I could tell a difference right away, and I do prefer the anamorphic lens look. However, I'm an amateur filmmaker. Ease of use, autofocus, affordability, etc. are more important to me at this point. And because I've been a screenwriter for 10+ years, I know what ultimately matters is the story.
Anamorphic lenses do look special if you shoot correctly with this lens. If you don’t, it looks just like a spherical lens. Shoot at a T stop that captures the full depth of your talent only. Make sure the background behind your talent is at least 5 times the distance from camera to subject. Your subject will look 3D and seem to float in front of a swirly bokeh background. That’s the anamorphic look. In Hollywood some productions need fast schedules and prohibit anamorphic lenses because all of the pre planning needed for blocking, composition and deep sets needed to film. It’s totally worth the extra work in my opinion because of the beautiful images that come out. Cheers!
I don't like when people call a look "mOrE cInEmAtIc" than the other. Yes - anamorphic lenses were often used for films, which were supposed to be watched in the cinema. But to make a shot look good or cInEmAtIc, there is so much more depth to that than just the lens choice, a big sensor/film and shooting against the sun. Film productions put a lot of thought into every little shot - why should the camera move a certain way, or why it should remain still, why you should opt for an anamorphic look rather than a spherical one. Because instead of choosing an anamorphic lens you could actually choose a wider spherical lens (one that matches the effective horizonal focal length of the anamorphic counter part) and then crop the top and bottom while getting the exact same field of view, from the same perspective. Its really only about the look. And the choice of look depends on what message you want to tell or simply on personal preference of the director. Directors like Christopher Nolan love the anamorphic look and therefore often desire for anamorphic lenses in their films. On the other hand the Harry Potter movies are all entirely shot on sperical lenses but the movies are still in the (about) 2.39:1 aspect ratio, which is very common in films meant for the cinema. Anamorphic lenses give you a very special look that might give that "something isnt quite right" kind of feeling. And that can be used very intentionally too. You could even change the kind of lenses during the film to emphasize certain details. Both kinds of lenses can do the same things after all. Simply slapping an anamorphic lens onto your camera isnt going to turn your footage into cinema screen worthy on its own. There is much more depth to that.
Some images taken with an anamorphic lens appear slightly wider than they actually are when stretched in post. I found this feature on my lens, it only gives out an honest compression ratio when you shoot objects close, about a meter away. If the object is further away, or if it is a general plan or a landscape, then the image should be expanded not by 1.8, but somewhere by 1.75 or so. This is such a feature of affordable anamorphic lenses. Try to play with this value or conduct an experiment and you will see that depending on the distance of the object being shot, you need to enter different horizontal scaling values on the post.
Yes, anamorphic seems overrated. "Anamorphic Lens", sounds cool though. Anamorphic Anamorphic. With a wider lens and cropping the top and bottom it gives you some latitude, crop more from the top, or from the bottom. I like that flexibility better. You just saved us some expensive lesson. Good lesson. You come up with the coolest stuff. Thanks.
the first example of the anamorphic sense actually shows the answer to a question I always as when I see videos that visit movie locations. it shows why the depth of field difference
Thanks a lot for this great comparison. It's a very subtle difference for people who are not into filmmaking but for us cinematographers / filmmakers it sounds like pretty more cinematic. But it's a matter of taste as you well said !
Thanks for the video - I’m enjoying your channel. I know you use DaVinci Resolve. Using the anamorphic lens flares, depth maps and custom bokeh filters - I’m wondering whether we can make a credible anamorphic effect in post. The comparison discussed below (35mm spherical versus 50mm anamorphic) combined with Resolve would make a super video.
Bokeh quality really is the point. If you can get by with the weight and the manual operations, you're golden. I have an anamorphic adapter with double focus, hefty boy but have a 2x stretch and the image is very different. I also use this for photography.
Is anamorphic overrated yes or no? 🤔🫡 EDIT: And I know I said in one of my previous videos that I don't own any spherical 50mm lenses but I bought this one specifically to make this video... 😅😎
Hmm. In my opinion I don't think its overrated but I will say its getting more popular and more options are coming out. Its like when everyone was talking about that 44-2 vintage lens.
It is in my opinion. First they manipulated us into buying expensive camera gear we never needed, now the marketing for anamorphic lens is on the boom since the release of last Batman movie. We don't need anamorphic lenses, we need more great content and creators like you who bring out the truth.
