LEVYfilms

And Richg101, nice that the anamorphic works with a wider lens. What about longer? My ISCO MC 2000 needs a 50mm as the taking lens - vignettes with wider and won't focus with much longer, but I can pull focus with the taking lens only, no need to focus both, which I is great.

Some interesting challenges and discoveries shooting this stuff. http://levyllc.com/soccercityusa/

You're absolutely right of course, but I still see very few examples of extended work, mostly little experiments, and the anamorphics do provide an incomparable look, even of debatable how often would be appreciated, especially in this 16 x 9 world. For me, as wide open as possible is where it's at, but can fall of the edge in terms nothing being in focus.

I just can't seem to find many folks who are doing much th DSLRs or smaller cheaper cameras and lens adapters. I'm in midst of a project for which we're relying on small, handheld cameras and anamorphic adapters to bring an element that is unusual in the category and hopefully cinematic. There is much I would want to share regarding the benefits, learnings and limitations. - Scott https://vimeo.com/43704578

See comparisons here: [url=http://levyllc.com/NonFlash/sam/]http://levyllc.com/NonFlash/sam/[/url] [url=http://vimeo.com/levyfilms]http://vimeo.com/levyfilms[/url] When flare is immaterial, is an anamorphic really that special? Fun, sure, but as long as you have the lenses and framing, the difference between cropped 16x9 and an anamorphic adapter may not be discernible to most. Love my anamorphics, but worth asking the question.