So what's the point?

[William Reynish]

Hi anamorphic people.

 

After having bought the SLR Anamorphot (which apparently was a bad sample) it got me thinking: what is truly the point of these anamorphic adapters?

 

They seem to achieve these two things:

 

1: Theoretical increased resolution by avoiding having to crop the sensor to go to CinemaScope

2: Aesthetic optical side-effects, such as oblong bokeh and streaky flares

 

However, it seems to me that these two things aren't worth it. Here's why:

 

1: The increased resolution is negated by the fact that most anamorphic adapters aren't really that sharp

2: You can easily achieve oblong bokeh and horisontal flares with a cheap filter (such as the CineMorph)

 

Add to that, anamorphic adapters have loads of other drawbacks:

 

-They are large and heavy, more gear to worry about

-Focusing takes a long time, unless you have an Iscorama with single focus

-You can't rack focus, again unless you have an Iscorama

-You have to use diopters to focus closely

-You have to stop down to f4 for it to be sharp

-Most of them don't work well on full frame, where you can often only use tele lenses to avoid vignetting

-They are very expensive

 

It seems to me, as an A7s owner, that anamorphic adapters are not really a great idea. I also have the Shogun which records 4K resolution, so I actually get *more* resolution by shooting in 4K and cropping to CinemaScope than if I use the Anamorphot, which blurs everything enough that 4k is a waste. And even though anamorphic bokeh filters take away a stop or two of light, I actually still get *more* light in because I no longer have to stop down to f4 of f8 to get sharp results. Add to that the expense and annoying hassle of using the Anamorphot in production. In the end, you put all this energy, time and money into something that really doesn't seem worth it.

 

Or did I miss something? What do I really gain by using an anamorphic adapter that I don't see?

 

[Policar]

It's more an aesthetic choice than anything. While you can fake the look (poorly) using string and an oval aperture cut-out, the flares, distortion, and character of the image don't really look the same. Then again, eBay adapters don't really look like Panavision anamorphic lenses, either.

But it's always been an aesthetic choice (at last in recent history). Look at how much was shot in 2.35:1 two perf as an alternative to anamorphic in the 90s and oughts. Michael Bay is an interesting example... shot Bad Boys II in 2.35:1 spherical then moved to anamorphic exclusively until he switched to shooting on both digital and film. Some DPs don't like the unnatural look of anamorphic lenses (Roger Deakins never uses them, while he does shoot 2.35:1 at times); some directors just like the nostalgia (JJ Abrams). There's a bit more resolution, sure, and a finer grain structure on film, but it's primarily an esthetic choice, rather than a technical one, and has been for decades.

When digital became popular, it was difficult to shoot anamorphic because of the 16:9 sensor size resulting in a 3.5:1 image, so shooting anamorphic became rarer on digital formats and perceived as more "high end." Every element of anamorphic has a totally different look, from the bokeh, to the distortion, to the flares, and some directors (Anthony Mandler) even embraced the 3.5:1 look. Meanwhile only the Alexa Plus has a 4:3 sensor so between renting that and anamorphic lenses you're spending a lot of money. So it's a way to make your production look high end... check out the new Total Recall (Epic) and Ninja Turtles movies to see digital anamorphic photography on high end CGI-filled features. Check out the Lego Movie (or, Wall•E) to see an anamorphic look on pure CGI... total aesthetic choice here, but it makes it look more "real" and more high end. The weird lens artifacts take off a bit of digital sterility.

On the ultra low end hobbyist side, the Iscorama (still hoping to buy one) seems particularly nice because it gives you 2.6:1 and lets you focus and use a variety of lenses, but we'd all rather be using an Alexa Plus and Panavision lenses in theory. But anamorphic could give you the right look for the right project. If I'm doing a Spielberg 80s homage like Super 8 or something I'd much rather be shooting anamorphic. If a director wants it you should be able to provide it. If you're the director and you don't care, yeah, pass. I think the 1.33:1 adapters seem odd.

Treat it as an aesthetic choice, not a technical one. Ultimately, every choice is.