@@abrworld That's simply not true - The batman movie made the Helios 44-2 popular again, however, anamorphics have been a staple in the film industry for years before any 'budget'/ consumer options came to the market. The matrix movies, pulp fiction, Halloween, Inception, blade runner, Alien the list goes on and on. The greatjoy anamorphic he's using is running the same price as any professional spherical lens out there, and that's the consumer market. Not even close to the actual price of real cinema glass, whether anamorphic or spherical. That being said, it is still just a tool to portray the narrative which will always be the most important aspect to any film.
I really enjoy using anamorphic Lenses, especially when theres narrative Content to be filmed, and you dont have the opportunity or chance to light everything the way you want.
I bought anamorphic for wider field of view, not for "cinematic" problems. Cinematic people tends to like the defects of those lenses, the oval lights, the bokeh, the flares. This is not what i wanted at all. I like sharp pictures that looks like video. But i had to film the demolition of a building quite large rather than tall, so i needed a larger view. I found the Suiri ×1,33 lens. It is still sharp enough. It is possible to avoid bokeh. By positioning the camera correctly it is possible to avoid most of the horizontal flares and oval lights. So indeed it is possible to get the best of both worlds. Just know the limitations of the lens and find a way to find a workaround.
I'll just add that some of the most cinematic looking movies were shot with spherical lenses, No Country for Old Men, The Matrix, Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, Blade Runner 2049, The Fellowship of the Ring....
Another interesting video Joris. I think it would have been more of a challenge for a lens comparison if you would have used a modded spherical lens with a oval iris. With some experience it was quite easy to tell the differences between these two lenses. I’ve seen a lot of amazing footage over the years that surprised me when there was a mod lens used instead of an anamorphic. Of course the flares gave it away but still this just proves that you don’t need an “anamorphic” lens to get some really beautiful images. Like you said it really comes down to good lighting, shot composition and interesting subject matter that sets apart the “cinematic” from the boring average. Keep the great content coming my friend. Subscribed! 👍
Hello. I would like to know some information from you. I have a Canon EOS R7, but I don't know if the Tamron 1 8-200mm lens is compatible with my camera, at the moment this lens is no longer on the market. A big discount.
Appreciated the effort made by you 👍 But can we have a video of comparing 35mm spherical with 50mm anamorphic. It would tell the difference in a much better way. Hope you take the feedback and make the video ✌️
Wow that anamorphic lens really was magical and cinematic, but cropped…yeah nothing special. Not (n the market, nor do I do video that often, but this was interesting!
I personally prefer the anamorphic footage you showed us to the spherical footage - but I couldn't with confidence say it is more "cinematic" ... which I am fully aware is a "politicians answer" and I should get my 🍑 off the fence 🙄🤦♂️🤣. Great video as always, Joris 🙏 - I kinda felt like I had passed an exam at the end as I had picked B each time 😃🙄🤣🤣🤣
You shave a park that used to be a cemetery. Mmkay. You sure that isn’t your personal dumping ground? You know, because you’re a cereal killer. You killed two bowls this morning. Honestly picture to me they’re pretty close. Obviously the framing is different and the lens flares. Seems to come down to personal preference. It’s become easier spotting anamorphic lens on film by the oval bokeh balls in the background of shots. Even with post processing.
Yeah, and there's a home for elderly right next to it and when they were removing the graves the old folks could see from their rooms how they were digging up the bones of all those people 😐
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
the background compression you get with anamorphic lenses is just such a unique characteristic, just like you said it's more than just the oval bokeh.
I could tell a difference right away, and I do prefer the anamorphic lens look. However, I'm an amateur filmmaker. Ease of use, autofocus, affordability, etc. are more important to me at this point. And because I've been a screenwriter for 10+ years, I know what ultimately matters is the story.
Story and characters is the heart indeed !
Anamorphic lenses do look special if you shoot correctly with this lens. If you don’t, it looks just like a spherical lens. Shoot at a T stop that captures the full depth of your talent only. Make sure the background behind your talent is at least 5 times the distance from camera to subject. Your subject will look 3D and seem to float in front of a swirly bokeh background. That’s the anamorphic look. In Hollywood some productions need fast schedules and prohibit anamorphic lenses because all of the pre planning needed for blocking, composition and deep sets needed to film. It’s totally worth the extra work in my opinion because of the beautiful images that come out. Cheers!
