The Anamorphic Lens Craze

[Caleb Genheimer]

hey, all! I'm curious what everyone thinks about the rise in popularity of anamorphic lenses in indie/hobby filmmaking. Clearly a lot of people are into it right now, as certain lenses have become difficult to find in good quality at reasonable price. To those who have been using and buying anamorphic lenses for some time, do you think anamorphic lenses have become permanently rare items, or is it a fad that will wear off for the vast number of current anamorphic shooters?

[Sean Cunningham]

It's popular now because it's only recently that we have cameras capable of actually using the classic lenses as intended or re-purposing the the more modern adapters that were originally intended to overcome the straight jacket of 4:3 DV videography (which killed much of the 16mm and 8mm enthusiast and professional usage).

 

I remember the first time I ever saw the mini35 adapter for DV my initial thoughts were, "I bet anamorphic lenses would be awesome with one of these."

 

Lens makers are coming out with new lines of anamorphic primes and zooms which will, I'm betting, free up some of the scarcity of currently existing but maybe not as available options along with the stock that was bought up by people who really didn't "get it" and have grown out of this phase and moved on to the next thing they'll spend money on without really "getting it".

[tony wilson]

amateur anamorphics where a niche within a niche.

cheap 8mm home movie film cameras and then bolex poshness.
cheap nasty plastic super 8 cameras and then leicina,nizo,beaulieu posh cameras.
1 in 10 would of shot scope.
the reason why a lot are around is because before the vhs machine many people projected hollywood movies on super 8 some needed an anamorphic lens.
standard 8 scope projection was super rare standard 8 catered for non scope skin flick striptease type filums : )

many many lens whould have been dumped in the bin in the 80s and 90s many still exists in garages,drawers and in lofts.
some will always be super rare.
think about it..
in the early 1980s and iscorama in london would have cost £1200 sterling new.
the best super 8 camera ever made the leicina special and the most expensive the body price was 300-400 sterling.
that is a lot of money for a lens you might not use often.
the good stuff was purchased by the well off but also corporations for use in photographic marketing and also military.


one ebayer last year dumped in the bin 3 tiny moller anamorphics i was trying to buy from him the shit dumped them because he said the coatings had marks on them and he only liked selling good stuff.
with shits like that around the real good vintage stuff will always be rare ish.

[roccoforte]

The DSLR revolution/craze/movement has caused the boom in popularity, price inflation and scarcity. The only reason they weren't popular prior to this is because low budget film makers and hobbyists weren't able to afford a camera for these adaptors to work with. Now they can.

 

Is it a fad? Not sure. On the one hand, some argue the wide aspect ratio look has a timeless, useful and quality to it, which is always in demand. On the other hand, perhaps people will grow tired of this and it will go out of style. Who can say? As for the lenses themselves; it is possible they'll become relics if a cheaper alternative emerges, which creates the same look (such as better post processing). Or, if sensor sizes become so large that they won't work at all. When that happens, their price will plummet, but then of course no one will want one!

[Sean Cunningham]

The only post processing that will create the same look as anamorphic would be actual magick.  

[Caleb Genheimer]

Exactly. I'm just hoping that the number of people adding flares and widescreen in post increases, leaving the good anamorphic lenses cheaper and more available for those of us that know the above-mentioned. I for one have gone anamorphic and will never go back, but knowing the limitations of double focus, I'm hoping to one day pick up a 1.5 or 2X rack focusable unit. At the current time,  these are all in the multiple thousands of dollars.

[roccoforte]

The only post processing that will create the same look as anamorphic would be actual magick.  

Well, sure. I'm talking hypotheticals but ya never know...

[Caleb Genheimer]

I mean, theoretically when lightfield sensors become standard across the board, there will be all sorts of lens simulations available in post-production. With information on each light ray's direction, it would theoretically be possible to eliminate certain rays, effectively stopping down the lens or changing the aperture shape. It would follow that via remapping and/or synthesizing, an anamorphic lens could be simulated in post. Most cameras would come equipped with a very sterile fast aperture wide-tele zoom and a lightfield profile of that lens. From that base profile, other lenses could be simulated for effect. 

 

All that being said . . . there's nothing quite like using the real thing.

[Sean Cunningham]

Anamorphic isn't just changing the aperture shape.  Adding streaks is one thing.  Using something like the VidAtlantic filter to create an oval bokeh is another.  But these things plus cropping top and bottom to create a wider image are all two-dimensional affectations.  

 

Daylight, stopped down, wide angle, deep focus anamorphic photography, not pointed into the sun (thus removing the telltale signs of anamorphic photography my mother can recognize) still represents a different photograph than the same scene shot Super-35 and cropped wide.  The anamorphic footage will have a different feel.  Anamorphic captures depth differently.  You have two effective focal lengths at work, one for vertical and the other for horizontal but depth compression and DOF are based on and consistent with the vertical focal.

 

I suppose if one of these future super-lenses were to capture a complete 180 degree hemisphere view it might be possible but...that's what I mean by "magick".   Manipulating what the spherical lens sees based on angle and depth is one thing but it would have to actually see more of the scene than your lens could see to create all the extra visible information that an anamorphic lens would capture.

 

For instance, sticking with Panavision or Kowa, since the math is easier at 2X, you'd have to stick a 25mm spherical lens on the camera to "see" the same width of the 50mm anamorphic but then you have the depth compression and DOF of a 25mm lens, not a 50mm lens like with the anamorphic.  Shooting 50mm spherical to get the desired depth compression and DOF would mean then pushing the camera much further back to regain the horizontal FOV that's now missing and an approximation of the anamorphic's vertical framing once you discard most of your image by cropping the top and bottom off.  And it's still not really going to "feel" the same even if it's even possible to push the camera back far enough.  

 

In many cases it would necessitate digging a ditch to get the camera below the deck if the view is even slightly up-angle.

[brucker]

anyone make music?

 

it'll probably follow a similar pattern,... emulator plugins will come that will letterbox+add cheesey flare+fiddle with colours/sharpness.etc all at the touch of a button and it'll have a special "add mojo" randomizer and a special algorithm that is written by an anamorphic "expert" ...

 

and lil johnnys and janes everywhere will have their first steps rendering in glorious faux-nemascope,..

 

but there will be a core of us that would rather shoot and capture the look at the shoot than spend hours fiddling with sliders into the wee hours of the morning, so the prices of certain lenses will remain high if not go higher as supply dwindles.

 

just like in music where you have guys who have gone back to portastudios and tape and four track recorders and vintage synths cos all that technology got in the way of doing what they want to do.

 

dual focusing is nothing compared to the hours you could waste fiddling with sliders and always going just a smidge too far  :P

[roccoforte]

Great info guys - this is why I own one ;o)