2.39:1 Anamorphic HD Test

[b00rk]

I dunno it still doesn't look very film like. Guess film is about more than the aspect ratio.

[calculatorboyqwe]

The only bad side about this aspect ratio is the loss of vertical pixels.

[SClass82]

where u using compressor for the output u can play with setting to get 2.35.1 ratio but its nice work  keep it up

[patternagainst]

OMG this is so exciting! Anamorphic is my favorite format and I also love the lens flare. I had no idea it was possible with HDV. Great job!

[LPODDAYUNGEN]

can this work on the t2i

[chung123video]

Awesome!

[rikmills]

Nice job dude. You've got the illusive elongated flares and horizontal streak too, very sweet. I know this setup makes your rig kinda 'large' but the results are awesome so I'd stick with it if I were you. Great work!

[Bomballeswech]

Does it look different to Letterboxing? Where and how much to pay for it? ;)

[TeeSav]

Different flares and Bokeh than if you just crop

[ENDOtactical]

looks like this is the "new" format youtube is supporting in the fullsize expanded player mode because all my 16:9 HD videos now have black vertical bars :/

[BROCKisBS]

no its 2:1

[ebbixx]

Fascinating demo. One question: around the 1:00 minute mark there's a flutter on the right side of the frame, was that caused by the adapter or simply something moving close in, at the edge of the frame?

[Queenis22]

how did you manae to use it with any lense with standard threading (52-58mm) ? I found that this adapter has thread of 37mm which fits only small camcorders, or there are other adapters that will fit bigger lenses ?

[CrittermationsPictrs]

So your pixels are twice as wide as they are tall?

[ajvenigalla]

I just heard that Vantage Film, the manufacturer of Hawk lenses created a 1.3x anamorphic lens format. You can desqueeze the squeezed image in color correction without losing resolution. It was designed to create 2.39:1 on 16:9 cameras. Does your adaptor make the anamorphic image lose resolution?

[CeruleanFilms]

@ajvenigalla I just saw these 1.3x Hawks at Cine Gear Expo. Amazing lenses. Those guys at Vantage are geniuses.

[ajvenigalla]

It sounds like anamorphic lenses from Panavision and Vantage Film are better. Do I have to screw the adaptor? I found the adaptor online.

[kriftinkrain]

haha Anamorphic fail

[anitric2000]

Thank you for your mature and insightful comment.

[kriftinkrain]

haha no offense to you.

YouTube just scaled it as if it were letterbox.

thus created a video and title paradox.

;-)

[thehalflifedude]

@anitric2000

You can crop it back to the correct aspect ratio by adding "yt:crop=16:9" to the tags of the video.

[pacmanlegend]

@kriftinkrain lol

[ajvenigalla]

Where could I buy the Century adaptor? I wish I could find the XL Anamorphic. Does the Optex XL Anamorphic work on Canon XL-H1?

[ajvenigalla]

I have the Canon VIXIA HF10. It would work on there, which I know already. I like 2.39:1 movies at 24 frames per second. Does the ViXIA HF10 shoot at 24 frames per second?

[ajvenigalla]

Does it involve screwing the anamorphic?

[ajvenigalla]

But do I have to place the converter in front of the camera lenses?

[anitric2000]

Yes, it's essentially a filter...or a cheap optically inaccurate way of creating a front-element anamorphic.

[anitric2000]

This lens (the 58mm Century) is much to small for a large ENG lens (or digiprimes) on a Varicam. The Panasonic would be too small as well, and seriously limit the usable focal lengths on a zoom lens.

[ajvenigalla]

Will it shoot in 2.39:1 with 16:9 chip cameras? Does it work on JVC GZ-HD40?

[anitric2000]

It only shoots 2.39:1 on a 16:9 chip camera. It was designed to create true 16:9 on 4:3 cameras (as it's a 1.33x squeeze). But using it on an already 16x9 chip you'd then double the aspect ratio to 2.39:1.