I don't like when people call a look "mOrE cInEmAtIc" than the other. Yes - anamorphic lenses were often used for films, which were supposed to be watched in the cinema.
But to make a shot look good or cInEmAtIc, there is so much more depth to that than just the lens choice, a big sensor/film and shooting against the sun.
Film productions put a lot of thought into every little shot - why should the camera move a certain way, or why it should remain still, why you should opt for an anamorphic look rather than a spherical one.
Because instead of choosing an anamorphic lens you could actually choose a wider spherical lens (one that matches the effective horizonal focal length of the anamorphic counter part) and then crop the top and bottom while getting the exact same field of view, from the same perspective. Its really only about the look. And the choice of look depends on what message you want to tell or simply on personal preference of the director.
Directors like Christopher Nolan love the anamorphic look and therefore often desire for anamorphic lenses in their films. On the other hand the Harry Potter movies are all entirely shot on sperical lenses but the movies are still in the (about) 2.39:1 aspect ratio, which is very common in films meant for the cinema.
Anamorphic lenses give you a very special look that might give that "something isnt quite right" kind of feeling. And that can be used very intentionally too. You could even change the kind of lenses during the film to emphasize certain details.
Both kinds of lenses can do the same things after all. Simply slapping an anamorphic lens onto your camera isnt going to turn your footage into cinema screen worthy on its own. There is much more depth to that.
Some images taken with an anamorphic lens appear slightly wider than they actually are when stretched in post. I found this feature on my lens, it only gives out an honest compression ratio when you shoot objects close, about a meter away. If the object is further away, or if it is a general plan or a landscape, then the image should be expanded not by 1.8, but somewhere by 1.75 or so. This is such a feature of affordable anamorphic lenses. Try to play with this value or conduct an experiment and you will see that depending on the distance of the object being shot, you need to enter different horizontal scaling values on the post.
💯
Yes, anamorphic seems overrated. "Anamorphic Lens", sounds cool though.
Anamorphic Anamorphic. With a wider lens and cropping the top and bottom it gives you some latitude, crop more from the top, or from the bottom. I like that flexibility better. You just saved us some expensive lesson. Good lesson. You come up with the coolest stuff. Thanks.
Advance congratulations on your 100k subscribers🖤🖤
Thank you!!
I fell I love with anamorphic, and can never go back. It just resonates with me. So beautiful.
the first example of the anamorphic sense actually shows the answer to a question I always as when I see videos that visit movie locations. it shows why the depth of field difference
Thanks a lot for this great comparison. It's a very subtle difference for people who are not into filmmaking but for us cinematographers / filmmakers it sounds like pretty more cinematic. But it's a matter of taste as you well said !
Thanks for the video - I’m enjoying your channel. I know you use DaVinci Resolve. Using the anamorphic lens flares, depth maps and custom bokeh filters - I’m wondering whether we can make a credible anamorphic effect in post. The comparison discussed below (35mm spherical versus 50mm anamorphic) combined with Resolve would make a super video.
This is a really cool video! You did a great job of letting us easily compare them side by side!
Bokeh quality really is the point. If you can get by with the weight and the manual operations, you're golden. I have an anamorphic adapter with double focus, hefty boy but have a 2x stretch and the image is very different. I also use this for photography.
Is anamorphic overrated yes or no? 🤔🫡
EDIT: And I know I said in one of my previous videos that I don't own any spherical 50mm lenses but I bought this one specifically to make this video... 😅😎
Hmm. In my opinion I don't think its overrated but I will say its getting more popular and more options are coming out. Its like when everyone was talking about that 44-2 vintage lens.
It is in my opinion. First they manipulated us into buying expensive camera gear we never needed, now the marketing for anamorphic lens is on the boom since the release of last Batman movie.
We don't need anamorphic lenses, we need more great content and creators like you who bring out the truth.
@@abrworld That's simply not true - The batman movie made the Helios 44-2 popular again, however, anamorphics have been a staple in the film industry for years before any 'budget'/ consumer options came to the market. The matrix movies, pulp fiction, Halloween, Inception, blade runner, Alien the list goes on and on. The greatjoy anamorphic he's using is running the same price as any professional spherical lens out there, and that's the consumer market. Not even close to the actual price of real cinema glass, whether anamorphic or spherical. That being said, it is still just a tool to portray the narrative which will always be the most important aspect to any film.
Adding black bars or cropping the video is like deleting pixels, so you are losing information.
