With an anamorphic lens are you supposed to shoot at a higher resolution than the finished film to make sure the horizontal and vertical pixel density are the same after stretching the image?
A cool thing to note is that the human brain sucks ass at horizontal detail, but is great at picking up vertical detail. Lots of early wide-screen footage was shot in standard def 4:3 woth a special lens then stretched out to 16:9 afterwards. So it's basically not needed to shoot in a higher res.
@@marcusborderlands6177 Absolutely true. For a long time, video cameras couldn't record 1080i with square pixels (1920×1080) but rather with 1.33:1 rectangular pixels (1440×1080). Also DVDs supported some oddball resolutions like 352×480 which had 1.82:1 rectangular pixels.
No, the image captured, if you play it back, will be horizontally compressed. You're gonna have to decompress it using an editing software to make it look normal, unless you have a camera that can do it natively like the lumix S5.
Not really into cine lenses, I'm just wondering if anamorphic lenses were used before digital cameras, my main question is about how the decompression worked if they were being used
As I understand there were movie projectors made for that format. In other cases also film frames were croped to make them look wider. I could be wrong.
@@vldslv3465 That is really interesting, I totally forgot about doing the stretching optically, but it still doesn't make sense since not all movies were shot that way, so would it not make the experience for people with normal projectors shitty or for people on 4:3 monitors... so it wouldn't make sense to actually shoot movies that way, it would make more sense to just shoot them with wide film, no reason to shoot them in 2:3 but compressed from a wider image that nly certain projectors could display correctly, I'm surprisingly interested in this now lol...
@@aquss33 about apect ratio. I remember when monitors and TVs were 4:3, there were old movies that were filmed in 4:3 and did fit perfectly in a screen and when a movie was filmed wide it was cut off on the sides or squashed with black fields at top and bottom of a screen. And thats why old films get digitalised and remastered again to today standarts.
A6600 is not very good choice for video. APS-C only, really awful rolling shutter, significantly cropped 4k/30, only 8 bits output, very subpar 1080 footage quality...
@@petrpohnan875 i have had the Sony apsc's as my secondary camera for ages now. I have to strongly disagree. Maybe keep your opinions to yourself next time?
It was originally for projection in a cinema with a complimentary projector to restore the original aspect ratio. Today digital is everything I suppose
I've looked at the FF sirui anamorphic lenses for a few years. Tell me, can you desqueeze in LR? I actually desire to do anamorphic photography, but with Laowa now offering a T2 at 2x factor with variable flare... I wonder who the best option between them and Great Joy and Sirui is.
Well that lens the T2 (the Proteus) is $4,999 per lens just FYI. So about $3,500 more than the one in this video. And In Lightroom you can't do the desqueeze you'll have to do it in photoshop.
I've been looking for a lense that does the opposite. Need one that shoots more narrow so I can film verticle video without holding my camera sideways. 😮
Well yes. Cine lenses are know for delivering sharper images. Not easy to notice at 4k but while filming at res. like 8k or more you could see a difference. But it's a "waste of money". I mean they are way to expensive for the results you get. (Sony/Canon/ARRI Cine Lenses can cost tens of thousands) Sirui is in fact pretty nice. Most of their Cine Lenses cost between 1 and 2 grand and give you that nice Anamorph look (lens flair, and bokeh) Have a nice day 👍🤗
The camera does but not all cameras have the setting to do so. Edit: Technically it’s the lens that is squeezing the image optically and you would use editing software to unsqueeze it. It’s really weird to look at when it’s squeezed though so some cameras (mainly cinema cameras) give you the option to view it unsqueezed in camera.
I thought they shoot a vertically wider image which then has to be compressed vertically...please check that...its not horizontal...its vertically elongated
Why do you need this double work first It compresses and after uncompressing. Don't a normal lens have more information on the top and bottom. And with anamorphic you will lose it?
I don’t think you understand how It works. Basically your camera shoots 16:9 videos. The anamorphic lens will shoot wider. But to do that it tries to squeeze all the extra wide-ness into the 16:9 format. So when it’s time to edit, you just stretch the video out into 21:9. If you’re wondering why you don’t just “crop the 16:9 video into 21:9” that is not “true 21:9.”
