anamorphic lens for what?

[zlfan]

anamorphic lens originally was to increase the resolution of the final footage, although this notion of resolution increases is debatable itself. 

nowadays, for 4k, 6k, 8k cameras, resolution is not an issue. shooting for TikTok and traditional aspect ratios together seems the current reason of open gate and anamorphic modes. 

actually, for TikTok, there is no need for over 1080p, as people watch on their phones. at least I don't see TikTok like big screen tvs.

on 5d3ml. there is a 1080px1080p crop mode. if the true purpose of open gate and anamorphic is not as a differentiator using that cross flare artifact to show that I am using expensive anamorphic lenses and you cannot afford them, I think 5d3ml 1080p 1x1 square mode is the best, as it is 1:1, raw, 14 bit, 1080p enough res for TikTok. also, rolling shutter is smaller in this mode as the sensor size is about 1 inch. 

[eatstoomuchjam]

Anamorphic wasn't made for resolution, IIRC.  It was made to allow a wider image on standard 35mm film.

The main uses these days for anamorphic lenses are the horizontal flares and oval bokeh, though some anamorphic systems also are said to feature shallower DOF at the same f-stop and some people say that focus rolloff is also nicer with them.

As far as modern times, cropping a 4k or 6k 17:9 image to a 2.35 aspect ratio is plenty for most uses (and gives a bit more flexibility than getting it right in camera.  If you really want horizontal flares, stretch some fishing line vertically over the front of the lens.  You could also probably create oval bokeh by putting an oval aperture over the front or back of the lens (though the fishing line and weirdly-placed aperture will result in some other visual artifacts).

Mostly, shoot anamorphic if you or your customer want it/like the look.  Otherwise, there's no purpose/need.

[zlfan]

5 hours ago, zlfan said:

anamorphic lens originally was to increase the resolution of the final footage, although this notion of resolution increases is debatable itself. 

nowadays, for 4k, 6k, 8k cameras, resolution is not an issue. shooting for TikTok and traditional aspect ratios together seems the current reason of open gate and anamorphic modes. 

actually, for TikTok, there is no need for over 1080p, as people watch on their phones. at least I don't see TikTok like big screen tvs.

on 5d3ml. there is a 1080px1080p crop mode. if the true purpose of open gate and anamorphic is not as a differentiator using that cross flare artifact to show that I am using expensive anamorphic lenses and you cannot afford them, I think 5d3ml 1080p 1x1 square mode is the best, as it is 1:1, raw, 14 bit, 1080p enough res for TikTok. also, rolling shutter is smaller in this mode as the sensor size is about 1 inch. 

to be more specific, 5d3ml has a 1920x1920 sub crop mode in 3.5k or 3k crop modes. I used it several years ago. the footage was ok.  

[KnightsFan]

5 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Anamorphic wasn't made for resolution, IIRC.  It was made to allow a wider image on standard 35mm film.

Anamorphic was used to project a wider aspect ratio onto existing film formats, thereby retaining full detail/resolution of the frame. Achieving the same ratio by cropping discarded surface area/resolution.

[TomTheDP]

Anamorphic definately doesn't make practical sense as even with theatrical releases most movies are watched on a 16:9 TV if not a phone(Even fucking worse). 

That said with the right sensor (maybe something even less wide than 4:3) you could shoot anamorphic and still get a 16:9 field of view. Anamorphic does give a very unque perspective that can't be replicated by shooting spherical. It is funny all the funky anamorphic characteristics were unitentional but are now sought after. Most of those characetistics like the weird bokeh weren't really utilized in the early days where shallow depth of field was never used. 

That said who will really notice in the audience but that goes for any of the BS stuff we do as cinemotographers in general. 

[MrSMW]

I’ve never really understood the appeal of anamorphic myself and absolutely hate those flares.

Whether it’s a big budget movie or a wedding ‘film’, it adds nothing and to me is the opposite and is like bad audio, - intrusive and avoidable.

As has already been mentioned, if a wide screen ‘crop’ or end result is the intention, just shoot for that in the first place.

I do wish more cameras had crop marks but Lumix is great in this regard as you can add them and reduce the rest by 25/50/75/100% which is fantastic.