Fwiw, a lot of anamorphics are decently sharp at t2.8. And sharp isn't always the goal. 1080p is enough resolution to let you focus on texture and grain, not just crispness. If you watch the Dark Knight blu ray (not my favorite movie, but whatever) you can see that the IMAX portions are way sharper than the anamorphic portions even at 1080p! But the anamorphic photography has a good look. Very organic. Those are some nice looking movies. Kaminski doesn't shoot anamorphic (at least not much that I know of) but he softens and distorts the image in a really organic way through other means while still getting a sharp enough image for projection and blu ray.

[robbing]

1-To me CinemaScope means WIDE,means big shots with brain compositions,wide angle to get things inside of frame.

Anamorphic with 80mm not make much sense to me. (again: to my taste)

 

2-Iscorama is overrated,an adapter that just focus from 2m and have warm flares. Ok,is cool the single focus but never may look like a Panavision.

 

3- Ana x2 is the best if you have 4:3 gate or sensor. Ana 1.33x on 16:9..mmm...don´t look CinemaScope,not worth it. in fact,anamorphic in digital not make sense,is just for look.

Pana,SLR,Century and all those 1.33 Anamorphics are a scam,super overrated. If these cost $200 could be a good deal.

 

Whats could be a great anamorphic for low budget?

x2,x1.7 or x1.5 hold the look. No vignetting with 35mm taking lens and focus module that again,no vignetting with 35mm taking lens.

So,now: 300€ Cheap x2 Ana+500€ FM+clamp+taking lens....just for 80mm?..Are you kidding?

This is not CinemaScope is expensive patches.

There is manny people that love anamorphic,why we get together and make our own prototype?

 

[Policar]

1-To me CinemaScope means WIDE,means big shots with brain compositions,wide angle to get things inside of frame.

Anamorphic with 80mm not make much sense to me. (again: to my taste)

 

2-Iscorama is overrated,an adapter that just focus from 2m and have warm flares. Ok,is cool the single focus but never may look like a Panavision.

 

3- Ana x2 is the best if you have 4:3 gate or sensor. Ana 1.33x on 16:9..mmm...don´t look CinemaScope,not worth it. in fact,anamorphic in digital not make sense,is just for look.

Pana,SLR,Century and all those 1.33 Anamorphics are a scam,super overrated. If these cost $200 could be a good deal.

 

Whats could be a great anamorphic for low budget?

x2,x1.7 or x1.5 hold the look. No vignetting with 35mm taking lens and focus module that again,no vignetting with 35mm taking lens.

So,now: 300€ Cheap x2 Ana+500€ FM+clamp+taking lens....just for 80mm?..Are you kidding?

This is not CinemaScope is expensive patches.

There is manny people that love anamorphic,why we get together and make our own prototype?

 

​Ridley and Tony Scott shot primarily on long anamorphic lenses earlier in their career, and their work is quite great. 

You're right, though, nothing replaces Panavison anamorphic lenses on a 4:3 sensor or on film. And that's why that look is so coveted... it's expensive just to get it. 

Which Iscos have bluer flares and which are warmer? I'm not a fan of warm flares either, but even the new Hawk anamorphics have more neutral/rainbow flares and people dig it.

[richg101]

The words SLR Magic Anamorphot and A7S (Full Frame Sensor) undermines the whole point of this topic.

 

Get an iscorama 54, a 50mm f1.4 and fit that on your A7S and the drawbacks are worth it.  this combowill resolve 4k onto a full frame sensor without any problems.  

The SLR magic wont even deliver 480p on full frame with any nice aesthetic.  it's a pointless piece of glass that should be outlawed, along with any discussion about it.  Throw it in the bin. 

[robbing]

 

​Ridley and Tony Scott shot primarily on long anamorphic lenses earlier in their career, and their work is quite great. 

You're right, though, nothing replaces Panavison anamorphic lenses on a 4:3 sensor or on film. And that's why that look is so coveted... it's expensive just to get it. 

Which Iscos have bluer flares and which are warmer? I'm not a fan of warm flares either, but even the new Hawk anamorphics have more neutral/rainbow flares and people dig it.

​Ridley,JJ Abrams...and Hollywood so on... is a 1% of CinemaScope filmakers around the world.

Don´t get me wrong,Ridley like Carpenter are one of my favorite ones,but in EU are a lot of movies shot in Anamorphic with anecdotal flares.

