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

Jaime Valles

Jaime Valles

Veteran
After seeing the massive success of the Kickstarter campaign for the Veydra Mini Primes, I'm curious if anyone is going to try their hand at making a new set of low-cost Anamorphic lenses designed specifically for Micro 4/3. Especially with the GH4 in 4K Photo Mode, a 2x anamorphic set could be incredible. There are adapters out there (SLR Magic Anamorphot, etc.) but they're clunky and hard to focus when combined with a regular lens.

I know absolutely nothing about lens design, so maybe what I'm asking is impossible to do on a budget. But it seems to me that any company that puts out an inexpensive set of anamorphic lenses for either m4/3 or S35 would make a killing.

Thoughts?
 
Bern Caughey said:
A number of high end cine lens manufacturers have recently released new anamorphics.
Click to expand...
Indeed. But they're all very expensive. I'm talking about lenses in the price range of Rokinon Cine lenses, or the new Veydra Mini Primes. Somewhere around $3000 to $5000 for the set.
 
I'd also love this, but Its pretty specialist at the moment and not cheap to make just for MFT. At the moment, the 4k photo mode isn't exactly aimed at video (no HDMI out for example) but certainly can be used for anamorphic shooting. Hopefully panasonic embrace this and allow a few more video focused requirements to be part of the 4k photo mode. I use the SLR MAGIC 1.33x anamorphic adapter and its really great, although perhaps slightly subtle in its 'anamorphicness'. They're bring out a 2x anamorphic adapter soon which will exaggerate all the anamorphic qualities (waterfall bokeh, field of view expansion etc) which should tick all the boxes.
 
Film making is already a niche market. Shooting anamorphic is even more of a niche. I think it all has to do with the market size and if somebody can make money. I would assume creating an anamorphic lens is not an easy task. Creating high quality lenses is already a complex fine art and trying to create anamorphic is even more complex from what I understand. This is not the sort of thing some dude can whip together in their garage over the weekend.

Really though I think it comes down to cost and if there is enough market to support it. Photographers have no use for anamorphic lenses and these really are a 100% film making tool. Kind of like the cine lenses. Those are starting to become more common but they can still function as a stills lens. Cine lenses are also not as hard to make because they are typically just photo lenses with a few minor adjustments to the body of the lens. No optical changes needed. Anamorphic requires creating an entirely new complex lens just for a handful of film makers who actually want to shoot anamorphic.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Plus without a true 4:3 sensor i dont see the point.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what the GH4 v2 photo mode provides. Now all they need do is add support for 24p.

The SLR Magic 1.33x can seem clunky but it's certainly not hard to use or focus. The new 2x is much less clunky in that there are no more side screws and does provide better telltale signatures of anamorphic capture. Either way, manufacturing anamorphic lenses as opposed to adapters is really, really expensive. If the OP wants to shoot anamorphic, it's adapters, old or new, or be prepared to bleed some cash.
 
Some responses here already answered with some great reasons.

I'll add by saying that I suppose someone may do it, but who?

The challenges are far greater...

#1: Anamorphic elements are difficult to manufacture. Anamorphic glass elements are cylindrical (versus spherical) and most optical manufacturing companies are not equipped to make these. Even when so, it's very difficult to manufacture good anamorphic elements which bend the image uniformly into a 2:1 ratio and have low CA, distortion, and keeps sharp from edge to center. Even Kowa and Lomo anamorphic lenses, the bottom shelf of professional PL mount anamorphic lenses are sometimes rejected by cinematographers who need higher quality at the edges.

#2: Extra mechanics are required depending on the lens design. Some anamorphic lens designs require the front glass element to adjust in concert with the spherical elements while focusing. There are other designs, but again just demonstrating that it's not as easy as just getting any anamorphic element and slapping it onto the front of a lens, like many do with their photography lens-anamorphic adapter setups. This is one reason you sometimes see those 'bumps' in Panavision vintage anamorphics.

#3: Niche, niche and niche. I thought the Veydra's were riding the thin line of being almost being too niche for market. Now anamorphic is even more so! Even after accepting the fact these anamorphic lenses will only be marketable to m4/3 cameras, you then have to accept that the vast majority of production is spherical. I can expect the amount of orders to be considerably less than spherical lenses like the 'Veydra' lenses.