Just shoot with a wider lens. It doesn’t even need to be at a higher res, just a wider lens.

IMO. Unless I am missing something? 

Oh yes, the difficult to work with in camera anamorphic squeeze, the out of focus corners, warpy and edges and odd bokeh.

But apart from that, it’s fooking cool man 🤪

[Ninpo33]

18 hours ago, zlfan said:

anamorphic lens originally was to increase the resolution of the final footage, although this notion of resolution increases is debatable itself. 

To be honest, in many cases Anamorphic lenses are still very much relevant today. I don’t think the “resolution increases” you mention is really the right term but without a doubt anamorphic lenses make the most out of smaller sensor sizes and help modern sensors achieve cinematic aspect ratios. 


It’s pretty simple really, by using the full height of the sensor and then desqueezing later in post, you’re able to use the most area. So a Super 35 camera like the Fuji X-H2s with 6.2k open gate ends up being similar to a full frame camera like a Sony FX3 which ends up cropping in on the sensor to achieve UHD or 4k DCI at 4k. Or the full frame LUMIX cameras that do open gate end up having massive anamorphic files with plenty of room to crop in and reframe etc after the desqueeze. 


Anamorphic flares although a matter of personal taste, do indeed bring many of us back to certain moments in film history and can evoke a sense of nostalgia/cinematic feeling. Oftentimes overused and done poorly these days so yeah, maybe becoming a bit gimmicky at this point. 


I will say that the other elements of anamorphic lenses are still very desirable today considering how clean and sterile things can look with modern cameras lenses and digital sensors. Highly dependent on the project of course and not for everything but narrative filmmaking benefits greatly by the look. Number one, it’s partly why things look “filmic” or “cinematic” to people. It’s creates a perspective and view that more closely resembles how humans actually see the world. The distortion, out of focus areas, focus fall off and bokeh are all helping to assist in taking the viewer into the story and sustaining the suspension of disbelief. Helping to focus objects and actors in a way that keeps attention and creates background separation/3D pop. It also really helps soften the general production design and background elements so they are more natural looking and don’t look like cheap props. I mean, there’s a reason why the good ones cost what they do and many of the top directors and dp’s have used them on the most celebrated films in history.


It makes sense that the democratization of  cameras and film tools would include anamorphic lenses at this point. it also means we are stuck with people using them to film cat videos for YouTube.

[zlfan]

on crop sensor, what is the advantage of anamorphic lenses over ff lenses plus a metabones reducer? the reducer can give you almost ff look, one stop more light, all the current available ff spherical lenses. 

 

Philip bloom used to shoot his cat a lot. sometimes, there are hidden talents in cat shooters. lol. 

[Ninpo33]

I'm not sure I understand your question, anamorphic lenses and speed boosters do very different things.

Anamorphic keeps the height roughly the same as a spherical lens but gives you a wider field of view with various degrees of interesting distortion and focus falloff. The look of 50mm lens so to speak but with a wider field of view more like a 35mm. (generalizing of course)

A speedbboster/focal reducer would simply give you back most of the focal length lost by the 1.5x crop from full frame to S35 etc... Your 50mm looks to have the field of view more like a 52mm with similar bokeh and possibly an extra stop of light. But the whole field of view is changed, not just on the horizontal. Plus you now have to crop the top and bottom and loose pixels to achieve a wider aspect ratio.

What I like about using FF Anamorphic lenses on a crop sensor camera is that you can loose some of the more extreme distortion and out of focus bits because you are not out at the edges of the lens. 

[herein2020]

On 8/7/2024 at 12:47 PM, zlfan said:

nowadays, for 4k, 6k, 8k cameras, resolution is not an issue. shooting for TikTok and traditional aspect ratios together seems the current reason of open gate and anamorphic modes. 

on 5d3ml. there is a 1080px1080p crop mode. if the true purpose of open gate and anamorphic is not as a differentiator using that cross flare artifact to show that I am using expensive anamorphic lenses and you cannot afford them, I think 5d3ml 1080p 1x1 square mode is the best, as it is 1:1, raw, 14 bit, 1080p enough res for TikTok. also, rolling shutter is smaller in this mode as the sensor size is about 1 inch. 

