GH4 Why doesn't anyone make new Anamorphic lenses for Micro 4/3?

[chauncy_th_dog]

Pretty every filmmaker wants anamorphic. I want it. I don't think it's that niche. It's because of all the hoops you have to hop through to get it right. If there was a camera/lens that shot anamorphic with the same amount of effort as a standard shot, and if it was more or less the same price, it would sell to a lot of filmmakers. Same thing if someone built a powered zoom parfocal lens. (that wasn't cost prohibitive)

So why does no one do it? In the words of lewis black: "It's too hard it makes me go poopee". I'm a filmmaker. I want gear that helps me get the shots in my mind on screen.

Is it possible to make these for a somewhat reasonable price? I believe it is. It's just intercompany politics, lack of balls, and the traditionally lazy design that plagues the big camera companies.

 

[Egg Born Son]

Rhetorical question to noone in particular: Oh, it must be cheap and easiest thing to manufacture on the planet and everyone in the world wants one. So why hasn't anyone done it? :violin:

Haha, you guys are funny. They do exist, brand new. And they are available. Only 5 figures. Each.

 

[stoneinapond]

....If there was a camera/lens that shot anamorphic with the same amount of effort as a standard shot, and if it was more or less the same price, it would sell to a lot of filmmakers. Same thing if someone built a powered zoom parfocal lens. (that wasn't cost prohibitive)

....I'm a filmmaker. I want gear that helps me get the shots in my mind on screen.

Is it possible to make these for a somewhat reasonable price? I believe it is. It's just intercompany politics, lack of balls, and the traditionally lazy design that plagues the big camera companies.

So it's all a conspiracy to stop you from realizing your artistic vision? :shocked:

Seems like you want to paint like Rembrandt using an Etch A Sketch.

 

[stoneinapond]

I think a 2x set would be too wide, myself. For a 16x9 frame, a 1.33 set would be ideal.

2x anamorphic captured in a 16:9 aspect ratio is too wide, on that we can agree. That's why the new 4:3 aspect ratio in the GH4 is so alluring.

And one of the big boys/girls is watching....... (what a terrible pun :lipsrseal).

 

[chauncy_th_dog]

So it's all a conspiracy to stop you from realizing your artistic vision? :shocked:

Seems like you want to paint like Rembrandt using an Etch A Sketch.

I'm sure they could care less about me. But they should be listening. Camera companies, canon, are lazy and afraid of any risk. They can do all of this, right now. For more money, but not that much more if in higher volume. At some point they'll have to realize that it's not about their future roadmap of where to go, but providing what we filmmakers want. Having worked for 6 huge companies, I know that corporate leadership are cowards. They worked too hard to get where they are and won't risk anything.

But they are too self-centered to understand that they risk more by stagnation. Their job is to give us what we want. We pay them, they act like it's the other way around.

A rembrandt in an etchasketch is still a Rembrandt. But we'd all rather watch a high def rembrandt. Camera technology has one and only one objective to the filmmaker, remove any barriers between the filmmaker's vision and what gets on the screen.

 

[wwjd]

couple things...

Anamorphic is not for everyone, but THAT is what Panny puts in the update?? I wonder what drove that decision? I could think of 10 other things most people would want before a anamorphic/square video ratio.

Also:
They make a $200 anamorphic for GOPRO...


but it is $1500 for larger cameras? come on

 

[stoneinapond]

Anamorphic is not for everyone, but THAT is what Panny puts in the update?? I wonder what drove that decision? I could think of 10 other things most people would want before a anamorphic/square video ratio.

That's not why they put it in there. It was a photo enhancement that just so happens to be a great fit for anamorphic capture.

 

[nobbystylus]

The SLR MAGIC anamorphot is actually really not that hard to use, and is creates a really nice look. It probably adds 15 more seconds to focusing each shot, which might be a pain for run and gun, but i'm guessing very few people are using anamorphic for that kind of thing. Combine with a few taking lenses (a 25, 35 and 50 for e.g.) and you really have a splendid anamorphic image on a GH4. Honestly, rent it, try it out. You'll like it. Very excited to play with the 2x version when its out.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Rhetorical question to noone in particular: Oh, it must be cheap and easiest thing to manufacture on the planet and everyone in the world wants one. So why hasn't anyone done it? :violin:

Haha, you guys are funny. They do exist, brand new. And they are available. Only 5 figures. Each.

+1

 

[Thomas Smet]

Do the people that really want anamorphic even know why they want it? I mean is there a logical scientific reason to want it or is it just something you heard of and thought yeah that would be neat? Is this really that much of a deal breaker to not have it? Is this going to be the rack focus thing beat to death situation all over again?

