@JosiahSjostrom, I have been up all night hunting for anamorphic sample videos online. Although technical data are omitted often there is a wealth of information out there on anamorphic on DSLRs. I started noticing the trends and the " complete anamorphic look " you are referring to. Aside from the proportions ( occasionally 16x9 stretched X2 ) the bokeh becomes much more impressive with higher stretch factors and generally the visual elements are more pronounced in X2 squeezed footage. That said I still believe the X2 squeeze and 16x9 image are a bad match. Either we have to crop down to 2.66:1 or better 2.35:1 by killing masses of innocent pixels or watch the footage in 3.55:1 thinking WTF throughout the film. GH2 + 4:3 patch armed with the X2 squeeze is the ultimate champion in my mind at this point. Thank you Vitaliy again. My both GH2s are being used as a B-Roll this week. I'm not sure if I could put the 4:3 patch on GH1s. I will post some tests with Kowa-X2 B&H tonight if GH1 accepts the patch.

@plasmasmp I am using the LA7200. From the shape of the ovals on the LA7200 I think I just gave away part of the specs of our prototype lens!

But it is a good finding. Shape of ovals become increasingly dramatic as FL increases. The prototype lenses I am using are on the wide end (at least wider than 50mm). It is entirely possible even if we have 1.5X with wide angle we will:

1) Not have obvious anamorphic oval bokeh 2) If we have 2 solutions the oval shapes will not match due to wide vs longer focal lengths even with the same squeeze factor.

If the ovals will not be obvious when we provide a wide anamorphic solution we can conclude 1.35X is better than 1.5X as it is not worth the post processing time with extra work if there is no obvious effect. But I read somewhere a suggestion is if there no oval bokeh then users can just crop wide angle lens to 2.4:1 ratio and there is no need for anamorphic lens as the wide aspect does not seem to be the concern.

If we have to give a rating in a particular order for anamorphic feel. What would it be"

a) Horizontal Flares b) Oval Bokeh c) Wide aspect

I have to admit it is a bit discouraging to read here that anamorphic is about Horizontal flares that can be added in post and Wide Angle aspect that can be cropped anyway (stimulating a telephoto anamorphic lens aspect ratio). It seems like oval bokeh is the only factor that cannot be done in post. But this kind of defeats what we have discussed in the past 5 pages of making a wide anamorphic as it will reduce/remove anamorphic oval effect.

@Stip

500-1.000 max 2.000 euros for a Anamorphic is not "a stupid price" if people can spend more, they would just rent Hawks, then i don't see a point in spending 5k for a lens you can only use on 'some occations', since you would most likely need a set of 35, 50 and 85 mm's

@slrmagic Bokeh (nor flare) is not the only thing by itself. It is also the spatial warp that is created, that has a very particular feel.. like bokeh, the spatial warp cannot be reproduced in post.

The suggestion to start wide is relative: 25mm on m43 = about 35mm in relation to s35 sensor or about 50 mm full frame sensor. IN other words, this is what would be called normal focal length. For s35 sensors the usual anamorphic focal lengths are 35mm 50mm 75mm.

The suggestion to start the design out wide is simple, as it will be the widest you can go with good IQ you can make it work too with tele focal lengths such as 35, 50mm - about 70, 100mm equivalent on full frame camera.

@plasmasmp

Do you have the same image without anamorphic adapter to compare to? Otherwise your measurements are pretty pointless.

Different lenses have different bokeh charachteristics. Cat´s eyes, edge highlights e.t.c. will easily look elongated. Especially if you have a restless taking lens. I would be interested in seeing how the same adapter performs on a long lens that can create perfect round circles all over.

this is what we need at 300 usd price range and compatible with m43 lenses from 14mm to 45mm and with the 52mm rear thread:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CENTURY-OPTICS-52mm-16-9-Widescreen-1-33x-ANAMORPHIC-Lens-CINEMASCOPE-/251140555538?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item3a7924c312

Let's take a step back and consider the question: why do we want to shoot anamorphic at all?