 

I have never used an anamorphic lens (and probably never will) but I nearly always shoot for both portrait and landscape resolutions so you definitely do not need an anamorphic lens for that. I simply keep the subject matter near the center and crop space for the edges and I can easily convert to a social media friendly portrait resolution in post while still having the landscape resolution for everything else, this is particularly useful for drone footage where the camera only has a landscape orientation.

For lens flares, they are trivial to add in post, I have a whole library of lens flares that were created in a studio with anamorphic lenses that I can add in post.

 

On 8/8/2024 at 12:43 AM, MrSMW said:

I’ve never really understood the appeal of anamorphic myself and absolutely hate those flares.

Whether it’s a big budget movie or a wedding ‘film’, it adds nothing and to me is the opposite and is like bad audio, - intrusive and avoidable.

 

I will admit that I use flares quite a bit for fashion/modeling videos but they are pretty common in the fashion world to add interest to an otherwise 'flat' scene.  I do think they are overused at times but it's one of those things where if the client sends you a reference video that they like with them in it then I add them as well to mimic the look.

For weddings or most other types of events I can't imagine a situation where I would use them.

I definitely would not want them to be burned into the footage, its much nicer adding in post because you can control the intensity, direction, and location of them.

[MrSMW]

8 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

definitely would not want them to be burned into the footage, its much nicer adding in post because you can control the intensity, direction, and location of them.

And that is exactly it. I would prefer to get the cleanest/nicest image as in, 'like a raw file' and edit it to taste after the fact.

Also, shooting for that in the first place as already knowing what the intended grade etc might be, but if there is some great fooking flare across the thing...and you don't want that, then you're fooked!

Bladerunner in 1982 was fantastic and one of my all time favourite movies, but then Michael Bay came along...

[herein2020]

14 hours ago, MrSMW said:

And that is exactly it. I would prefer to get the cleanest/nicest image as in, 'like a raw file' and edit it to taste after the fact.

Also, shooting for that in the first place as already knowing what the intended grade etc might be, but if there is some great fooking flare across the thing...and you don't want that, then you're fooked!

Bladerunner in 1982 was fantastic and one of my all time favourite movies, but then Michael Bay came along...

 

I hate actual lens flare, in my opinion when it comes to lens flare from photography lenses used for video or in photographs there is nothing more annoying than lens flare. I am guessing anamorphic lenses flare in a much more complimentary way than the lenses that I own because I do everything I can to avoid it during a shoot. 

My lenses when they flare completely ruin the contrast and clarity, and usually the flare is a very undesirable odd pattern that is burned into the footage. It is on my list of complaints regarding my Canon EF 24-105 F4.0 L lens, even with the lens hood on it, it flares uncontrollably if the sun is at just the right angle.

[Benjamin Hilton]

Anamorphic is just a look, take it or leave it. Technically anamorphic lenses tend to "downgrade" the footage resolution wise. Does that actually matter? No, not in the least tiniest bit. It can really add to the story on some projects, and semi ruin it on other ones. I'm not the biggest fan personally. 

[Ninpo33]

11 hours ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

Anamorphic is just a look, take it or leave it. Technically anamorphic lenses tend to "downgrade" the footage resolution wise. Does that actually matter? No, not in the least tiniest bit. It can really add to the story on some projects, and semi ruin it on other ones. I'm not the biggest fan personally. 

Nah, not really. Anamorphic isn't "Just a look".

Plus, If you simplify things down to that level EVERYTHING is JUST a look. Why shoot with promist filters? Why choose Zeiss lenses with 3D pop? Why color grade? Just shoot in the basic "natural" profile and be done... All that work for just a look.

If you say that Anamorphic lenses "downgrade" an image what do you even mean? See, now you have to define what "downgrade" means. If it's a desirable "look" that top DP's select and productions pay THOUSANDS of extra $$$ to achieve why would they do that just to "downgrade" the image?

Maybe you don't even realize that more than half the films you've enjoyed over the years were shot Anamorphic? 

