What anamorphic factors are you using?

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Hi!

As I own some commercial anamorphic S8-prints, I started with anamorphics with a factor of 2x. After using some of these anamorphics for shooting some home movies, I decided that this is „too cumbersome“ for many of my use-cases (dual-focus, weight, …). So I ended up buying a 1.5x and a 1.75x anamorphic (a tiny Isco that is also dual-focus and that I never used - and a Hypergonar-8 that is fixed focus and attached to a Fujica P2 that I’m using quite often). And as some of my older TVs and DVD-players had a button labeled „anamorphic“, I also acquired an anamorphic with a factor of 1.33x… (that I never used so far).

For the sake of completeness: I also own a 1.33x and a 1.55x for my smartphone. Both are too tiny even for the Fujica P2.

So: What anamorphics do you own? Anything exotic like 1.4x or 1.77x?

[Brian Fretwell]

Nothing exotic, just that 1,75x Hypergona and a couple of 2x.
Mind you that had trouble with a film shot with a 1.75 ananmorphic at one Widex as they didn't have one to show it they tried 1.5x and 2X but couldn't get it looking right, I think it was a competition entry.

[Graham Ritchie]

Nothing fancy I use a Kollmorgen Kasaka 2X for the GS1200 and a Carl Zeiss 2X for the Ernemann. I still have a Proscar Anamorphic-16 2X but the previous X cinema lenses mentioned are the ones I use these days.




Screen shot from the Ernemann 2 . The Carl Zeiss is a nice lens

[Ed Gordon]

I use a Kowa Prominar Anamorphic 8-Z (2X). It is a heavy beast (1.25 pounds). It does require dual focus, which is not an issue when projecting, but is a pain when filming. I grabbed the picture below from Ebay and was shocked to find they are now selling for $750 to $1000. Ouch!

[Osi Osgood]

I have always used a German Mollier "Anamorphat" scope lense. I didn't know there were any "factors" to deal with, though.

[Ed Gordon]

...I didn't know there were any "factors" to deal with, though.

Your lens is a standard (2X) anamorphic lens. This is the standard for film with the standard 1.33 aspect ratio introduced by 20th Century Fox as "Cinemascope". More info:

Traditionally, anamorphic lenses have a 2x squeeze, meaning that lenses capture twice the amount of horizontal information than a spherical lens. When stretched, a 2x anamorphic lens used with standard 35mm film yields a 2.39:1 aspect ratio, commonly referred to as CinemaScope, or simply "Scope." The desire for wider aspect ratios is what drove the popularity of anamorphic lenses in the film industry. In order to capture the same 2.39:1 aspect ratio with spherical lenses, it meant cropping, or ”masking” the top and bottom of each frame, thus sacrificing vertical resolution.

For digital cinematographers working in HD or 2K formats, cropping a 2K frame to get a 2.39:1 ratio leaves you with a meager 858 lines of vertical resolution. Anamorphic lenses provide a means to capture a 2.39:1 ratio without having to make that sacrifice in resolution. However, due to the wider aspect ratio of digital sensors compared to 35mm film, 2x anamorphic lenses produce a super-wide 3.55:1 ratio, with a 1.5x anamorphic lens still producing an aspect ratio of 2.66:1. To produce a traditional "Scope" ratio with a 16:9 sensor, a 1.33x or 1.35x anamorphic lens is needed.

Companies like Letus and SLR Magic have developed 1.33x anamorphic lens adapters, which attach to the front of your lens. ARRI released a version of their popular Alexa camera with a 4:3 sensor, which is compatible with 2x anamorphic cinema lenses. Lens manufacturers such as Cooke and Angénieux recently produced their first anamorphic lenses. The ultra-widescreen cinematic look is still wildly popular among filmmakers.

Whether you’re looking for streaking horizontal lens flares, made popular recently by J.J. Abrams, or you’re going for that cinematic scope aspect ratio (without losing vertical resolution), anamorphic options in the digital cinematography world are stretching new horizons and I, for one, couldn’t be more thrilled.

Source: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora...ematic-imagery

[Osi Osgood]

Nice to have that extra info! When I used to film in scope on super 8, while it worked just fine, (after some missteps, about a role of film), just keeping that lense on the camera was pretty tricky. I wasn't fancy back then. Super strong duct tape did the job, but you had to shoot pretty quick, as the lense was obviously heavy, and the duct tape would quickly start to lose it's strength, and the lense would start to say. Also, it certainly helped that the camera had a great zoom lense. You could come out a little too close or far. I was basically tied down to shots without a lot of zoom and just panning left to right, but having that scope projection of home movies was fun .... and I had hair back then!

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Osi, a factor of 2x is the industry standard (except for Ultra Panavision 70 with a factor of 1.25x and some mayflies like Technirama that used 1.5x camera-wise).

Smaller factors mainly existed only for amateurs shooting their own anamorphic films with 8mm/S8/9.5mm/16mm. Main reasons for the creation of these smaller factors:

1. The wider the screen, the more light you need. And these 1.5x and 1.75x factors mainly got introduced at a time when projectors only had 50 or 75 Watt lamps.
2. The anamorphics don’t only extend the image, but also the grain.
3. The smaller factors are more easily to obtain - some of the early amateur systems used distortion mirrors (like in a fun house in an amusement park) instead of glass lenses.

All the other factors got introduced for video (like the 1.33x that extends 4:3 to 16:9 or the 1.55x that turns 16:9 into Ultra Panavision 70’s 2,76:1) or for certain video-projectors that had strange panels (e.g. 5:4 or 1:1).

[Brian Fretwell]

Also one thing I forgot to put earlier was that the Hypergonar is actually branded as Cinemascope (the only substandard guage one to legally do so) and that the 1.75:1 compression gives the later/current widescreen format of 2.35:1 that came about after 35mm Cinemascope went to optical sound, not magnetic.