It would absolutely work on an HD40, or any other smaller HD camera.

[ajvenigalla]

Will it work on a huge Panasonic HD camcorder or a VariCam camcorder? How can the Century adaptor shoot in 2.39:1?

[anitric2000]

Well, this Century adapter won't work on the XLH1 because the lens is much larger than what the adapter was built for. You'd need to use the Panasonic, but even then you might see some vignetting.

Century and Optex did make (now discontinued) adapters for the manual lens on the XL1. The Optex was called the XLAnamorphic. They're both very hard to find now, and the Century is more like an urban legend...very difficult to find info on it. (it had an approx. thread size of 72mm).

[ajvenigalla]

Will the anamorphic lens shoot in 2.39:1 only with 28mm or 50mm lenses or will it work on the canon xl-h1 without having to use those lenses?

[cinemoran]

i have a sony hvr v1 camera. does your anamorphic adaptor fits? where can i buy one???

[1ExTERMINATE1]

crap its nt in HD i want my 2 minues back.

[ebbixx]

This was uploaded before HD was available on YouTube. Of course it's not HD. That wasn't the point.

If you want to avoid watching non-HD, first look at the upload date. Anything older than Dec. 2008 is not likely to be in YouTube's pseudo-HD.

[dreamcinema77]

michaelkrumlauf go to an apple store they charge you 99 dollars a year they give you about 48 one hour sessions

and you can ask them anything you want to know about final cut or any other apple product.

[juoj8]

what's so special about anamorphic flare?

[anitric2000]

It's part of an asthetic choice that a lot of people like. I personally find it to be interesting enough to try and obtain. It has an elegance to it that spherical flares don't...it also, of some people, adds a hint of production value, because technically speaking, anamorphic process is not nearly as common as spherical photography. The lenses tend to be quite expensive.

[pacosaidso]

I see the 28mm is causing vignette. The flare is gorgeous.

Would this adapter work on a Canon EOS 5Dmk2? It already shoots 16:9, so do you know if it would just squeeze it even more?

Thanks for posting this. There is way too little info on anamorphic gear on the net :)

[anitric2000]

Yeah, anything wider than 35mm tends to vignette quite a bit. The adapter is for obtaining 16x9 on a 4:3 chip...so using it on a 16x9 chip gives you close to 2.39:1. Using an actual 2x squeeze anamorphic lens would result in something like 3.56:1 (that number is probably wrong).

I'm sure it would work fine on an EOS 5Dmk2...but I haven't tired it. You'd have to get used to looking at a 1.3x squeezed image.

[Katana2040]

This is a great test! I am looking to go "anamorphic" myself. Have you tried the Century lens with just the HV20 sans Brevis?

[anitric2000]

I actually just put the anamorphic adapter on the HV20 without the Brevis and it's much sharper than with the Brevis (less glass). It's far more handy too, being much smaller...but focusing is an issue. The already terrible LCD and viewfinder make it really hard to see what's in focus, and the adapter screws with the auto-focus quite a bit (not that anyone should ever use auto-focus).

I actually like using it sans Brevis more. Not too often you see anamorphic with a deep depth of field.

[Katana2040]

See, that is what I would like to experiment with as well. I have an adapter myself, but I would use the anamorphic lens sans adapter. Have you noticed any difference in the 'bokeh' with this lens and just the camera itself?

[raydenPGD111]

soon hdtv will be in anamorphic

[michaelkrumlauf]

do you edit in Final Cut Pro? If so, how do you unsqueeze the anamorphic footage?

[anitric2000]

It was your HVX Anamorphic 2.40:1 test that actually inspired me to try this out!

I did edit in Final Cut Pro, but I transcoded all the footage (HDV) to DVCPRO HD in Compressor and told it to Pad for 2.39:1. That gave me 2.39:1 letterbox 1080p clips. No rendering after that. There are other options too, but you're probably aware of all of them (and this one) given all the stuff you've shot the same way. Awesome stuff by the way, puts this test to shame.