[Benjamin Hilton]

13 hours ago, Ninpo33 said:

Nah, not really. Anamorphic isn't "Just a look".

Plus, If you simplify things down to that level EVERYTHING is JUST a look. Why shoot with promist filters? Why choose Zeiss lenses with 3D pop? Why color grade? Just shoot in the basic "natural" profile and be done... All that work for just a look.

If you say that Anamorphic lenses "downgrade" an image what do you even mean? See, now you have to define what "downgrade" means. If it's a desirable "look" that top DP's select and productions pay THOUSANDS of extra $$$ to achieve why would they do that just to "downgrade" the image?

Maybe you don't even realize that more than half the films you've enjoyed over the years were shot Anamorphic? 

I think you're misunderstanding me. By downgrade I mean it technically achieves its look from introducing artifacts. Generally softer resolution, stretched flaring, squished bokeh and so forth. Now it is a really desirable look to many people, but that often is the affect of tastefully introducing artifacting or "downgrading" an image. I used the terminology in response to zlfan's original post when he said that anamorphic was created to increase the resolution of an image. Just pointing out that it in fact does the opposite. That's not a bad thing, in fact it can be quite good. 

Personally I'm not a huge fan overall, but there are cases when I think it's been used quite nicely. 

[Ninpo33]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

I think you're misunderstanding me. By downgrade I mean it technically achieves its look from introducing artifacts. Generally softer resolution, stretched flaring, squished bokeh and so forth. Now it is a really desirable look to many people, but that often is the affect of tastefully introducing artifacting or "downgrading" an image. I used the terminology in response to zlfan's original post when he said that anamorphic was created to increase the resolution of an image. Just pointing out that it in fact does the opposite. That's not a bad thing, in fact it can be quite good. 

Personally I'm not a huge fan overall, but there are cases when I think it's been used quite nicely. 

All of the things you mention are just the side effects and not the intended use for Anamorphic. The original comment about increasing resolution is because you are able to shoot in a full height open gate more and stretch the image thereby retaining the full sensor readout and not cropping the top and bottom off of a 16:9 image to achieve a wide aspect ratio. That is really the whole point of it to be honest and in that way, it does retain more pixels/resolution compared to loosing things by cropping off the top and bottom. The look that's associated with the process has become partially what people think of when they think "Cinematic" but that's all after years of watching films shot this way on the big screen. 

I'm not misunderstanding you, when you use a word like "downgrade" to mistakingly describe desired characteristics of a lens, I'm going to react accordingly. 

[Happy Daze]

On 8/11/2024 at 3:31 PM, Benjamin Hilton said:

Anamorphic is just a look, take it or leave it. Technically anamorphic lenses tend to "downgrade" the footage resolution wise. Does that actually matter? No, not in the least tiniest bit. It can really add to the story on some projects, and semi ruin it on other ones. I'm not the biggest fan personally. 

In my short experience of shooting anamorphic on the BMCC 6KFF at a 1.6x squeeze in open gate 3:2 I found that detail increases a great deal when the video is rendered in 4K. The resultant video is 2.4:1 at 3840 x 1600, and if you think about it, you take the horizontal resolution down to 3840 from 6048 a scaling factor of 1.575 whilst the vertical resolution reduces from 4032 to 1600 with a factor of 2.52. that's a better scaling factor than filming in 8K 2.4:1  7680 x 3200 and rendering at 4K which of course has a scaling factor of just 2 on the vertical axis. There is plenty of information to play with and you can achieve Incredible detail. My first test video:

The main issue in my opinion is correcting for distorted uprights and awful bokeh, not necessarily in distance objects but most certainly in out of focus areas in front of the subject which can look very ugly and it's made to look worse by the fact that the resolution is so good. There are a couple of examples in clips from the video below. That's why I returned this anamorphic lens, not because of a lack of resolution as that was fantastic.

 

[KnightsFan]

On 8/11/2024 at 9:59 PM, Ninpo33 said:

EVERYTHING is JUST a look. Why shoot with promist filters? Why choose Zeiss lenses with 3D pop? Why color grade? Just shoot in the basic "natural" profile and be done... All that work for just a look.