@@Mattrixx thanks. Could you explain more please. Why a very wide angle with editing crop not do the same thing? If you don't wanna explain, because is too much, maybe you can suggest to watch someone who already explained it. Thank
This lens is meant to give you a wider aspect ratio (more rectangular). Imagine your cameras sensor is a square. A normal lens would fill that square up but to achieve the wide aspect ratio look you would need to crop the top and bottom of the square to make it more rectangular. The downfall to this is that now you’ve lost 2/3 of the image you recorded so you better hope it was framed well and also you’ve just lost 2/3 of your cameras resolution because you cut it out to give the appearance of a wider aspect ratio. The solution is an anamorphic lens. The anamorphic lens basically captures light in a rectangle that is bigger than your square camera sensor. This is nice because now you can capture a wider image but in order to do so the glass in the lens must squeeze the sides of the rectangle in to fit into the sensor. At that point you would unsqueeze the image in the editing phase and voila, you have wider image without cropping the top and bottom of your image and without losing resolution. There’s also interesting artifacts and a certain “look” you get from unsqueezing footage like that and people find that look to be cinematic and pleasing but in a nutshell that’s the whole point of compressing and uncompressing the image. And to be more clear about part of your question, yes you technically don’t have the top and bottom part of an image like you would with a normal lens but with the wide aspect ratio having that information isn’t exactly something you’re missing because you would have framed accordingly
@@IvanGorbenko Because a wide angle lens will just squeeze a rectangle shape into and identically shaped rectangle. Anamorphic only squeezes the stuff left and right of the rectangle into frame, it doesn't squeeze stuff at the top and bottom into the frame.
My dad spent years making lenses for projectors to uncompress anamorphic footage. Was pretty cool. He stopped almost a decade ago, but I think his old website might still be around? Went by both anamorphic research and home theater brothers. It's a pretty cool aspect ratio
If this video is targeted towards newbies, then you did a very poor job of explaining what this lens does, thou need to show visual representations of what is happening inside the lens and on the sensor, and you should show how the shots look compared to a normal lens
Someone needs to explain to this bro what digital means... Optical Image Stabilisation or electronic focus motors have got nothing to do with digital 😅😂
“Most lenses shoot a perfectly rectilinear image” The absolutely do not, new lenses are amazingly distorted in all sorts of strange ways, the camera, or you with a raw image apply a lens preset that sorts it all out. Don’t believe me? Look up how expensive a calibrated rectilinear architectural lens is…
I do believe you, using a canon 18-55 without built in corrections is a death sentance, shit looks like a fish eye and even with the corrections, at 18mm it is still distorted, plus major vignetting, it's just a really optically shitty lens lol. Ypu gotta do all sorts of correcting for city scapes and things that look weird distorted. That's why everyone likes primes, people often talking about how they help you learn and stuff, but it really comes down to being wide open, good image quality and low distortion lenses for cheap... (even if the canon 50mm 1.8 does have mojor chromatic aberration, at least compared to tamrons or other canons of the same price range)
I just uploaded the first sample images here:
ruclips.net/user/shortsGKYdiy1XFRM
Can I 🥺😢
Saw the results. They are really something unique. seeing this type of a lens for the first time.
Thanks
Bro what is a prism rotary camera which is used to flim nuclear explosion scene in Nolan's oppenheimer.
You never mentioned the name of the lens .. or provide a link to purchase this lens… in the description
I think we all expected a demonstration of the lens 😅😅
Later this week! 🙈
@@AnthonyGugliotta okayy
Excited
@@AnthonyGugliotta no viewer likes being clickbaited
@@AnthonyGugliotta probably should have made the video then
I loved the part where he actually showed us the result - like someone would - in a video - about a lens - and how it’s different from other lenses. 😊
Cry more
@@a_RedClaw simp more
@@LaKoeps gay more
Not in a short.
I also loved that we know the name of said lens.
We need to see it in action!!!
Testing in progress. Samples coming soon 😉
@@AnthonyGugliotta faster please
Not really
I'm all about cine glass. Let's go!
Great description of anamorphic.