#4: Sensor size: There is not an official rule for what aspect ratio you are supposed to shoot your production in... this profession is an art, so you can do something crazy like 1:1 square or 5:1 super wide-screen.... BUT, there are standards we typically adhere to for presentation purposes and deliverable. Distribution will also have a strong say. That said, 16:9 is HDTV king. When it comes to anamorphic capture and presentation, 2.39:1 is the official ratio by today's standards. (it has not been 2.35 since the 1970's, that has just been a perpetuated and incorrect standard for about 40 years.) Most HD video sensors are 16:9, understandably, but this size establishes an issue with anamorphic. Clearly a 2x ratio will create a 32:9 image, which is a 3.55:1 ratio. This is much wider than 2.39:1, or what is commonly referred to as 2.40:1. This is why the Alexa has a 4:3 sensor mode, creating the very close 2.66 ratio which requires just a little pillar boxing to reach the 2.4:1 desired ratio. A 3.55:1 ratio requires a massive pillar boxing after de-squeeze and does the opposite effect to resolution as anamorphic optics were originally designed to do. As mentioned, you would need GH4 to offer a sensor aspect mode of 4:3 and ideally a resolution of HD or higher within that sensor size in order to rationalize using anamorphic lenses over spherical.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Cine lenses are also not as hard to make because they are typically just photo lenses with a few minor adjustments to the body of the lens. No optical changes needed.
Click to expand...

Yes, making a good spherical element is likely easier to manufacture than a good cylindrical element for anamorphic, but that is all that is true with your statement. You are perhaps correct with some really cheap and questionably marketed lenses being called 'cine-lenses'. But believe me, that statement can't be further from the truth for most lenses we call cinema lenses.

You have the proportions reversed. Typically, cinema lenses are not photography lenses with minor adjustments.
 
Not to triple post, but I do think there is room in the market for lower cost s35mm cinema anamorphics...

Right now we have amazing Master Anamorphics, Cooke Anamorphics, Hawk Anamorphics, etc... but we then have the alright but REALLY funky Kowa's and Lomo's on the bottom. Not much in the middle... would love to see a set of Anamorphics that rented for $400-$500/day and cost about $40,000 for a set. That would fit into most of the lower budget things I work on.

If Cooke made a set of "Mini-Anamorphics", say at T/4 that were priced along the lines of the Mini-S4/i's, I'd buy a set immediately. Love their new anamorphics. Just can't afford them.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Yes, making a good spherical element is likely easier to manufacture than a good cylindrical element for anamorphic, but that is all that is true with your statement. You are perhaps correct with some really cheap and questionably marketed lenses being called 'cine-lenses'. But believe me, that statement can't be further from the truth for most lenses we call cinema lenses.

You have the proportions reversed. Typically, cinema lenses are not photography lenses with minor adjustments.
Click to expand...

Sorry I was referring to those photo lenses that have been turned into cine lenses like the Rokinon lenses. I wasn't talking about the native cinema lenses. I mentioned this because most here are in fact using the simple cine style of lenses because that is what most of us have access to.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Some responses here already answered with some great reasons.

I'll add by saying that I suppose someone may do it, but who?

The challenges are far greater...

#1: Anamorphic elements are difficult to manufacture. Anamorphic glass elements are cylindrical (versus spherical) and most optical manufacturing companies are not equipped to make these. Even when so, it's very difficult to manufacture good anamorphic elements which bend the image uniformly into a 2:1 ratio and have low CA, distortion, and keeps sharp from edge to center. Even Kowa and Lomo anamorphic lenses, the bottom shelf of professional PL mount anamorphic lenses are sometimes rejected by cinematographers who need higher quality at the edges.

#2: Extra mechanics are required depending on the lens design. Some anamorphic lens designs require the front glass element to adjust in concert with the spherical elements while focusing. There are other designs, but again just demonstrating that it's not as easy as just getting any anamorphic element and slapping it onto the front of a lens, like many do with their photography lens-anamorphic adapter setups. This is one reason you sometimes see those 'bumps' in Panavision vintage anamorphics.

#3: Niche, niche and niche. I thought the Veydra's were riding the thin line of being almost being too niche for market. Now anamorphic is even more so! Even after accepting the fact these anamorphic lenses will only be marketable to m4/3 cameras, you then have to accept that the vast majority of production is spherical. I can expect the amount of orders to be considerably less than spherical lenses like the 'Veydra' lenses.
Click to expand...
This all makes sense to me. As I said, I know nothing about lens design, so I believe you when you say it's much more complicated. The only reason I thought it might be easier for m4/3 is the smaller sensor means glass can be less expensive (as with the Veydra Mini Primes). But it may be a pipe dream.

I don't think, however, that anamorphic lenses are a niche. Well, they're only niche because they're prohibitively expensive for low budget production. A few years ago I would have said the same of cinema lenses, and now we have the Veydra set for less than $5000. I bet if someone made anamorphic lenses for that price they wouldn't be able to keep up with the demand. But, as you said, it may not be possible for that price.