And as I said,it´s just my opinion. I like Wide anamorphic,that´s all

By the way:

Do you know that "the Thin Red Line" was shot In Spain with double focus anamorphic? Yes,taking lens with anamorphic adapter.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058648/

From 1964 to now we still fighting with the same sh**t thanks to people like SLR Magic  c´mon..we are in 2015! We need be more exigent with the stuff they sell us.

PS:Really agree with your first post here,Policar.

I don´t really like Hawk,perhaps the "Vintage" ones they develop but still not looking pretty cool to my taste yet.

 

[Policar]

​Ridley,JJ Abrams...and Hollywood so on... is a 1% of CinemaScope filmakers around the world.

Don´t get me wrong,Ridley like Carpenter are one of my favorite ones,but in EU are a lot of movies shot in Anamorphic with anecdotal flares.

And as I said,it´s just my opinion. I like Wide anamorphic,that´s all

By the way:

Do you know that "the Thin Red Line" was shot In Spain with double focus anamorphic? Yes,taking lens with anamorphic adapter.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058648/

From 1964 to now we still fighting with the same sh**t thanks to people like SLR Magic  c´mon..we are in 2015! We need be more exigent with the stuff they sell us.

PS:Really agree with your first post here,Policar.

I don´t really like Hawk,perhaps the "Vintage" ones they develop but still not looking pretty cool to my taste yet.

 

​Thanks, I'm flattered! And I mostly agree with everything you've written. While the Hawks still look good (a friend shot a short on the Alexa Plus with them and it looks great; another friend shot them on 35mm and it looks very good, too), the look of the Panavision lenses and even the Kowas is more Classical and textured and would be my preference. The beautiful flares and character of the Panavisions are replaced with these sterile rainbow flares on the Hawks... I don't like the new coatings, but I do like how well they handle "anamorphic mumps" and DPs I know who use them love them.

My reference points are very "Hollywood." It is how I grew up and what I learned in school so I mean no offense in quoting Hollywood directors exclusively. Kurosawa also used long anamorphic lenses at times, but I am less familiar with that work. I also like wide anamorphic, I just think long lens anamorphic can look great.

[robbing]

​Thanks, I'm flattered! And I mostly agree with everything you've written. While the Hawks still look good (a friend shot a short on the Alexa Plus with them and it looks great; another friend shot them on 35mm and it looks very good, too), the look of the Panavision lenses and even the Kowas is more Classical and textured and would be my preference. The beautiful flares and character of the Panavisions are replaced with these sterile rainbow flares on the Hawks... I don't like the new coatings, but I do like how well they handle "anamorphic mumps" and DPs I know who use them love them.

My reference points are very "Hollywood." It is how I grew up and what I learned in school so I mean no offense in quoting Hollywood directors exclusively. Kurosawa also used long anamorphic lenses at times, but I am less familiar with that work. I also like wide anamorphic, I just think long lens anamorphic can look great.

​Yep,Ran was shot with tele lens and I love it. He going to Russian to get a wide shot in Japan ..kidding,but is true they got very far of the set to frame wide shots.

I believe the Kowa is the most cheap after Lomo,right? I have a DOP friend that he are looking for a set of Kowa Ana primes.

Per 200 bucks day we can rent a Panavision C series,perhaps some day I have the luxury.

[William Reynish]

Thanks for the great responses. In practice it seems like most anamorphic adapters are mostly useful on 4:3 sensors so that you can actually use 2x anamorphics to get the full effect. And most aren't designed for full frame. 

On the A7s, the options seem fairly limited and frustrating though. Here's hoping Sony will enable us to use the full sensor, not just 16:9.

[Tito Ferradans]

As a full frame owner - 5d3 - I'm way happier with anamorphics than I was with standard spherical. I also took time (and money) to get Iscoramas, and 50mm taking lens plus 1.5x stretch is wide enough for almost everything I ever needed, covering the whole sensor and getting 2.66:1 aspect ratio.

MagicLantern also allows us to shoot 4:3 raw, using the sensor's full height and get the best out of 2x anamorphics,

My goal is not to have the best lenses available, but achieve the best balance between cost and picture quality. Some day, if I win the lottery, I'll go after LOMO roundfronts. hahaha

[richg101]

 

My goal is not to have the best lenses available, but achieve the best balance between cost and picture quality. Some day, if I win the lottery, I'll go after HAWk 74's. hahaha

​