Most affordable cameras that work well for 2x anamorphic?

[Flynn]

Is the GH4 the only option? Any chance Sony or Samsung might add a 4:3 aspect ratio?

[Nikkor]

 

Any chance Sony or Samsung might add a 4:3 aspect ratio?

Very unprobable.

[Flynn]

 

Very unprobable.

Why do you feel this way?

[Nikkor]

Why do you feel this way?

Because it's not a standart aspect ratio in these fancy hardware encoders they use.

[Flynn]

Well, I hope you're wrong, even though you're probably right. With what Panasonic did and things like the Anamorphot 2x and upcoming Veydra 25mm 2x, there seems to be growing interest in anamorphic. I wanna believe Sony and Samsung will take note of this momentum.

[anti12]

Is the GH4 the only option? Any chance Sony or Samsung might add a 4:3 aspect ratio?

The Panasonic G7 also has 4k Photo Mode which allows 4:3 @ 30 FPS. Don't know if you can change the framerate or record with sound.

[Flynn]

The Panasonic G7 also has 4k Photo Mode which allows 4:3 @ 30 FPS. Don't know if you can change the framerate or record with sound.

Thanks. Looking into it it looks like only the GH4 allows you to record with sound. Disappointed the G7 didn't get the same ability.

[richg101]

I'd be inclined to suggest going full frame (a7s or a7r2 (or even a 5dmk3 raw hacked)), Even 1080p full frame, cropped to 4:3 and losing horizontal sensor resolution will outperform smaller sensors shooting 4k with most lens options.  there are no anamorphic lenses that shoot with exciting apertures and that also resolve 4k resolutions on sensors as small as the sensor area the gh4 uses in 4k 4:3 mode.  INFACT, most down even resolve 1080p onto a 4:3 provided by the gh4.   I'd sooner shoot full frame, cropping the 16:9 unsqueezed image, and making use of a proper frame height and the associated fov and dof you need for anamorphic to be worthwhile.

I think the a7s immaculate oversampled internal 1080p full frame mode (and associated DR, small file sizes etc), and a 2x anamorphic, cropped to 2.4:1 and losing 1/3 of the horizontal res is way better than pointless extra resolution where most lenses dont deliver anyway.    

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Agreed. I also believe large capture area is a key element of the anamorphic aesthetic and shallow depth of field, that's the epic anamorphic look. 

[Bioskop.Inc]

Go for a camera that produces the image that you like & as Rich has said, don't get sidetracked by 4k or 4:3 shooting mode. 

I'm not quite sure about whether its absolutely necessary to go with a full frame camera or even advocate extreme shallow DOF (its a look that can be nice & i've done it, but there's more to anamorphic shooting than just that - cinema cameras aren't FF). Also, you don't need a FF sensor to achieve shallow DOF (i've achieved it recently with a s16 sensor & a MFT-ish sized sensor).

Just remember that shooting 1080p when using an anamorphic lens (depending on the squeeze factor) will give you a 2/3k horizontal image - with a 2x anamorphic on a 16:9 1080p sensor you'll get 3840x1080.

Cinema 2k resolution is 2048x1080 (this is the dominant Digital Cinema Initiatives standard) & 2.39 scope is 2048x858.

4k resolution - UHD TV resolution is 3840x2160 (16:9 or 1.78) & DCI 4k scope is 4096x1716 (2.39).

So up res-ing isn't really that much of a stretch, if done at a professional high quality standard.

So, tell me - do you really need a 4k consumer camera to film anamorphic?

And if your answer is, "well you can always crop into a 4k image", then you're in real trouble - if you can't frame it properly whilst filming, then you either haven't planned it well enough or need to practice more.

Its like the, "I can always fix it post" arguement - its like admitting you can't do it properly; get it right first time & save yourself loads of hassle later.

[richg101]

 

EXACTLY!  One of the reasons anamorphic is the go to for a true big budget looks is because it tends to only be advocated by the best DOP's, with enough professional brunt to demand shooting in anamorphic, and dedicating greater budgets in doing so.  Watch how each shot is framed in Django, Casino, Inglorious Basterds, etc.  They've been perfectly frames on set.  the set is moved to accommodate the desired frame.  Its been so meticulously crafted to accommodte for the limitations of optical resolution of the wonderful panavision anamorphics that even if they switched to spherical at the last minute, selecting wider FL's to suit a post crop, the image would have almost the same power as with the anamorphics due to the production value the meticulous shooting process adhered to and demanded by films who can afford to shoot 4 perf anamorphic.