#4: Sensor size: There is not an official rule for what aspect ratio you are supposed to shoot your production in... this profession is an art, so you can do something crazy like 1:1 square or 5:1 super wide-screen.... BUT, there are standards we typically adhere to for presentation purposes and deliverable. Distribution will also have a strong say. That said, 16:9 is HDTV king. When it comes to anamorphic capture and presentation, 2.39:1 is the official ratio by today's standards. (it has not been 2.35 since the 1970's, that has just been a perpetuated and incorrect standard for about 40 years.) Most HD video sensors are 16:9, understandably, but this size establishes an issue with anamorphic. Clearly a 2x ratio will create a 32:9 image, which is a 3.55:1 ratio. This is much wider than 2.39:1, or what is commonly referred to as 2.40:1. This is why the Alexa has a 4:3 sensor mode, creating the very close 2.66 ratio which requires just a little pillar boxing to reach the 2.4:1 desired ratio. A 3.55:1 ratio requires a massive pillar boxing after de-squeeze and does the opposite effect to resolution as anamorphic optics were originally designed to do. As mentioned, you would need GH4 to offer a sensor aspect mode of 4:3 and ideally a resolution of HD or higher within that sensor size in order to rationalize using anamorphic lenses over spherical.
Click to expand...
Except the GH4 already has a 4:3 shooting mode when using the 4K Photo Mode. As Stoneinapond wrote above, once they add 24p support to 4K Photo mode, it's ready to be used with 2x anamorphic lenses.

Fingers crossed!
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Some responses here already answered with some great reasons.

I'll add by saying that I suppose someone may do it, but who? ...
Click to expand...
I would say it's the major electronics manufacturers themselves (independently or via their partners in the lens biz, such as Leica, Zeiss, et al.)

I also think that some folks underestimate the size of the MFT market. Its quest toward acceptance in the video community basically only began with GH-1 and GH-2. Now that 4K has become achievable on the "enthusiast" level cameras, one should see a majority of the $1,000+ camera have that feature. And that means that hundreds of thousands users will become potential customers.

Having said that, it will be easier for these manufacturers to avail their general lens lineups to the third party anamorphic adapter brands like SLR Magic rather than make everything themselves. (with a possible exception of a 24-35-50 mm FF equivalents)
 
Jaime Valles said:
This all makes sense to me. As I said, I know nothing about lens design, so I believe you when you say it's much more complicated. The only reason I thought it might be easier for m4/3 is the smaller sensormeans glass can be less expensive (as with the Veydra Mini Primes). But it may be a pipe dream.
Click to expand...

You are correct, optics are generally less expensive to make for smaller format sensors. But this does not mean there aren't challenges abound! :)



Jaime Valles said:
I don't think, however, that anamorphic lenses are a niche. Well, they're only niche because they're prohibitively expensive for low budget production. A few years ago I would have said the same of cinema lenses, and now we have the Veydra set for less than $5000. I bet if someone made anamorphic lenses for that price they wouldn't be able to keep up with the demand. But, as you said, it may not be possible for that price.
Click to expand...

I would hesitate to agree. Obviously the world is filled with many different people shooting many different things, but from my professional experience in my neck of the woods, anamorphic is chosen as the appropriate aesthetic considerably less often than spherical... even when the choice is removed from price considerations. At a production ratio possibly 10:1 or higher, spherical lenses are the order of the day. I also mainly work with anamorphic friendly cameras, which also eliminates the second highest factor for avoiding anamorphic lenses, and I still only encounter anamorphic lenses less than 10% of the time.

So yes, while a set of m4/3 anamorphic lenses will increase the use of anamorphic usage within the world of m4/3 camera users who otherwise couldn't afford proper anamorphic lenses (and assuming the camera manufacturers can modify m4/3 cameras to accommodate such lenses,) I still think after all of that improved accessibility and compatibility, that only a fraction of current m4/3 productions would utilize a 2.40:1 aspect ratio as the appropriate choice for the final product of the piece.

Although rare use of anamorphic is not a reason for one to simply not buy the set of lenses, it is in my view, a large deturant from many who may not want to invest heavily in a set of lenses they will only use a fraction of the time. Unless the owner plans to rent the lenses, many GH4 videographers won't want to spend a good chunk of money on a good set of spherical lenses and then likely twice as much for a set of anamorphics they will only use on a fraction of their jobs. Most corporate, commercial and event work does not typically call for anamorphic. In fact, it's too often used to add fake 'production value' at the cost of appropriateness. haha. I see this too often!

How many people do you think will buy a set of lenses that cost multiple times the cost of their camera, when we are talking about a fraction of the marketshare of only the <m4/3 videography market?

I hope someone does make them. I agree it would be amazing. I just wouldn't hold my breath! That is a costly R&D process for a fraction of a niche market, who generally are very tight on spending. A rental house won't think twice in purchasing Cooke S4's, Master Primes or Leica Summilux C's which cost between $100,000- $250,000/ set. In the m4/3 world, the crowd gets rowdy above $5,000. As a lens manufacturer, it's risky to go into lens development with a price-ceiling set so low.