You should have done a visual demonstration socthat we see what the process looks like.
more about lens pls, love your video
Basically it shoots in 2.39:1 ratio instead of standard 16:9 ratio which naturally gives it the cinematic frame up and below and a wider on the sides
Thanks for showing us
Can you tell me the lens price and brand name
Note that it's 2023 and lightroom still can't desqueeze photos which is extremely annoying if you don't just do video with it
Bruh
With an anamorphic lens are you supposed to shoot at a higher resolution than the finished film to make sure the horizontal and vertical pixel density are the same after stretching the image?
A cool thing to note is that the human brain sucks ass at horizontal detail, but is great at picking up vertical detail. Lots of early wide-screen footage was shot in standard def 4:3 woth a special lens then stretched out to 16:9 afterwards. So it's basically not needed to shoot in a higher res.
@@marcusborderlands6177
Absolutely true. For a long time, video cameras couldn't record 1080i with square pixels (1920×1080) but rather with 1.33:1 rectangular pixels (1440×1080). Also DVDs supported some oddball resolutions like 352×480 which had 1.82:1 rectangular pixels.
No, the image captured, if you play it back, will be horizontally compressed. You're gonna have to decompress it using an editing software to make it look normal, unless you have a camera that can do it natively like the lumix S5.
Not really into cine lenses, I'm just wondering if anamorphic lenses were used before digital cameras, my main question is about how the decompression worked if they were being used
As I understand there were movie projectors made for that format. In other cases also film frames were croped to make them look wider. I could be wrong.
@@vldslv3465 That is really interesting, I totally forgot about doing the stretching optically, but it still doesn't make sense since not all movies were shot that way, so would it not make the experience for people with normal projectors shitty or for people on 4:3 monitors... so it wouldn't make sense to actually shoot movies that way, it would make more sense to just shoot them with wide film, no reason to shoot them in 2:3 but compressed from a wider image that nly certain projectors could display correctly, I'm surprisingly interested in this now lol...
@@aquss33 about apect ratio. I remember when monitors and TVs were 4:3, there were old movies that were filmed in 4:3 and did fit perfectly in a screen and when a movie was filmed wide it was cut off on the sides or squashed with black fields at top and bottom of a screen. And thats why old films get digitalised and remastered again to today standarts.
Great selection buddy. Got myself one for my Sony a6600 and me and my clients both have been blown away by the results.
what is the lens called?
@@meyanaiise sirui anamorphic lens. Mine is the 24mm f 2.8
Does Lightroom mobile uncompress the image?
A6600 is not very good choice for video. APS-C only, really awful rolling shutter, significantly cropped 4k/30, only 8 bits output, very subpar 1080 footage quality...
@@petrpohnan875 i have had the Sony apsc's as my secondary camera for ages now. I have to strongly disagree. Maybe keep your opinions to yourself next time?
What beginer photo camera do you recomend the buget is about 200-300$
You should make a video of shooting film photography
Can you do one on a catadioptic lens for a camera
Can you demonstrate the lens? Shoot it vertically and horizontally
If it compresses, then a lot of pixels and details should be lost, how does uncompressing bring back details
It was originally for projection in a cinema with a complimentary projector to restore the original aspect ratio. Today digital is everything I suppose
I've looked at the FF sirui anamorphic lenses for a few years. Tell me, can you desqueeze in LR? I actually desire to do anamorphic photography, but with Laowa now offering a T2 at 2x factor with variable flare... I wonder who the best option between them and Great Joy and Sirui is.
Well that lens the T2 (the Proteus) is $4,999 per lens just FYI. So about $3,500 more than the one in this video. And In Lightroom you can't do the desqueeze you'll have to do it in photoshop.
Why? Just why? More expensive, no af, just wtf
@@dimitrijekrstic7567 autofocus isn't everything
@@dimitrijekrstic7567 Because it's got character and a look that's rad, 🤷♂and you don't always need AF
Will it blend
But that compression cant be lossless right?
My friend from the camera shop keeps telling me not to get this lens but I want it really bad thinking about getting it
what's the name of the lens?