I just see this as another one of those technicalities we all get hung up on that in the end doesn't make us better film makers or our films any more enjoyable. We always look for these "filters" that will be the magical formula to make our productions more cinematic when the reality is there are a lot of cinematic movies shot on film or digital that do not use anamorphic. While anamorphic would be a neat tool to have for certain productions I don't see it as a necessary tool that will instantly make any of my productions a hit. I wish people would get this hung up on buying lighting gear and paying for talent.

http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2633
Interesting discussion on the subject.

Personally I always viewed anamorphic as an interesting yet odd solution to dealing with resolution. We try to eliminate cropping to keep resolution high but then blow up our image by 2x horizontally which as we know in the digital world isn't always pretty. In the end all our distribution formats have to scale down to the same eventual resolution we would have had if we just cropped in the first place. I always go back to this example but look at a movie like Ender's Game. Maybe not the greatest movie in the world but very cinematic and visually a very well put together movie. One can argue that visually the movie is top notch and a great example to look at in terms of visual artistry. Well this movie was not shot anamorphic but cropped from the 5k master.

Shooting anamorphic can be a major pain and there are a lot of quality limitations to take into consideration when shooting anamorphic. It is generally not an easy thing to shoot and it is debatable if one really gains anything anymore from doing so. I mean is this really just about the bokeh and flares for some people? Really?

 

[Ian-T]

Nothing wrong with folks wanting anamorphic as an option. Yes it's about the bokeh and flares. I think most people who want it know exactly why they want it. Me personally I wish some camera maker comes up with some sort of internal squeeze ( just like how Lowell hacked the GH1). This way one could use any type of lens.

 

[stoneinapond]

Nothing wrong with folks wanting anamorphic as an option. Yes it's about the bokeh and flares. I think most people who want it know exactly why they want it.

That's part of it, but there is more to it. There are perspective changes in terms of depth that are achieved optically that have implications for different camera moves, something that cannot be achieved with cropping. It's a little like the difference between making a physical horizontal slider move and thinking that a similar effect can achieved by panning and scanning. Perhaps an extreme example but hopefully it makes the point.

As to the perceived hassles, I think a lot of confusion arises because in the past the way to achieve the look on a budget involved cobbling various adapters and reverse projection optics along with having to do double focusing. However, with the newer adapters starting to come available, there are fewer issues (single focusing), perhaps learning to frame if one doesn't have a external monitor that un-stretches in real time, and then an extra small step in post.

I must stress that this is all in the context of budget film making, not high end productions. But just as we've been blessed in the recent past with the unprecedented availability of reasonably priced tools to realize are visions, so these adapters are just part of that movement. And as I mentioned before, there is definitely interest with at least one major manufacturer. Whether it will come to anything is another matter but right now, for those that want to produce anamorphic footage, these are exciting times.

 

[Egg Born Son]

Nothing wrong with folks wanting anamorphic as an option.

Nothing wrong with wanting it at all. I want it. Desperately. But if someone actually made one worth having, we'd get 10 pages of hate about the price and confident assurances it could have been made for the price of a toaster, no worries. I'm pinning my hopes on Veydra at the moment, maybe in a couple of years. A couple of people have brought it up and they haven't ruled it out so far that I've seen, although still unlikely and it won't be any time soon. But unless my career takes off to the point I can quit my dayjob and claim them on my tax return I can't see myself being able to make another huge lens investment in a hurry. Another kickstarter would have to attach names just as well known to risk my dollars.

But just as we've been blessed in the recent past with the unprecedented availability of reasonably priced tools to realize are visions, so these adapters are just part of that movement. And as I mentioned before, there is definitely interest with at least one major manufacturer. Whether it will come to anything is another matter but right now, for those that want to produce anamorphic footage, these are exciting times.

I certainly hope so. Any inside knowledge on whether the interest is for an adapter or an affordable complete anamorphic lens solution? If it is an adapter for me it would be a minimum requirement to be able to rack focus if I was to spend the extra over my collection of projector lenses. And not be 1.33x which IMO defeats the purpose of using anamorphics for creative reasons.

 

[Illya Friedman]

There's a bunch of cheap/crappy anamorphic adpaters available for various formats, and I am not including the projection lenses that are adpated, although many of those give some of the worst results.

