I am sorry. What is this?
I watched it at 1080p, full screen. It looks like a standard video with slices chopped off the top and bottom.
I thought anamorphic lens were for recording images which would then be displayed using a an anamorphic projection lens.
yes that i use projection lens.What you don't like i don't understand
Why do you use the lens? You could simply film using standard 1020p (using your standard lens), then use your video editing software to chop off the top and bottom of the picture.
What resolution did you render it at ?
Midnight Blue Productions M.M.Inst.V.
Using an anamorphic lens and shooting full 1920 x 1080 pixels, then stretching the pixels again to compensate for the anamorphic lens would retain 1080 pixels height, whereas masking out top and bottom would lose that.
However, all of this is moot when showing on YoutTube as that shrinking it to fit into a 1920 x 1080 window - ie effectively chopping off the top and bottom anyway.
So Midnight's question is pertinent - but we cannot see the results on YouTube if it was rendered at 1920 x 1080 bit this a wide PAR (pixel aspect ratio)
Almost, but using an anamorhphic lens also gives a wider field of view. So to get the same, or similar as there would be a perspective difference, shot without the anamorphic lens would mean standing much further back and losing detail due to pixel density.However, all of this is moot when showing on YoutTube as that shrinking it to fit into a 1920 x 1080 window - ie effectively chopping off the top and bottom anyway.
It would also mean needing to put in fake anamorphic lens flairs, or not.
I'd have gone for a quality tripod before the anamorphic lens, maybe next on the shopping list?
I forgot to add this bit. For analog recording/projection the projection lens is necessary to reverse the recording lens. Digitally it is just digitally stretching out your non square pixel footage (which has been emulated in an analog way onto a digital sensor) such as DV or HDV to square pixels for further working or viewing, either in software or hardware players.I thought anamorphic lens were for recording images which would then be displayed using a an anamorphic projection lens.
Edit: I hope that makes sense to someone, on reading it back I hope someone can explain better.
Last edited by david walsh; 04-29-2013 at 06:15 PM.
I am now rather wiser. At least half the page now makes sense to me.
I shall be now be on the lookout for anamorphic lens flare when watching films. And perhaps spot the other distortions which can occur.
This isn't for anyone who has posted so far, but I know it's an un-understood topic. For anyone who doesn't know what an anamorphic lens is and to help clarify my messed up confusing post before:
An anamorphic lens is kind of like a wide angle lens, but it only works horizontally, i.e. Tim's comment "the anamorphic lens would retain 1080 pixels height". It's the pixels horizontal dimensions that get stretched.
So if you have a 1920x1080 pixel sensor and you stick a fish eye lens on it you you get a massively wider field of view in all directions, none of the pixels need stretched, they are equal in all directions. But if you stick an anamorphic lens on there it remains normal vertically but goes really wide horizontally.
When captured to your NLE you get the same 1920x1080 image your sensor captured but it is all squashed in and needs stretched out. It's just like DV or HDV playing back with the wrong PAR settings, like the NLE thinks they are supposed to be square.
So telling the NLE that the PAR is different from what it really is, digitally, or stretching the picture on the Y you get the cinematic aspect ratio allowed by the lens.
Hopefully I'm not making it worse.
Last edited by david walsh; 04-29-2013 at 07:31 PM.