It is accurate that everything is just a look. Narrative film is about evoking an emotion by manipulating light and sound. I like to think of everything as a thread on a tapestry of interwoven emotional effects. Every choice we make -- spherical vs anamorphic lenses, levels and types of diffusion filters, lighting ratios, EQ profiles for dialog, etc -- is both a point on a gradient rather than a binary choice between extremes, and also works with all of the other choices to craft a specific look and sound. And every thread is interpreted by the audience based on their prior experiences.

So yes, anamorphic is a look that carries both its denotative properties such as oval bokeh, flares, and distortions, and also its connotative properties that, depending on the audience, might evoke the feeling of big Hollywood action movies. Or for a different audience and in a different context, it might parody big Hollywood action movies.

On 8/10/2024 at 1:36 AM, herein2020 said:

 

I hate actual lens flare, in my opinion when it comes to lens flare from photography lenses used for video or in photographs there is nothing more annoying than lens flare. I am guessing anamorphic lenses flare in a much more complimentary way than the lenses that I own because I do everything I can to avoid it during a shoot. 

My lenses when they flare completely ruin the contrast and clarity, and usually the flare is a very undesirable odd pattern that is burned into the footage. It is on my list of complaints regarding my Canon EF 24-105 F4.0 L lens, even with the lens hood on it, it flares uncontrollably if the sun is at just the right angle.

Haha I agree, I typically dislike lens flares in video. Sometimes I take photos with a cool flare because it was interesting at the time.

 

2 hours ago, Happy Daze said:

In my short experience of shooting anamorphic on the BMCC 6KFF at a 1.6x squeeze in open gate 3:2 I found that detail increases a great deal when the video is rendered in 4K. The resultant video is 2.4:1 at 3840 x 1600, and if you think about it, you take the horizontal resolution down to 3840 from 6048 a scaling factor of 1.575 whilst the vertical resolution reduces from 4032 to 1600 with a factor of 2.52. that's a better scaling factor than filming in 8K 2.4:1  7680 x 3200 and rendering at 4K which of course has a scaling factor of just 2 on the vertical axis. There is plenty of information to play with and you can achieve Incredible detail. My first test video:

I love the footage! And that's interesting about the cliffs falling into the sea. I've definitely thought about getting some of those Sirui anamorphics. I'd say that most shots in this test don't specifically highlight the anamorphic qualities, so for this particular content, I would be just as happy cropping a spherical lens. In that sense I agree that it's not specifically about resolution, and the choice of lenses is highly dependent on the type of shots in that particular project.

[Happy Daze]

4 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I love the footage! And that's interesting about the cliffs falling into the sea. I've definitely thought about getting some of those Sirui anamorphics. I'd say that most shots in this test don't specifically highlight the anamorphic qualities, so for this particular content, I would be just as happy cropping a spherical lens. In that sense I agree that it's not specifically about resolution, and the choice of lenses is highly dependent on the type of shots in that particular project.

There's another quality that rarely gets discussed. The lens I used was a 75mm with a squeeze factor of 1.6x that has an equivalent field of view of about 47mm. You get the compression of a 75mm lens but a wider field of view, a quality you can feel whilst filming but can't quite put your finger on what it is. It's like taking multiple landscapes with a telephoto lens and then stitching them together, it changes the compression and look of DOF in comparison to a scene shot with a wider lens. I guess the higher the squeeze factor the more noticeable this would become.

Beyond the other well known attributes, this compression adds a quality to shooting anamorphic that can be quite inspiring when looking through the viewfinder, ordinary scenes have a certain feel that I've not experienced with spherical lenses. It's something that needs to be experienced.

I'm actively trying to source a different lens that perhaps does not exhibit the same artifacts that was present in this example. The 1.6x squeeze was perfect for me and shooting in 3:2 resulted in an aspect ratio of 2.4:1 which I love, sadly the are very few lenses that fit the bill (that i can afford at least).

[MrSMW]

18 minutes ago, Happy Daze said:

a quality you can feel whilst filming but can't quite put your finger on what it is

I get that and see that but would like it without a horizontal flare cutting through someone’s face 😜