Great job! You’re the master!
I really enjoy using anamorphic Lenses, especially when theres narrative Content to be filmed, and you dont have the opportunity or chance to light everything the way you want.
Thanks you
I bought anamorphic for wider field of view, not for "cinematic" problems. Cinematic people tends to like the defects of those lenses, the oval lights, the bokeh, the flares. This is not what i wanted at all. I like sharp pictures that looks like video. But i had to film the demolition of a building quite large rather than tall, so i needed a larger view. I found the Suiri ×1,33 lens. It is still sharp enough. It is possible to avoid bokeh. By positioning the camera correctly it is possible to avoid most of the horizontal flares and oval lights. So indeed it is possible to get the best of both worlds. Just know the limitations of the lens and find a way to find a workaround.
ok but why didnt you just buy a wider sperical lense? :)
@@_7heritage Too much ground and sky in the picture.
and why cant you just but black bars on top and below? or crop the image?
@@_7heritage It would result in less definition.
Loved this video, been looking for something that showed the different types of lenses with the same field of view as a comparison, subbed! 👍
Lens A is the anamorphic
I'll just add that some of the most cinematic looking movies were shot with spherical lenses, No Country for Old Men, The Matrix, Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, Blade Runner 2049, The Fellowship of the Ring....
informative 9mins on anamorphic lens and fthe familar debate as to is it more cinematic or. not.
I love the look anamorphic lenses create!
In my opinion the anamorphic looks even more natural. When I look at the lightning on the left its not streched like in the spherical one
Another interesting video Joris. I think it would have been more of a challenge for a lens comparison if you would have used a modded spherical lens with a oval iris. With some experience it was quite easy to tell the differences between these two lenses. I’ve seen a lot of amazing footage over the years that surprised me when there was a mod lens used instead of an anamorphic. Of course the flares gave it away but still this just proves that you don’t need an “anamorphic” lens to get some really beautiful images. Like you said it really comes down to good lighting, shot composition and interesting subject matter that sets apart the “cinematic” from the boring average. Keep the great content coming my friend. Subscribed! 👍
Hello. I would like to know some information from you. I have a Canon EOS R7, but I don't know if the Tamron 1 8-200mm lens is compatible with my camera, at the moment this lens is no longer on the market. A big discount.
Another excellent video, many thanks, Joris, and wishing you your Best Year Yet. :)
i thought this is more important and beneficial for open gate filming.
Appreciated the effort made by you 👍
But can we have a video of comparing 35mm spherical with 50mm anamorphic. It would tell the difference in a much better way.
Hope you take the feedback and make the video ✌️
Sure! 👌🏻
@@JorisHermans 🙌
I wouldn’t mind seeing this as video too. 35mm cropped to match the aspect ratio of an anamorphic lens.
Consider it done! ✅
I was wrong with my guess 😂 I could tell there was an ever so slight colour difference on my phone screen but that was about it.
Wow that anamorphic lens really was magical and cinematic, but cropped…yeah nothing special. Not (n the market, nor do I do video that often, but this was interesting!
I couldn't tell the difference until you got to the low light, evening shots...
Below is a video which was my attempt to make spherical lens look like anamorphic 😅
ruclips.net/video/QDopNg-68hM/видео.html
I need to get something other than nikon before I buy any sorta nice lenses
I personally prefer the anamorphic footage you showed us to the spherical footage - but I couldn't with confidence say it is more "cinematic" ... which I am fully aware is a "politicians answer" and I should get my 🍑 off the fence 🙄🤦♂️🤣.
Great video as always, Joris 🙏 - I kinda felt like I had passed an exam at the end as I had picked B each time 😃🙄🤣🤣🤣
Anamorphic is closer to what we see in our our vision which is why people (me) love it so much. I think at least. Looks more like real life
Hii sir
You shave a park that used to be a cemetery. Mmkay. You sure that isn’t your personal dumping ground? You know, because you’re a cereal killer. You killed two bowls this morning.
Honestly picture to me they’re pretty close. Obviously the framing is different and the lens flares. Seems to come down to personal preference. It’s become easier spotting anamorphic lens on film by the oval bokeh balls in the background of shots. Even with post processing.
Yeah, and there's a home for elderly right next to it and when they were removing the graves the old folks could see from their rooms how they were digging up the bones of all those people 😐
@@JorisHermans That’s wild. I’ve heard such things happening. Even in the afterlife they get no rest.