There are roughly 5 talented anamorphic lens designers currently working in the world. That is- people capable of producing a word class optic on par with the best out there.
Keep in mind that if a new anamorphic prime lens was sold for $20,000 today it would be the cheapest in the world. It's also more difficult to make wide angle anamorphic focal lengths.


At what cost would a dedicated "MFT anamorphic" be too much?

My feeling is that everyone wants this, but no one is willing to pay for what it should cost.

So what say you? Would you be willing to pay any of the following levels?

$2000 per MFT cinema prime ($10,000 per 5x lens MFT set)
$5000 per MFT cinema prime ($25,000 per 5x lens MFT set)
$12000 per MFT cinema prime ($60,000 per 5x lens MFT set)
$20000 per MFT cinema prime ($100,000 per 5x lens MFT set)

I think for the purposes of this discussion, we can cross anamorphic zooms off the "wish list" as there are many people unhappy with the price/size/features associated with anamorphic zoom offerings available today.

 

[Egg Born Son]

^ Exactly. I myself could maybe justify one (or two if I was getting regular income from filmmaking) in the $2000-5000 price range but in all honesty it likely would take at least couple of years per lens to percolate to the top of the frivolous purchases list and there would be no guarantee. But then again I never thought I would buy the Veydra set (thanks Illya and HRC - the money is earned, just waiting on boss to pay it out) and that wasn't even a drunk ebay purchase! Alcohol costs me thousands every year, sometimes the items turn up before I realise I bought them, never drink and ebay - drink safe kids! :beer:

 

[Thomas Smet]

And why do people insist of buying anamorphic lenses? Does anybody ever actually own their own set? As far as I know most productions rent anamorphic lenses. I mean the beauty of m43 is that you can use PL mount lenses so why not do it like everybody else and just rent them? We already have the option of using the anamorphic lenses that are already out there, don't we? Is there a limitation in the design of anamorphic lenses where they do not adapt as well to smaller sensors?

I honestly feel as though if one wants to put in the extra care and effort to shoot anamorphic they should probably use the best glass they can. Anamorphic will show imperfections a lot easier than spherical lenses will and you really do not want to compromise on quality just for the bragging rights that you own your own set.

 

[Egg Born Son]

Not everyone has easy access to rentals. Most of my gear is superior to what I can rent locally. I would only rent c-stands from the local film and television organisation. Photography is fairly well catered to here but not so much cinematography. I've had to buy most my gear from the US because most stores nationwide don't actually stock any of the cinematography supplies they are the authorised dealers for and take many times as long to bring them in as a private purchase and double the price for that delay.

Additionally on the flipside I can rent my own gear out to other productions to recover some money. Carefully, I can't afford to insure it and so will only do so to people I know or if they take me as part of the package but so far I've gotten away with it. You're right though, I really can't justify an anamorphic purchase. Although what I can justify and what I actually do in life don't share too much crossover...

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

There's a bunch of cheap/crappy anamorphic adpaters available for various formats, and I am not including the projection lenses that are adpated, although many of those give some of the worst results.

There are roughly 5 talented anamorphic lens designers currently working in the world. That is- people capable of producing a word class optic on par with the best out there.
Keep in mind that if a new anamorphic prime lens was sold for $20,000 today it would be the cheapest in the world. It's also more difficult to make wide angle anamorphic focal lengths.


At what cost would a dedicated "MFT anamorphic" be too much?

My feeling is that everyone wants this, but no one is willing to pay for what it should cost.

So what say you? Would you be willing to pay any of the following levels?

$2000 per MFT cinema prime ($10,000 per 5x lens MFT set)
$5000 per MFT cinema prime ($25,000 per 5x lens MFT set)
$12000 per MFT cinema prime ($60,000 per 5x lens MFT set)
$20000 per MFT cinema prime ($100,000 per 5x lens MFT set)

I think for the purposes of this discussion, we can cross anamorphic zooms off the "wish list" as there are many people unhappy with the price/size/features associated with anamorphic zoom offerings available today.

Yup and anamorphic zooms are also typically of rear-anamorphic design which is not good for the anamorphic 'look', which is honestly the main reason most use it today. I've been tempted to get those older Cooke zooms with the rear adapters, but then I always remember that the anamorphic mojo is not there. Oh well,

 

[wwjd]

So, circling back around... I know SLR MAGIC Anamorphot was reject in the OP, but why isn't that a serious contender? $900 seems pretty reasonable compared to the rest of the pricing seen in this thread.
It's just one extra step to focus. And much cheaper than hiring a pro movie camera fully rigged for anamorphic and the trained crew to run it all. We should be AMAZED at what we can get today.