@slrmagic - I would make an entire survey where people can select from every aspect that has been discussed in this thread -- lens v. adapter, squeeze, if lens, pref focal lengths etc.. This subject is now going in circles.

@slrmagic

Thanks. Right decision to go for 16:9, broadest user/camera group now and in future and independant from camera manufacturers good will. Seems like you guys can filter all the different needs and wants here pretty good! :)

@slrmagic The approach of having the 2x characteristics in a 1.33 or 1.35x delivery sounds like it has a lot of potential. I would love to see the result.

@apefos 1.33x or 1.35x would be the minimum that would interest me.

@thalon_calico

I don't know what to say except we've discussed this already. If you don't care about shallow DOF and just want to change aspect ratios, go buy yourself an LA7200 and stop down or rent a Hawk and be done with it. Heck, just use guidelines and crop down from 16:9. Referring to others as "hobbyists" and urging SLR Magic to disregard their "ridiculous requests" while using all caps isn't exactly what I'd call professional either. We're trying to discuss here, not declare one or another option completely inferior.

I understand that your primary needs are resolving power and a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, but I disagree with your claims that 1.33x anamorphic is the best solution for your needs.

The aspect ratio from a 1.33x anamorphic could easily be achieved through cropping, or with a camera that just shoots Super 35. If you're professional, rent one of those. If you're not, chances are you're shooting 1080p, in which case the LA7200 already does the trick. The market for professional 4K quality 1.33x adapters is probably an extremely niche market. Are true professionals (RED users, etc. shooting 4K) really going to even consider buying something from SLR Magic? Many of them seem pretty "top-brand loyal" to me.

From my perspective (A 2x user), I once again ask the 1.33x crowd:

What is the point of an anamorphic if not to infuse the image with anamorphic characteristics? 1.33X lenses do not do this very well. I really feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but as far as I'm concerned, if you're not after the anamorphic look, you don't "get the point" of shooting anamorphic in the first place. Stop insisting that 2X or 1.5X lenses are ridiculous.

They're not.

I use one.

Lots of other people use them.

They can resolve plenty of detail.

The images out of them are beautiful, and impossible to achieve by any other means. (Whereas if you want the look of 1.33x, I would argue that you have plenty of other options besides anamorphic for achieving 2.35:1.)

Those after the 2X aesthetic can only achieve it by using a true 2X anamorphic.

That's the point of anamorphic.

Is the horse freaking dead yet? I have a couple pounds of C4 that I could stuff inside the rotting carcass if you insist, but IMO, that'd be a little extreme.

Here's something for prospective manufacturers of anamorphic camera lenses to consider... How about an anamorphic lens to go over the viewfinder and/or LCD screen to unsqueeze the picture? This lens could potentially be made out of plastic to keep weight and cost down. It doesn't have to be super high quality - just adequate to unsqueeze the picture for compositional purposes.

The idea of a 2x front with a 1.33x or even better 1.35x back element is so brilliant, if it is possible. I was never a huge fan of anamorphics, but that is because good ones cost like a Prius for a single lens. @slrmagic maybe it would be better for you to complete a set of manual primes with a choice of mounts before moving to anamorphics. But one can dream - I would like nothing better than to wake up tomorrow and discover both slrmagic and samyang/rokinon released a full set of cine primes and anamorphic primes for a grand each. Asking questions and fishing for ideas like this is fantastic, a complete opposite of the Zeiss announcement of their anamorphics that cost (from) 30K each because many very serious men had to be locked up in a super secret lab for 5 years away from the unwashed masses researching and developing. Another advice if I may would be to take design into consideration as well. As much as I adore my slrm 12mm, it looks like a funny geek device (construction is awesome though). Take a cue from Samyang, it helps us (your customers) a lot as we are 80% of the time not able to rent Cookes or even Zeiss and we need something that looks respectable (intimidating is the new respectable). When you speak of the cost of materials, I am sure the glass elements are the top of that list, and sure, a bigger lens needs more glass. But don't go cheap on metal, and the size of the markings. If the FF puller can't see them, what is the point? I really hope designers and manufacturers like you can change the stale waters of the quality glass market. We are in the stone ages, with many people still trading lenses from the 50's... Is some dark magic (no pun intended)? One would think with the CAD abilities and nanotechnology we would have optics sorted by now. Or do we have to wait for an iPhonexx for that?

