Question on anamorphic lenses

[Pete Huffman]

I am an amateur video maker. I shoot high school football and cheer, basic highlight and hype videos. I like to create as close to a film/cinema look as i can. So i've been using anamorphic lenses, originally for a more film/cinema look, but I like the fact that it includes so much more info in the scene. Instead of seeing a guy run down the field and he's boxed into a 16:9 aspect ratio, the anamorphic can show the person chasing him and the people who are about to tackle him. I've heard that using telephoto anamorphic lenses (like 135 and higher) can lose so of this wider field of view. 

Am i going to get much more out of an anamorphic telephoto lens than a spherical lens with the the top and bottom cropped out?

I'm wondering if there is a decline in the character and optics as you go higher up in focal length? 

Pete

[David Mullen ASC]

The focal length determines the field of view combined with the sensor area used.  If you use a 2X anamorphic lens, then it doubles the horizontal view, so you'd just use a spherical lens that is half as long to match the horizontal field of view then crop vertically to match the aspect ratio of the unsqueezed anamorphic image. You end up with the same amount of information within the frame depending on your final aspect ratio and your sensor size.

You don't need anamorphic lenses to see more on the sides, you just need wider spherical lenses and then crop vertically to the aspect ratio you want.

I think you are more responding to the wider-then-16x9 shape for framing action as opposed to anamorphic vs. spherical.

You can mix anamorphic and spherical, you'd just need different frame lines for both plus deal with unsqueezing the anamorphic image.

I assume you aren't using 2X anamorphic lenses on your 16x9 camera, maybe 1.3X or 1.5X, 1.6X, etc. That and the area of the sensor you end up using once you unsqueeze the image for a certain aspect ratio will determine your calculations to find a matching spherical lens in terms of horizontal view.

In the days of film and photochemical printing, you had to deliver something in one format, which made it hard to mix anamorphic and spherical without resorting to duping and an optical printer. But once digital post came along it became a lot easier. There are lots of anamorphic movies now that mix in spherical shots.

[Pete Huffman]

David,

   Thanks for answering. You are correct. I am using the sirui 1.6X stretch on the Sony 16:9 (full frame). So that makes a very wide aspect ratio (2.84:1 and i crop the sides). Something you said make me think I'm understanding something wrong:

You don't need anamorphic lenses to see more on the sides, you just need wider spherical lenses and then crop vertically to the aspect ratio you want.

So if i theoretically used a 20mm spherical lens on a 16:9 sensor, I would get a nice wide field of view. But if used a 40mm 2X anamorphic lens, I thought i would get a wider field of view horizontally (eqiv. to a 20mm lens) but vertically it would be like a 40mm lens. (even though it would be crazy 3.5:1 ratio). My goal is be able to get a wide field of view horizontally without having the subject look like they are farther away which is what i notice with wide angle lenses. That is my main goal in using anamorphic lenses. I am about to have some time off when i should test this out. 

Pete

[David Mullen ASC]

3 hours ago, Pete Huffman said:

DMy goal is be able to get a wide field of view horizontally without having the subject look like they are farther away which is what i notice with wide angle lenses. That is my main goal in using anamorphic lenses.

It doesn't work that way, you get the same image, same relative perspective on objects, etc. once you match field of view and aspect ratio. If you don't change distance, there is no difference in the subject looking further away because on spherical you've used a wider lens to match horizontal view and cropped vertically to match aspect ratio so the size of the object in the frame is the same, the headroom is the same, etc.  The only difference then (other than the odd artifacts of anamorphic like flares and bokeh) is that you have more depth of field with the spherical image because it used a shorter focal length, but then you can also match depth of field by adjusting the f-stop.  Besides on telephoto shots, having more depth of field is generally a good thing.

[David Mullen ASC]

Tried to find something online to show you that the two match 

[David Mullen ASC]

I have a 50mm 1.6X Sirui e-mount lens but now I only have an infrared Sony to put it on... but here is a comparison where I eyeballed the spherical zoom lens to around 32mm to match the 50mm 1.6X anamorphic. But I had to crop the spherical lens image vertically to match aspect ratio.  You see that the horizontal and vertical information are roughly the same.

[Pete Huffman]

Oh wow... Thank you so much for your time on this. I really appreciate the extra work you did to show me this visually. I need to rethink how i go about this. I like the extra character that anamorphic gives, but it looks like my original idea is not accurate. 

This brings me to another question. When hollywood went anamorphic (to compete with the 4:3 TVs that were popping up in everyone's home, from what i have read), how come they went this route instead of just using wide angle lenses and cropping the top and bottom off. I think some people did this on 35mm without an anamorphic lens. Why all the fuss with squeezing and then de-squeezing?

[Pete Huffman]

I'm guessing the reason has to do with better resolution with anamorphic... at least vertically

[David Mullen ASC]

54 minutes ago, Pete Huffman said:

I'm guessing the reason has to do with better resolution with anamorphic... at least vertically

In the 1950s, the standard was 4-perf 35mm for negative and prints. That’s a 1.33 : 1 area if you use full aperture. So optically squeezing a widescreen image onto the 4-perf negative was better in terms of grain and resolution compared to cropping, squeezing and enlarging to create an anamorphic image for desqueezing during projection. 

[Pete Huffman]

Thanks David,

  I tried a test, But it was close as i only have a 35mm Anamorphic  (1.6X) and a 24-70, so i couldn't get down to 22mm but i can see what you are saying. Kinda bummed. But it looks like i can save some money on a quest for wide field of view by just getting a wider lens. And i can dedicate that time to learning how to edit better. Thanks for your time and explaination.

Pete