, acetone, 90%+ isopropyl alcohol, lens cleaner, flat black paint, ... The list can go on for a bit, and that's without getting into lens group cement (which I need to study). The acetone has not harmed any of the old lens coatings I've worked on, but it is fairly dangerous to people. Especially if you need to heat it for more solvent power.
 
Thanks Greg, that's very informative.

I think the Tokina 24-40mm f/2.8 came out in the 70s, so maybe that gives you some kind of idea on what coatings and adhesives were used. I actually got my copy for free, I bought if off eBay, but requested a return when I noticed the haze, I think the seller realized that a lens with haze isn't worth much, so they refunded my money and asked that I make sure that it's properly recycle. I held onto it, thinking that I could give it to some kid who's interested in photography or video. Here's a link with some pics of the haze from when I asked about it on DP Review. Wide open it lacks sharpness and contrast, but looks okay once it's stopped down to f/4.5. I'm not positive if that's a result of the haze or just how the lens always was.

I'm fairly handy, so maybe I could attempt to fix it sometime this winter. I've repaired pocket PCs, iPhones, laptops, desktops, all sorts of auto repairs, all shorts of home repairs, de-clicked my manual lenses, and fabricated a replacement bushing for a Nikon 18-55mm.

On a side note, my Dad has been going through old boxes and found a Vivitar Series 1 200mm f/3, Soligor 135mm f/2.8, and Olympus 135mm f/2.8, but unfortunately they all have fungus. I might try to take them apart and clean off the fungus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top