There's a thing about anamorphic viewing experience that resembles the real life. In real life, I don't pay attention to every corners that my eyes see. The anamorphic screen is so wide that I can't catch all details in each scene. That seems more close to real life experience.

Anamorphic ratio still photos don't give such experience cuz I can examine every corners in photos. That is the anamorphic magic disappears as soon as I pause the movie.

@subco ha ha ...that is exactly the image(well,just the circle... ;) i get when i mount my 13mm elgeet lens(50's maybe...?) on the gh2 ...so it is not so useless after all ; )

@plasmasmp Strange. Such close face framing, but it doesn't look like cropped at all. If you had used the lens without anamorphic lens, the background would have been compressed more... and it would have looked cropped.

@plasmasmp That bolex looks superb. Very sharp! And of course killer bokeh from the Olympus.

@johnnym I'm not even thinking about the lens... $$$$

How bout using a UWA lens, then adapting cinemorph filter and using zacuto evf's line guide so you can crop in post later to become anamorphic footage... any real disadvantage to that?

I've got a couple of the Cinemorph filters coming (with and without bokeh). I don't think they work with wide angle lenses, I think you're looking at 80mm to get the effect going by their site.

@luxis

We want to matte the GH2's LCD screen at top and bottom to reveal only a 2.3:1 horizontal slice. Math is as follows: 16:9 is 1.777:1 - let's say 1.78mm width for every 1mm height [Anamorphic] widescreen aspect ratio is up to you; let's say 2.35 mm width for every 1mm height. The GH2's LCD 16:9 video visible area is 62mm x 35 mm 3 5mm /2.35=14.89 14.89 x 1.78 = 26.5 mm high

We want to put a 26.5 mm letterbox in a 41 mm LCD (Full LCD size, not just 16:9 video) 41-26.5 is 14.5. Half of that (7.25mm) comes of the top. the other half (7.25) comes off the bottom.

This is fairly low risk since you can crop as you wish in post.

Or you can just try printing this pic, aim camera and mark screen. BTW, Vitaly pointed out a way of using GH2's own guide lines.

Bought an LA7200 awhile back but didn't care for the softness. Finally tried out a diopter and was stunned with the results. It's kind of a disadvantage to have to use them because it adds more to the setup and the process but the image quality increase is worth it. You can check out my thoughts and some test images here: http://stronzvanderploeg.net/2012/04/26/anamorphic-shooting-with-the-la7200-part-1/

@flyguy depends what you're looking for really. I'm after the lens flare, and the oval bokeh, for a scifi flick I'm starting later this year. Because lens flare is futuristic and all that :)

@psyco +1 I dont have enough optics knowlage to know if its 1 : Doable 2 ; Doable with okay optical performance

Anamorphic rear adapters were used on telephoto canons and Nikkors (ca. 300mm) in the 1990s in US feature film production.

I believe some Panavision Anamorphics used rear element anamorphics in their design.

A product called the mesmerizer from Kish Optics was such a anamorphic rear element mounted in a spinning adapter, which created a psychedelic effect.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?43783-Kish-Optics-mesmerizer-lens

The effect is seen here ca. 1:30 and else where (where the whole screen stretches and squeezes:

Re-post from Dave Mullen, ASC from here: http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=2633

"So these days, people are more likely to pick anamorphic over spherical when they want a 2.40 movie more when they are interested in the odd optical artifacts of anamorphic lenses shot in low-light -- the stretched bokeh, the horizontal flares, the shallower depth of field, etc. Anamorphic lenses tend to be physically larger and heavier than spherical lenses, and are often either a bit slower in speed, or even if they are faster, look better if stopped down. They tend to flare more and when you rack focus, the amount of stretching between the foreground and background will change, causing a visible breathing effect during the focus rack. Most of these artifacts are an aspect of front-element anamorphic prime lenses -- most anamorphic zoom lenses and telephotos are just spherical lenses with a rear anamorphic element in the back to squeeze the image -- they don't have the anamorphic artifacts but many are also not very fast -- a T/2.8 35mm spherical zoom converted to anamorphic usually becomes a T/4.0-5.6 lens."

Another Dave Mullen, ASC repost from here: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=493

"No, rear-mounted anamorphic elements do not to create the oval-shaped lights in the background -- but on the longer lenses, you instead get SQUARE-shaped lights, which is really odd-looking.

Wide-angle lenses tend to not have room in the back for an anamorphic element, plus back focus is too critical with those lenses to stick another element back there. Plus I suspect it is easier to make a sharper anamorphic element if it is large (for the front) than tiny (for the rear.) "

There is a good discussion towards the bottom of this page: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=47189

Here is an offer in 2009 to make such a rear anamorphic adapter:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?36580-FS-Rear-anamorphic-adapter-for-Zoom-Cooke-MK-II-Angenieux-HR-25-250-PL-mount

The P+S ver$ion: https://www.pstechnik.de/en/shop/anamorphic-rear-element-with-mounting-rings-for-angenieux-and-cooke-zoom-lenses/a-1570/

I don' think there is a cheap anamorphic rear adapter to be had for cheap.

@Psyco The Kish Optics rear mesmerizers I worked with came in PL mount. I am surprised to learn they went on to make a front mounted version: http://handheldfilms.com/kish-front-mesmerizer/