I've been looking for a lense that does the opposite. Need one that shoots more narrow so I can film verticle video without holding my camera sideways. 😮
TBH your shorts are really informative and helpful.
Have heard great things about the sirui
Do you have a parfocal lens?
Hey Anthony, I wonder does cine lens take better photo than still lens?
Well yes. Cine lenses are know for delivering sharper images.
Not easy to notice at 4k but while filming at res. like 8k or more you could see a difference.
But it's a "waste of money". I mean they are way to expensive for the results you get. (Sony/Canon/ARRI Cine Lenses can cost tens of thousands)
Sirui is in fact pretty nice. Most of their Cine Lenses cost between 1 and 2 grand and give you that nice Anamorph look (lens flair, and bokeh)
Have a nice day 👍🤗
ruclips.net/video/bIhaItLnSR0/видео.html
@@lorenzosorgatz4385 Thank you for ur great explanation! 👏🏼
@@najmimarzuki 🤗🙃
Cons: size, weight & filter size,
focus draw BUT great performance.
I have one but it fully manual also made from USSR
Will this lens compress the footage or the camera compresses the footage ?
The camera does but not all cameras have the setting to do so.
Edit: Technically it’s the lens that is squeezing the image optically and you would use editing software to unsqueeze it. It’s really weird to look at when it’s squeezed though so some cameras (mainly cinema cameras) give you the option to view it unsqueezed in camera.
Fascinating that you talk about this in a video with 9:16 aspect ratio... I guess you can use it to film even narrower and higher video...
Is wider vertically even a thing?
It's like the art of fighting without fighting.
I’m looking for an anamorphic lens, does anyone have the link to this one?
I thought they shoot a vertically wider image which then has to be compressed vertically...please check that...its not horizontal...its vertically elongated
Plzz can you show the Results of this lens
is canon 60d worthy in 2023?
Price ???
what would be a good use case of an anamorphic lens? 🤗
Getting anamorphic footage (it's a really wide aspect ratio) without losing vertical resolution
A lot of movies now days. It creates a super good looking wide shot. They have stretched (usually blue) horizontal lens flares.
throw it in the bin
Bro the way you gesticulate with the lens made me jumpy 😂
I wish canon had internal anamorphic desqueeze
So what magic lense name..😙
a Cannon 17-55 2.8 lens gives me a wide horizontal pictures.
Can this lens fit a canon eos rebel t3i?
Oh I heard about this brand new one that was professional grade but only costed like 1k(USD) or smt insane and it was also an anamorphic lens
Been wanting one of these for ages but just can’t bring myself to buy one!
Can you show what it does?
Sounds interesting. Let's know more in practice how an Anamorphic lens looks like.
My church uses these and their awesome
That sounds redundant, why compress the image to then have to uncompress it later? I’m not a camera expert so someone please explain 😭
Why do you need this double work first It compresses and after uncompressing. Don't a normal lens have more information on the top and bottom. And with anamorphic you will lose it?
I don’t think you understand how It works. Basically your camera shoots 16:9 videos. The anamorphic lens will shoot wider. But to do that it tries to squeeze all the extra wide-ness into the 16:9 format. So when it’s time to edit, you just stretch the video out into 21:9. If you’re wondering why you don’t just “crop the 16:9 video into 21:9” that is not “true 21:9.”
@@Mattrixx thanks. Could you explain more please. Why a very wide angle with editing crop not do the same thing? If you don't wanna explain, because is too much, maybe you can suggest to watch someone who already explained it. Thank
This lens is meant to give you a wider aspect ratio (more rectangular). Imagine your cameras sensor is a square. A normal lens would fill that square up but to achieve the wide aspect ratio look you would need to crop the top and bottom of the square to make it more rectangular. The downfall to this is that now you’ve lost 2/3 of the image you recorded so you better hope it was framed well and also you’ve just lost 2/3 of your cameras resolution because you cut it out to give the appearance of a wider aspect ratio. The solution is an anamorphic lens. The anamorphic lens basically captures light in a rectangle that is bigger than your square camera sensor. This is nice because now you can capture a wider image but in order to do so the glass in the lens must squeeze the sides of the rectangle in to fit into the sensor. At that point you would unsqueeze the image in the editing phase and voila, you have wider image without cropping the top and bottom of your image and without losing resolution. There’s also interesting artifacts and a certain “look” you get from unsqueezing footage like that and people find that look to be cinematic and pleasing but in a nutshell that’s the whole point of compressing and uncompressing the image. And to be more clear about part of your question, yes you technically don’t have the top and bottom part of an image like you would with a normal lens but with the wide aspect ratio having that information isn’t exactly something you’re missing because you would have framed accordingly
@@IvanGorbenko Because a wide angle lens will just squeeze a rectangle shape into and identically shaped rectangle.