Lastly, if the m4/3 community continues to grow, than yes, the chances of any manufacterer being attracted to this market will increase, and these dreams will become more probable to become a reality....

Also, if m4/3 wants to get in on the anamorphic cinema world, they (camera manufacturers) need to create a robust and shimmable lens mount in addition to a 4:3 sized sensor (not just center cropping, mind you), and proper desqueeze monitoring.

That or we need each cinema lens for m4/3 to have adjustable backfocus like an ENG lens.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Smet said:
Sorry I was referring to those photo lenses that have been turned into cine lenses like the Rokinon lenses. I wasn't talking about the native cinema lenses. I mentioned this because most here are in fact using the simple cine style of lenses because that is what most of us have access to.
Click to expand...

No worries. This is just a miscommunication resulting from lens manufacterers who should never have called their products 'cinema lenses' in the first place. They should use the term 'Cine-modded' or something similar as that is the correct term for half-breeds.... wow... I sounded like a lens bigot! Yikes.
 
Anamorphic has always been niche. I've talked to a few old school guys on other forums back before there was much info to be found on the internet. Primarily because they were so niche there was very little documentation produced to scan and put on the internet in the first place. All I've ever found that was original is some marketing material and a couple of spec sheets and charts which didn't contain a legend to interpret them. Apparently they are all bespoke, the demand has never been there to tool up for mass production. The other thing to realise is they were never created for a look (perhaps the modern high end ones Ryan mentions are) but a technical solution to solve a problem. In the first instance to create widescreen that fit on regular, cheaper film stock and more recently as a temporary solution for the transitional period from SD to HD.

I think complete anamorphics lenses would be great, but they would cost more than us in the MFT crowd would be willing to pay and if we could afford them we would likely be shooting a different system. Not everybody but most of us. Certainly too much to buy and many of us don't live in places where rental is an option. The Veydras hit the pricepoint that I would suggest hit the exact maximum price point that a typical MFT shooter can justify and the kickstarter price certainly got a few of us across the line. I certainly couldn't justify the purchase beyond the knowledge that the chances of ever getting another opportunity to own a cinema lens in my current income bracket were minimal. Maybe one just to say I had one. Now I can say I have a set (and based on a recent networking event it appears that they may have got me work next year).

So I think the better option to hope for might be a better adapter. One actually designed for shooting that provides the anamorphic qualities that are sought. The better design would be one that you set the taking lens to infinity and focus with the adapter. 2x and 1.5x ratios rather than the 1.33x ones currently available. In my anamorphic play I find pillar boxing on a 2x to produce better results than letter boxing non-anamorphic footage (when scaled to the same size) produces better perceived resolution due to preservation of the vertical resolution which confirms what I've read time and time again has a larger proportional effect on perceived sharpness. It also gives you the familiar anamorphic artifacts such as waterfall bokeh and horizontal flares (depending on coatings) and most the aberations live on the edges, which you are trimming off. The fear of losing pixels is more intellectual than what appears in the final results. The softening of the stretched pixels is quite pleasant.

The reason I have yet to use adapted anamorphics on a real shoot is because when push comes to shove, do you really want to add to the complication, standing around time and potential issues with your footage when under pressure of a room full of people and a schedule to meet? If I had something that didn't need to constant attention to the alignment on (you have to check it every shot, really); hunt for focus by rocking back and forth on two devices looking amateur (which I am but don't like to look it); and swap over to your other one for a rack focus and then back because the focus through one isn't really good for anything else; and basically didn't rob mental energy that should be devoted to framing and composition and telling the story, then I would buy that. Otherwise, unless I can get a personal scifi project off the ground that I can take my time in a controlled environment, I can't see them being used in anger.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Cine lenses are also not as hard to make because they are typically just photo lenses with a few minor adjustments to the body of the lens. No optical changes needed.
Click to expand...

You would think so, right! Which makes me question the $3500 cost of "cinemizing" the Sigma 18-35 1.8 lens, which costs only $800. I mean, the hard part is already done by Sigma, so why is GL Optics charging us more than 4x the cost of the lens to do the easy part? (A part that I feel Sigma should really have done to begin with.)
 
Jim Simon said:
I think a 2x set would be too wide, myself. For a 16x9 frame, a 1.33 set would be ideal.
Click to expand...
The current thinking is that, if Panasonic enables a 4:3 and 3:2 on the GH-4 MFT sensor, then an anamorphic can get you the desired ratios with a higher pixel count and without the dreaded 2.3 crop and the sub-4K final image.*

*GH-4 was tested to be roughly 1500 lines due to a typical loss of 20% after the debayering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top