[fois313]

Do you have anything else shot in anamorphic to show me?

[fois313]

This is surely the last question...

The last shot, the one picturin u holding a torch, which lens did u use there? the 28mm I suppose. If so which one did u use when there's the wide shot with guy walkin in front of the camera, because I see vignette there... and finally when did u use the 50mm?

thanx a lot, man, really

[anitric2000]

Yeah, the flashlight shots were with the 28mm, as was the wide shot of the guy. The vignette is present because I didn't have the zoom properly set up for the Brevis. Just needed to compensate and I didn't.

[fois313]

thanx anitric.

One last thing, u put the Century Optics 16x9 converter onto your 28mm and 50mm Nikon photographic lenses, u used only these two lenses 'cause they're all u got, or 'cause of the mount, I read that Century Optics adaptor is for lenses with 37mm mount, is that correct? (sorry for all these questions, but I'm an Italian director and I love Anamorphic but it's hard to find someone testing it or even knowing something about)

[anitric2000]

They were the only lenses I had with a screw-on filter thread that did NOT twist while focusing. SLR Zoom lenses spin when you focus, rendering the anamorphic adapter useless. The Century adapter is for 58mm, they do make (or did, not sure if its still in production) a smaller 37mm version as well. The 50 and 28mm lenses have a standard 52mm thread, making it perfect (with a step-down ring) for the Century

The best bet size wise is the Panasonic adapter, it's for 77mm screw-on mounts I believe.

[fois313]

secondly I would like to knnow how did you shoot it, your cam was set on 16/9 or you just switched it in full frame? (I know that this last one is impossible, due to HD format, it's gotta be 16/9, by the way I just ask).

And thirdly how did you editi it? I mean, you had anamorphic non coverted shots in a 16/9 frame, u uused final cut to convert the image? and if so, it should be larger than 2.39:1 ain't it?

Thanx

david

[anitric2000]

The camera is HD with a 16x9 sensor (though, its not impossible to shoot 4x3 with an HD camera, the Arriflex D21 has a 4x3 35mm sized sensor, thus allowing the use of real 2x anamorphic lenses).

I added a Century Optics 16x9 anamorphic adapter to the lens. squeezing the already 16x9 footage with another 16x9 squeeze roughly gives you a cinemascope sized image.

In compressor, I squeezed all the footage using the "Pad for 2.35:1" option, giving me 1920x1080 with a hard matte (but not cropped)

[fois313]

I have few question, antric.

first I didn't get if you put real anomorphic lens onto a normal lens adapter (like Letus, P+S techink) or what?

[anitric2000]

No no, I created a setup that would allow me to shoot anamorphic without spending a fortune on real anamorphic lenses. Granted, quality wise this is 1/100th of shooting anamorphic, but it works perfectly on a budget and with 16x9 chip cameras.

I added a Century Optics 16x9 anamorphic converter to the lens. Squeezing the already 16x9 image with a 16x9 adapter gives you something quite close to 2.39:1.

I did use a Brevis35 adapter though, and put the Century adapter on the Nikon lenses I used.

[Slayer100]

How did you add an anamorphic lens to the brevis!? I would love to do that as i love anamorphic flares, as well as the incredibly wide aspect ratio. Where did you purchase the lens, and do you just imply screw it onto the threads of a 50mm prime lens?

[anitric2000]

The adapter was mounted to 28mm and 50mm SLR primes, but when I tested it on an SLR zoom, I had no trouble zooming from 35 to 70. It might be different on the actual camera's lens, I don't know...but I doubt it. The camera is zoomed about 2/3'ds of the way in because of the brevis35, and is focused on the ground glass, so that may help the situation.

I noticed a change in distances on the SLR lenses. Suddenly focusing on an object 6 feet away required the focus to be set at about 2 feet.

[rydeen18]

I know that the Panasonic AG-LA7200 has issues with zooming in all the way ( blurs on focus )

Have you hade any problems like that with the century optics one>?

Btw: Nice footage