Anamorphic only squeezes the stuff left and right of the rectangle into frame,
it doesn't squeeze stuff at the top and bottom into the frame.
Help! I bought a lense and now my camera doesn't autofocus
Is it moment???
Omg if you were in giveaways i would be gazing on this beauty till you gave it to me 😂
I have a question do you have a camera that you can send me i dont care if it was old i need it for school purpose Please
You should try scripting your videos
Are there such things that only some specific cameras would support anamorphic?
My dad spent years making lenses for projectors to uncompress anamorphic footage. Was pretty cool. He stopped almost a decade ago, but I think his old website might still be around? Went by both anamorphic research and home theater brothers. It's a pretty cool aspect ratio
I wonder where he is from in the usa
eventually the lens will just take the picture itself, no camera body needed
how much is it
The lens in the video is about $1500 but you can get it used for close to a grand
You gonna show results of everything you just described in MLA format
Image stabilisation is not a digital feature
Stabilization is optical
Test it ❤❤
Why are you using Jared Polin's name fir the link?
Hm is it?
isn’t that the type of lens they used for Interstellar, giving this compressed distorted angles on a lot of shots ?
aw man, my favorite country, "CAN ADA"
A demo could have helped
So its an expensive thing to have more uncropping to do?
"Inexpensive one..."
*proceeds to pull out a $200 lens
...so the lenses have their own motherboard and processor? 🤔
No. Just glass. No focusing motor or anything.
"This is really cool - what s so cool about it? Well...the disadvantages. Cause it s more work !"
❤️❤️❤️❤️
uncompres focal lenght ? what ?
🔥🔥
lets look at the lens again and think about what shape the normal photography lens shoots in....
If this video is targeted towards newbies, then you did a very poor job of explaining what this lens does, thou need to show visual representations of what is happening inside the lens and on the sensor, and you should show how the shots look compared to a normal lens
Someone needs to explain to this bro what digital means... Optical Image Stabilisation or electronic focus motors have got nothing to do with digital 😅😂
Bro tell us the price also
“Most lenses shoot a perfectly rectilinear image”
The absolutely do not, new lenses are amazingly distorted in all sorts of strange ways, the camera, or you with a raw image apply a lens preset that sorts it all out.
Don’t believe me? Look up how expensive a calibrated rectilinear architectural lens is…
I do believe you, using a canon 18-55 without built in corrections is a death sentance, shit looks like a fish eye and even with the corrections, at 18mm it is still distorted, plus major vignetting, it's just a really optically shitty lens lol. Ypu gotta do all sorts of correcting for city scapes and things that look weird distorted. That's why everyone likes primes, people often talking about how they help you learn and stuff, but it really comes down to being wide open, good image quality and low distortion lenses for cheap... (even if the canon 50mm 1.8 does have mojor chromatic aberration, at least compared to tamrons or other canons of the same price range)
Yes we call this lens
“The cinematic lens” 😅
He kinda looks like Ryan from the office
I expected a visual example.
Who needs Anamorphic in a Vertical Video World?
That thing probably costs more than my existence
It's actually not that expensive
"even if you buy an inexpensive one"
ha, that's a good joke you got there.
I thought it was ironic that he talked about a anamorphic lens in a video format that is anything but wide.
Ah, what it is again?
Why?
Photographic content ... Enjoy with rich pices
Markiplier would love this
fuck yeah. I don't even do video but I'd love an excuse to play with an amorphic lens
Buy me a camera now!!
“Full-autofocus”
also if you have an iphone get the moment anamorphic lens, it's amazing