It's not just the aspect ratio, is it? We could crop for that, and save a lot of time and money.

No, we're talking about anamorphics because we want our digital video productions to have that Big Cinema look that comes from shooting 35mm anamorphic, like Star Trek 2011 (including the lens flares!)

That Big Cinema look comes from using an anamorphic squeeze ratio of 2x. Not 1.33. Not 1.5. 2x.

If you check with Panavision, you'll find that standard theatrical anamorphic is squeezed 200%, and that's where all the pretty artifacts come from. If we want the Big Cinema look, we need the Big Cinema ratio.

(And yes, you have to crop from 3.56:1 to 2.39:1 with a 2x anamorphic ratio, but it still ends up looking like gorgeous Big Cinema.)

The 21:9 cinema ratio is not widely implemented, but 2.39:1 anamorphic from a 2x squeeze is everywhere, for decades. Most importantly, anything less than 2x won't have that Big Cinema look.

typical tele (75-100mm on s35) head shot w. anamorphic lens (this is no 1.33):

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/anamorphicbokeh1.jpg

Notice that the bokeh is not at all restless.

here is a wider head shot w. anamorphic lens

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v347/deimoson/anamorphiclights0.jpg

Propably 35mm.

Notice bokeh that is pretty restless, not a high separation between background and the focal point (subject).

Here´s another, harder to guess which focal length (I´d go for 35 or 50), but with a very clear morph of space:

http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/585.jpg

Was it shot with 2x? I can´t recall.

Here´s a group of photos where you clearly can see different focal lengths at work with a RED camera. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?43721-4-5k-VS-ANAMORPHIC-LENSES-on-RED-CAMERA

the 35mm squarefront is interesting there. It´s pretty wide, and not very extreme, but there´s a hint of "alice in wonderland" with the guy in focus, space is slightly warped and the OOF areas go with that. It clearly has an anamorphic look.

@AdR It's not the 70's and we're not intercutting with Panavision cameras. 2x worked great with 4:3 SD camcorders, but we're using HD sensors nowadays. If you shoot with a 2x anamorphic on an MFT camera, you're getting an effective sensor resolution of 960x1080. It looks very soft when stretched out to 3840x1080 and it's cumbersome to work with in post. For those who still favor 2x, there are plenty of affordable choices available on eBay.

@slrmagic et al.

I would like to provide an alternate opinion on the purpose of anamorphic shooting, since a lot of people seem to be suggesting that faking and/or cropping in post is just as good as shooting anamorphic to begin with, because there is one aspect of anamorphic that can never be faked in post (and I already hinted at this already). The true advantage to anamorphic shooting is information content.

Anamorhic was originally invented to allow studios to shoot films that could be displayed on larger screens, filling more of the viewer's field of vision. Once upon a time, this was a Big Deal. When television was becoming commonplace, cinema needed a way to differentiate itself, and the only read differentiating factor (that wasn't a gimmick - although a few of those were tried as well) was the potential for cinema to fill a viewer's field of vision, which increases immersion and makes for a better experience. The only problem is that when if you project a film too large, it begins to look really poor. There simply isn't enough information there - things start to become grainy or blurry. Anyone who saw the Christopher Nolan batman films in IMAX will have noticed that some scenes were much lower quality, because they were shot on 35mm anamorphic rather than IMAX or 65mm.