From my perspective (A 2x user), I once again ask the 1.33x crowd:

What is the point of an anamorphic if not to infuse the image with anamorphic characteristics? 1.33X lenses do not do this very well. I really feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but as far as I'm concerned, if you're not after the anamorphic look, you don't "get the point" of shooting anamorphic in the first place. Stop insisting that 2X or 1.5X lenses are ridiculous.

@B3Guy

The very biggest issue with putting a 2X anamorphic lens on a 1.78 native sensor is you're cropping a gigantic part of the image so you're only using the CENTRE part of the lens where the anamorphic aberrations you like are less prominent. The edges are whgere anamorphic lenses get interesting. Not only that, you're drastically reducing your field of view. Your wide lenses aren't as wide.

jb

@johnbrawley 1.35x LENSES would make most sense if they can be made well and affordable in comparison what is on offer today (legacy glass with million pitfalls). Two of these shots are quite tight and display most of the artifacts that were named as desirable here. However, neither will slrmagic make a lens for an alexa sensor, nor will people here be buying alexa to shoot with their 1,3 glass. I would, at this point be MUCH MORE interested in seeing some alexa 4:3 footage made with 2x anamorphics, since this is the real deal and what Hawk themselves are showcasing on their own site (for a film S35 admittedly), and funny how they say it is "unfortunate" that the aspect is 4;3 :) as they are the ones to profit from that exact single fact. I am format/aspect agnostic, but seems to me that the two current cream of the crop options (for 2 very different looks) are native widescreen format(s) and a 4:3 with the 2x squueeze for those who love that spatial compression. Former is already the standard for 16:9 broadcasts and latter may well become the standard for cinema and some music videos. If the very BMCC released next 2 versions with an S35 sensor and a simmilar 4:3 for 2x anamorph, it might well set the industry on this path. Even if nobody releases any new lenses, renting existing 2x anamorphics (friendly with Hawk, aout to get even friendlier with Zeiss, just to talk of the 21st century ones) is exactely what happens now. Then enter some new manufacturers with a couple of their own sets and we'll have some serious progress. Having said all that (sorry) a 1,35x would kick ass for me, but first thing is to get rid of all the lomos, soligors and especially adapters of any kind.

I know .. The front of the lens should be 2x anamorphic squeeze. The arse of the lens should have a ~1.5x tele extender (enlarge image circle)

Now someone can tell me that it's too hard to do :)

What about a behind-the-lens adapter? (2x) Didn't Kish used to make one for 35mm film? That could be sweet for M43.

I did some study about 2x 1.5x and 1.33x and now i understand better why some people are hungry for 2x. As much as the squeeze factor increases the more the anamorphic look become prominent, more oval bokeh, more horizontal flares, more paintlike bokeh. One interesting behavior of anamorphic is the squeeze increases when distance increases, this explain why the main subject get desqueezed and the background keep squeezed.

Nobody will match Arri Alexa and Zeiss look with other design than 2x in 4:3 sensor. This is fact, this is true. Maybe use 2x in 16:9 sensor and crop the sides can match the look, losing some resolution.

The 2x look with 1.33x squeeze in the same lens or same adapter would be the MAGIC solution. I need to say sorry and forgive for my lack of deep optical knowledge, but would this be possible? What a magical lens design to do it! The lens starts at 2x but i think when image go back to 1.33x it will lose the 2x features because there will be a desqueeze inside the lens/adapter before reach the sensor. This is a job for an expert optic engineer, and if it is possible it will not sell cheap.

readind wikipedia i found a possible solution to do the 2x image look inside a 1.33x squeeze. it uses two cilindrical elements, one horizontal to do squeeze and one vertical to change the aspect ratio:

"In later cylindrical lens systems, the change in aspect ratio required between focus positions was achieved by combining two sets of anamorphic optics in one: a robust "squeeze" system coupled with a slight expansion sub-system. The expansion sub-system was counter-rotated in relation to the main squeeze system, all in mechanical interlinkage with the focus mechanism of the prime lens. The combination of squeeze and expansion changed the anamorphic ratio to the extent required to minimize the effect of anamorphic mumps in the area of interest in the frame. Though these techniques were regarded as a fix for the anamorphic mumps, they were a compromise. Cinematographers still needed to be careful with their framing of the scene so that effects of the change in aspect ratio were not readily apparent. The first company to produce an anti-mumps system was Panavision in the late 1950s."