Anamorphic still worth it

[enny]

So you guys you still interested in anamorphic adapters. Still worth it going through all the trouble even thought its a attachment and not a lens with a mount.

[cantsin]

Today, anamorphic is mostly used as an optical effect. (If you need Cinemascope aspect ratio, you can simply crop.) It's all about the anamorphic image distortions and flares, mostly as a recreation of the classical Cinemascope look.

[Bioskop.Inc]

They're absolutely still worth it, as cropping just sucks! It's not the same thing at all, as you'll never be able to replicate the creamy out of focus qualities of an anamorphic. Also, the great thing about them is that they really do/can minimise the video feel of some cameras.

What i really like about adaptors is that you're not beholden to one look, you can change the taking lens & by doing so alter the look/feel of the image. So, if you want different scenes in your piece to have a distinct & different feel to them, you can.

However, if you're a modern clinical sharpness enthusiast, who doesn't appreciate/understand the various different types of flares or image distortions then stay away from them - as they'll drive you crazy!

[enny]

I hear you i have kowa B&H i did a test with wide angle lens and kowa kowa just has this cinematic fell and look right out of camera

[Bioskop.Inc]

My next purchase is the Rectilux Core DNA - just seems the most sensible thing to do. Was going to get a speedbooster for my pocket, but.......?

[hyalinejim]

20 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

you'll never be able to replicate the creamy out of focus qualities of an anamorphic

This.

I'm finishing up a documentary short that I shot on 5D3 MLRAW, mostly in crop mode - that is, a 3x crop compared to full frame. There are around a dozen shots in the whole piece. Ten of these are at f8. I debated, prior to shooting, whether I'd bother with anamorphic at all, as I was dealing with such huge depth of field. I decided to use my Iscorama and it was totally worth it.

Firstly, the 2 shots that were shot wide open in non-crop mode are immediately recognisable as anamorphic. However, to the extent that the deep DOF shots go out of focus, that anamorphic feel reveals itself. And there were occasions when the occasional flare made it all worthwhile.

For me the drawbacks are to do with stability and time: having a heavy anamorphic on front of your lens might mean you need extra support so that you don't shake things up when racking focus. And it can be a bit of hassle to switch anamorphic when you change lenses, trying to keep accurate alignment, or even screwing and unscrewing diopters for close focus.

This doc I'm talking about is mainly a landscape film. And I actually stuck an Isco 36 on a Tamron 24-70 2.8, which gave me an effective focal range of around 55 to 160 without changing lenses. I wouldn't shoot like this every day of the week though.