In order to allow their films to be projected larger, studios needed to get more information into them, and thus the great format war was born. Anamorphic 35mm, 65mm, Ultra Panavision 70, VistaVision, and (more recently) IMAX were all invented as ways to record more information and allow a more immersive film experience. In the end, however, anamorphic became the most common, because it could be shot with existing film stock on existing cameras - only the lenses need be changed. Ironically, anamorphic was the only format that did not actually record more information than traditional 4:3 cinema. But it's a good way of cheating the science and making it seem to viewers like there's more information than there actually is. If aspect ratio alone (or oval bokeh, or horizontal flares) were the true end goal, all of those could have been achieved much more easily and cheaply with the same sort of tricks we use now to fake anamorphic (oval apertures, cropped frames, &c.). However, there's no way to add information after the film is shot, and whereas using anamorphic (effectively) increased the amount of information recorded on the film, cropping would have reduced it and defeated the purpose.

The same is of course true of digital video. If you crop a 1920x1080 video to 2.4:1 anamorphic, you end up with an image that's 1920x800 pixels, which, while it might be good enough to view on youtube or on a medium-sized television across the room, isn't even close to adequate for cinema viewing (or even large-sized television viewing). If you shoot 1920x1080 with a 1.5x anamorphic stretch, you end up with a 2880x1080 image, which contains just over twice the pixels of the cropped, fake anamorphic frame, and significantly more information content, since the 280 cropped vertical pixels are not being wasted. Of course they're identical if you downscale the true anamorphic image to 1920x800, but I would hope that the people who do use anamorphics do them justice and watch in native res.

I hope this helps people to understand why real anamorphic is important, why cropping (either vertical or horizontal) is bad and choosing a squeeze is critical. Yes, anamorphic is pretty, and artistry is a perfectly valid reason to choose it, but there's more to the story than that.

Incidentally, and on a completely unrelated note, I would be extremely uncomfortable with a plastic bodied lens. I know a couple of pros, and I can tell you that they would be too. There is a reason why semi-pros will pay an $800 premium for a metal-bodied 7D, over the plastic but functionally similar 60D. It's the same reason that all Leica, Zeiss, and Panavision lenses are metal. Plastic doesn't hold up in a production environment.

GH1, GH2 and GH3 are prosumer cameras and many M4/3 lenses are plastic housing and the IQ is great. I do not care about plastic bodied and i think many people do not care also.

GH1, GH2 and GH3 are low budget equipment and if the anamorphic adapter will be expensive it does not make sense. The most dream lenses are about 1000 or 1300 usd and for those who do not have this amount there are lenses from about 170 to 550 usd who do the job. also the cheap vintage lenses from 20 to 100 usd do the job also. anything over 550 usd will be overpriced for the M4/3 filosofy and way of life.

I aggre 1.33x is the best option because it turns the 1920x1080 to 2560x1080, the new cinema standard is 21:9 and we must follow these numbers because they are carefully designed. 2.37:1 is the new standard

I do not care about oval bokeh, and i think many people do not care also. For my feeling when anamorphic films with oval bokeh change focus the people and objects get defocus in a cilindrical / vertical way and it is anoying. If 1.33x gives circular bokeh i think it is better. What matters is to get the 2.37:1 without crop. I like the horizontal flares and the 1.33x adapter can allow it.

@jackdoerner 1920x810 is Blu-ray widescreen resolution and it's only about 10% lower rez than 2K DCI cinema. Aside from IMAX and 4K cinemas, 2K is what you see projected on contemporary digital theater screens. If you're actually planning to release in 2K format, a 1.5x anamorphic stretch fits the 2048-wide 2K format in the same way that a 1.33x anamorphic stretch fits the 1920-wide HD format.

@RRRR @apefos @jackdoerner

Lets keep the discussion to the Anamorphic lens. But my comments on plastic vs metal is I agree with both sides. Metal fees great. We use metal for all our lenses so far but unless we want a 1KG lens attachment like the Isco 54 offering we might consider plastic for the first time as light weight is one very important factor for mFT. The GH2 feels plastic and I actually do not like it that much because of that BUT it is one robust piece of plastic housing. If you think of underwater housing they are all made of plastic and water pressure is very strong and plastic does the job. Maybe we can do a hybrid. Leave the design part for us to do. We just need help with the specs =)