Using SLR Magic Anamorphic lenses

[Jed I. Clampett]

I have no experience using anamorphic lenses. It seems the only ones affordable to me are the slr magic lenses. They both result in 2.35:1 Aspect Ratio on 16:9 Sensor and so I wonder why buy the 2x which is $300 more aprox when the end result is the same?  They can use my old nikkor lenses which 24mm is the smallest, but have a pretty complete set, they are compatible thread with the slr magic (52mm).

I do mostly short narrative film and can take time to set up shots. My concern is about the actual use of dual focusing? So, am interested in how much BS it takes to make these lenses work? I expect to practice, but with many things, practice makes perfect, but if every shot is going to be awkward and fidly it will distract from creativity. So in sum what is your experience using either of these two lenses? Are they difficult to use? or is it a matter of getting used to focusing twice, how hard is that? and why would anyone choose the more expensive 2x version when they result in the same size image?

[ken]

IMO, 2x lens you can gain sharpness.  1.33x lens is always more blurred than without using it.

The best fit:

For 16:9 mode: 1.33x

For 3:2 mode: 1.5x

For 4:3 mode: 2x

[Jed I. Clampett]

Ken, I am a bit confused, 4:3 mode is the old tv standard before wide screen.  I am not sure my question has been answered here, so slr magic says  "Intended for use with shooting at 4:3, bringing the intended output to a standard 2.39:1 wide format with a higher resolution than simply letter-boxing the image in camera."

I am currently using Canon t3i and eos-m but will likely be getting a newer camera in the next few months that has internal stabilization and possibly 4k as well.

Then 4:3 can easily be confused with micro four thirds. So, if I bought the Sony A7s for example, is that a 4:3 camera, but obviously a full frame not a micro four thirds?

So, I hope you or someone will fill me in? the extra money for the 2x is not that big of a deal since I would need to save for a new camera and monitor.  So, have more info, but no feedback on from someone using the lenses and the focus issue and also confused about what my existing cameras would use best and future  camera.

 

[ken]

Even if 3:2 native sensor in most camera, you still be able to shot pictures in other modes.  But my Canon 6D when shot video, only 16:9 available.

[Jed I. Clampett]

 Both the 1.3x and the 2x output to 2.35:1, which is the same output, so don't know if given that, why would someone buy one over the other or with the same output wouldn't they look the same? I have to save money to buy it and saving up a little more to buy the 2x is not a big deal an extra month or two. If I have to be a rocket scientist to operate this then it is not for me.

 I assume that there is less side compression with the 1.3x  buying the 1.3x and the rangefinder focus by slr magic puts the package at under $1500. I am in the dark about the technology of this and also about the experience and how fidly all this is? 

I come from a camcorder world and altho have been shooting with dslrs for awhile mostly use the aperture controls and have always set 18:9 this is from an online review 

"original aspect can be accessed if desired, and not all software will necessarily recognize the aspect ratio tag.) Available aspects include the native 3:2, plus 4:3, 16:9, and 1:1. Blue lines on the LCD specify the edges of the crop area, but the full live view feed is shown, so you can use this area to assist in framing your image."

I guess the real question for this discussion is what I need to know before purchase about using either anamorphic lenses. As Ken recommended shooting with the cheaper 1.3 if using 16:9, now I wonder since I have other options is it better to use another mode? they both output to 2.35:1.  I am going to end up with just one slr magic anamorphic lens, but with everything being the same quality etc, to save a couple of bucks with the 1.3x and using that savings to buy the focus ranger would be helpful. I have the capability of buying either and the price difference just means saving for a little longer. This is all new territory for me.

[ken]

 Both the 1.3x and the 2x output to 2.35:1, which is the same output, so don't know if given that, why would someone buy one over the other or with the same output wouldn't they look the same? I have to save money to buy it and saving up a little more to buy the 2x is not a big deal an extra month or two. If I have to be a rocket scientist to operate this then it is not for me.

 I assume that there is less side compression with the 1.3x  buying the 1.3x and the rangefinder focus by slr magic puts the package at under $1500. I am in the dark about the technology of this and also about the experience and how fidly all this is? 

I come from a camcorder world and altho have been shooting with dslrs for awhile mostly use the aperture controls and have always set 18:9 this is from an online review 

"original aspect can be accessed if desired, and not all software will necessarily recognize the aspect ratio tag.) Available aspects include the native 3:2, plus 4:3, 16:9, and 1:1. Blue lines on the LCD specify the edges of the crop area, but the full live view feed is shown, so you can use this area to assist in framing your image."

I guess the real question for this discussion is what I need to know before purchase about using either anamorphic lenses. As Ken recommended shooting with the cheaper 1.3 if using 16:9, now I wonder since I have other options is it better to use another mode? they both output to 2.35:1.  I am going to end up with just one slr magic anamorphic lens, but with everything being the same quality etc, to save a couple of bucks with the 1.3x and using that savings to buy the focus ranger would be helpful. I have the capability of buying either and the price difference just means saving for a little longer. This is all new territory for me.

1.33x is lack of one character, oval bokeh, not the same as 2x lens.

[Jed I. Clampett]

I think the big part of my question has not been answered yet. I do appreciate Ken's answers, but no where does Ken state that he has had actual experience with any of this? Not picking on you Ken, but I did get some info from Cheesycam.com where they review this SLR anamorphic with a Sony camera, the reviewer states it is quite fiddly with many cameras, but not with the reviewed camera. I sure would love to find people who have used this anamorphic adapter and their experiences?

[nahua]

You need to understand which anamorphics fit an aspect ratio.  2x anamorphics are made for 4:3 size FILM.  When unsqeezed they come to 2.39:1 with the audio strip on the side.  However on digital cameras, 4:3 comes out to 2.66:1. 

The majority of digital cameras are 16:9 format.  So a 2x anamorphic will result in a 3.55:1 ratio.  A 1.33x anamorphic will result in a 2.40:1 ratio.  In any case, cropping of the image will be necessary to achieve the "normal" widescreen format of 2.39:1.

Only a few digital cameras shoot in 4:3 - Panasonic GH4, Magic Lantern hacked Canon DSLRs, maybe Kinimax Mini, and Alexa RT 4:3.

In the end you have to decide what look you want.  Like Ken said, 2x anamorphics have the desired look or "character".  1.33x anamorphics are more like regular video but easier to work with.

For more info join the FB group - Anamorphic for Dummies:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/788527101229524/

[DBounce]

You need to understand which anamorphics fit an aspect ratio.  2x anamorphics are made for 4:3 size FILM.  When unsqeezed they come to 2.39:1 with the audio strip on the side.  However on digital cameras, 4:3 comes out to 2.66:1. 

The majority of digital cameras are 16:9 format.  So a 2x anamorphic will result in a 3.55:1 ratio.  A 1.33x anamorphic will result in a 2.40:1 ratio.  In any case, cropping of the image will be necessary to achieve the "normal" widescreen format of 2.39:1.

Only a few digital cameras shoot in 4:3 - Panasonic GH4, Magic Lantern hacked Canon DSLRs, maybe Kinimax Mini, and Alexa RT 4:3.

In the end you have to decide what look you want.  Like Ken said, 2x anamorphics have the desired look or "character".  1.33x anamorphics are more like regular video but easier to work with.

For more info join the FB group - Anamorphic for Dummies:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/788527101229524/

 The ursa mini will support 3k anamorphic.