Wide angle lenses and anamorphic lenses

sammy81z · Jul 3, 2016

Let us consider an 18mm wide angle lens (spherical) and a 35mm anamorphic lens with a 1.3x squeeze ratio. I understand the principle of the anamorphic lens, in that it squeezes the image onto the sensor horizontally and one can desqueeze the image in post, resulting in a wide image. I also note that a 1.3x squeeze ratio can result in a 2.39:1 aspect ratio.

Based on the above two lenses:

If one wants to shoot using a 2.39:1 aspect ratio for framing, is it correct to say that if the 18mm wide angle lens (non-anamorphic) is used, the top and bottom of the frame would need to be cropped in post to achieve the 2.39:1 aspect ratio? Therefore is it also correct to say that is why anamorphic lens are used because one can shoot straight away using a 2.39:1 aspect ratio when shooting and therefore does not need to crop the top and bottom of the frame in post?

The main point of my question is the fact that I just wanted to know why would folks use an anamorphic lens instead of a wide angle lens.

jax_rox · Jul 3, 2016

sammy81z said:
If one wants to shoot using a 2.39:1 aspect ratio for framing, is it correct to say that if the 18mm wide angle lens (non-anamorphic) is used, the top and bottom of the frame would need to be cropped in post to achieve the 2.39:1 aspect ratio?

Yes

sammy81z said:
Therefore is it also correct to say that is why anamorphic lens are used because one can shoot straight away using a 2.39:1 aspect ratio when shooting and therefore does not need to crop the top and bottom of the frame in post?

No. A traditional 2x 35mm anamorphic lens gives you a wider horizontal field of view. It's a little like combining two lenses into one. A 2x 35mm anamorphic will give you a horizontal field of view similar to an 18mm, but a vertical FOV of a 35mm.

Anamorphic lenses are not spherical, and therefore give you oval bokeh, and also give you greater DOF for the focal length - a 35mm is as wide as say an 18mm, but it's still behaving like a 35mm.

Anamorphics also tend to have other funky optical qualities about them.

On a 1.3x anamorphic you get less of an anamorphic effect, but it's still there.

You can google plenty of anamorphic vs spherical comparisons, or a few years ago I shot a really rough, quick (and quite clinical) test of UltraScope and Lomo anamorphics vs spherical Zeiss SuperSpeeds at similar focal lengths, and comparing their performance wide open versus stopped down (many anamorphics border on, or simply are unusable wide open):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rw9bbXaYIw

I shot this on a RED Epic; in the end we ended up shooting Super Baltars for the project (not tested here), and doing a 2.39:1 crop in post. In the end, I felt that the Baltars provided enough character for the look we were going for, whilst still being as versatile and efficient as a spherical lens.
I have since shot Hawk Vintage 74 Anamorphics, and I think they may be my favourite lenses ever.

sammy81z · Jul 3, 2016

jax_rox said:
On a 1.3x anamorphic you get less of an anamorphic effect, but it's still there.

Thanks for the reply and the link. Interesting video. However I have read elsewhere that 1.3x or 1.33x (I think) is the recommended anamorphic ratio for an intended 2.39:1 aspect ratio, however you have said that 1.3x gives less an effect. 2x ratio gives a much wider (greater than 2.39:1 aspect ratio), therefore if 1.3x gives less than an anamorphic effect for 2.39:1 then what does?

jax_rox · Jul 4, 2016

sammy81z said:
Thanks for the reply and the link. Interesting video. However I have read elsewhere that 1.3x or 1.33x (I think) is the recommended anamorphic ratio for an intended 2.39:1 aspect ratio, however you have said that 1.3x gives less an effect. 2x ratio gives a much wider (greater than 2.39:1 aspect ratio), therefore if 1.3x gives less than an anamorphic effect for 2.39:1 then what does?

2x Anamorphic was designed for 4-perf 35mm with a 4:3 aspect ratio, which de-squeezes to a 2.39:1 aspect ratio. There are some digital cameras which feature a 4:3 sensor that you can use a 2x anamorphic lens on and get the full anamorphic effect.

1.3x Anamorphic lenses are designed for cameras with 16:9 sensors. This utilises the full 16:9 sensor, and will still de-squeeze to 2.39:1, however the anamorphic effect (i.e. the oval bokeh, lens flares etc.) is lessened in comparison to a 2x lens.

The other option for 2x anamorphic lenses is to shoot on a 16:9 sensor at a much higher resolution. You could shoot 4k on a 16:9 sensor with 2x anamorphics for HD delivery, however after you de-squeeze you would then crop the ends off to get you to proper 2.39:1 aspect. You would need to account for this in your framing. This is a tricky way to do it, and there are few camera systems set up to do so easily, so in general it is easier to use 1.3x anamorphics on a 16:9 sensor.

sammy81z · Jul 4, 2016

Thanks jax_rox. This is understandable. Can you recommend any further reading in terms of a chart that shows anamorphic lens ratios matched to a sensor and the resultant aspect ratio? Something like the below:

1.3x => 16:9 => 2.39:1

2x => 4:3 => 2.39:1

2x =>4:3 => 3.55:1

etc.