New SLRMagic Anamorphic Micro 4/3s Lens

[Ian-T]

I’ve been following a thread over at personal-view.com where a rep (or could be the owner) from SLR Magic has been asking us about our dream anamorphic lens (so to speak). If you don’t already know, SLRMagic is the same small company that made lenses such as the SLR Magic Noktor 50mm f/0.95, the 12mm f/1.6 and the 35mm f/1.7 HyperPrime Lenses for Micro Four Thirds Cameras.

They are either looking at making an anamorphic adapter (like the more expensive Lomos etc.) or a straight up anamorphic lens for the Micro 4/3 cameras somewhere at the $1,200 range. One of the main questions is whether folks would rather a 1.33x vs. 1.35x vs. 1.5x vs 2.0x squeeze. Because of the numerous responses they have been receiving between 1.5x and 2.0x they also asked if a good compromise would be a 1.8x squeeze. So, they put up a simple poll site for folks to vote on at the following location:

http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p...b0ce84916c0ecc

For those of you who are interested and especially those of you who own a micro 4/3s camera I encourage you to go cast your vote at the above link. I personally would love to see a 1.5x squeeze lens as 2.0x is just way too wide. The 1.33x would be equivalent to those overpriced Panasonic AG-XXXX lenses you see on EBay. The problem with a 1.33x lens is you barely see any of the anamorphic benefits like oval bokeh and flare since those lenses were made specifically for a Panasonic DVX’s 4:3 aspect ratios and not 16:9. At 1.8x there would still have to be too much cropping in post to get the perfect wide screen aspect ratio. A 1.5x aspect ratio looks perfect because it exhibits a more pleasing type of oval bokeh when it comes to background blur on a 16:9 aspect ratio image. Anything above 1.5x would lose too much vertical resolution.

If you like you can follow the discussion HERE but I’m personally interested in seeing you guys discuss it here at HV20.com.

[Daniel Rutter]

To be honest, for most of us low budget guys... this is too much money to pay. I suppose they make it pricey to get rid of posers and amateurs from the buying system (if that makes sense)... but I still feel alienated. I've always wanted to toy with the idea of shooting true animorphic instead of shooting wide angle and cropping in post.

Still, it depends on quality as to whether their product is worth that price.

[drapeama]

Lucas Plaff did some test on FaceBook showing how it looks with an anamorphic lens attached in front of his GH2 (with the kit lens I assume). To be honest, even if I want my stuff to look the most cinematic and "film-like" as possible...I don't think it really worth the trouble of dealing with anamorphic stuff.
I can live with that "cropped" ratio because of one thing: it's like Super35 and it allows you to adjust the picture top&bottom if needed, like in this example:

[Janke]

Who needs an anamorphic lens? Just use a wider lens and crop top & bottom...

[Steve_Karl]

Or step back 5 or 6 feet. :-P

[Ian-T]

Yeah but I’m sure you guys realize that it’s not about having a crop at all. If Ii had it my way there would be no crop which would save every bit of resolution in my image. I also don’t care about the horizontal flares that one would typically see in big budget action films since you can always add them in during post production. It’s about the aesthetics behind a perfectly good de-squeezed image which for me is the oval bokeh that it produces. You can’t replicate that in post. Everything else you can. There’s nothing wrong about that. Many professional photographers strive on getting the best looking round bokeh in their shallow DOF images. There are Websites dedicated to specific lenses with a certain amount of blades in them to help obtain perfectly round bokehs etc. But for cinema in order for one to replicate the oval bokeh many of us come to love in big budget movies (and yes…I know not all of them shoot anamorphic) one needs a true anamorphic lens.

I know you a jesting Janke but for those who don’t know the difference….cropping top and bottom is not what we are talking about here.

[Janke]

the oval bokeh that it produces.

And why is that so good?

Will your movie be any better because of it?

Answer truthfully, please!

[Ian-T]

And why is that so good?

Simply because I say so. And my opinion is golden.

Will your movie be any better because of it?

I might not be a great writer/storyteller/filmmaker/cinematographer/director/videographer/fill in the blank. But I’ll tell you this….it’ll be the BEST LOOKING badly written/unimaginative story telling/ugliest cinematography/badly directed/wanna-be-videographer/fill in the blank crap you’ve seen in a long long time. So....yeah!

I can live with that………for now.

Answer truthfully, please!

Was that good enough for ya?

[Janke]

Was that good enough for ya?

I will maybe consider the possibility of contemplating the likelihood that I could regard that statement not to be untrue.

[Dr. Benway]

to replicate the oval bokeh many of us come to love in big budget movies

Bokehspotter.

[Ian-T]

Bokehspotter.

Right on. I'm a pixel peepin bokehspotting anamorphicloving type of guy. <<Try saying that quickly five times in a row.

[cgbier]

That makes me for what reason some folks go to the cinema.