 

[Tim McC]

Rich, I'd love to see some side by side (or otherwise) comparison on large vs. small sensors, if you have any.  Maybe with the Iscorama paired with a FF58...?

[Flynn]

To me, much of this footage shot with the GH4 and 2x Anamorphot looks very impressive. Certainly as impressive as anything I've seen shot with the A7s. But if someone has some footage from the Sony in mind that looks better and has more of an anamorphic feel to it I'm happy to take a look.

By the way, you might want to mute the music. Also, he was trying out various lenses with the Anamorphot, some of which work better than others.

[Flynn]

Here's another vid with the GH4.

 

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Actually one of the reasons anamorphic was invented is to go Fullframe instead of just using an APS-C. Sorry that sentence was using too modern words

It was actually marketed I remember as ''having a shallow immersive depth of field and cleaner noise due to larger capture area" just like we market FF over APS-C now.

I think shallow DOF/Large sensors are key for getting an authentic anamorphic aesthetic that I see m43s sensors lacking especially since they need to be stopped down too. Anamorphic videos from a7s/5D is ''nicer'' even with lower resolution, it's not everything. 

**Personal preference of course

It's a common misconception that you're forbidden to shoot anamorphic with anything other than the few cameras with a 4:3 mode (alexa studio, gh4, g7) while actually every 16:9 sensor camera in the world has a 4:3 window, just by cropping sides, and resolution depend on how much each sensor has, so limiting oneself only to cameras that have 4:3 crop modes in-camera is not the best idea. Choose the camera as a whole (lowlight, sensor size, codec, colours, DR, etc)

Here's another vid with the GH4.

 

As you see the shallow shot at 0:20 is where the anamorphic goodness hits you in the face

[Rudolf]

I wouldn't be dogmatic at all!

Anamorphic was invented for film and used for every format (not sure about 9,5 Pathé). The intention was to get a larger image and not shallow depth, more and more anoying flares, bokeh whatever! Shallow dept is a side effect of longer lenses which had to be used. However filters were not so popular or maybe available like today and therefore and for sharpness they stopped down. That is why older films don't have this extreme shallow depth. For me this is more a digital look than filmic. Keep in mind: Quentin T. (his work was mention above) quitted filmmaking - be it anamorphic 65mm or whatever - cause sadly film as we knew it is nearly dead.

[Bioskop.Inc]

There are so many composition styles/techniques that can be applied when using anamorphic lenses.

If you can, watch the original full, un-cropped widescreen version of Ben Hur. It was filmed with MGM Camera 65 - 65mm film stock with a specially adapted 70mm anamorphic lens which cropped the picture by x1.25 to give an aspect ratio of 2.76:1.

William Wyler hated shooting in this format, citing that there was just too much in the picture. But he dealt with it and he is known for his composition in depth - so its not just about what you see horizontally, but throughout the whole depth of field. So, to claim that shallow DOF is how anamorphic lenses shine is a great [modern] misconception (watch Star Trek - the flares, the bokeh, sigh...), since they also really shine by allowing a huge deep depth of field to be used & this allowed a film to create a highly detailed space to be generated & used by the actors.

You've also got to remember that the various flavours of widescreen cinema were a marketing ploy to combat the popularity of television - why go to a 4:3 cinema, when i can sit at home in my comfortable armchair with my 4:3 tv? With the introduction of widescreen cinema, which you couldn't watch at home, films delivered a huge emersive space that you could soak up so much atmosphere and loose yourself in the expanse of the framing/vistas that such cinema was able to produce.

How The West Was Won (1963) was filmed in Cinerama with an aspect ratio of 2.59:1 (not anamorphic lenses, but 3 camera pictures projected together). The restored version on BD now has a ratio of 2.89:1, since they stiched all of the 3 camera pictures together. Although not anamorphic, it really shows you how you can use depth of field (deep that is) to really aid in your story telling - a whole battle field or a busy market place for example.

Darwinfishes' clip shows this widescreen use in a few of his shots.