Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Test Anamorphic lens schneider

  1. Default Test Anamorphic lens schneider


  2. #2

    Default

    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.

  3. Default

    yes that i use projection lens.What you don't like i don't understand

  4. #4

    Default

    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.

  5. #5

    Default

    What resolution did you render it at ?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TimAndrews View Post
    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.
    I think the point is if you did it this way, you'd lose resolution.
    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)
    Tim

  7. #7

    Default

    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.
    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.

    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?

    David.

  8. #8

    Default

    I thought anamorphic lens were for recording images which would then be displayed using a an anamorphic projection lens.
    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.

    David.

    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 07:15 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david walsh View Post
    I hope that makes sense to someone, on reading it back I hope someone can explain better.
    Very helpful. Thanks to you (and all). Originally, I had read the Wiki page on this subject; but had not understood the logic.
    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.

  10. #10

    Default

    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.

    David.
    Last edited by david walsh; 04-29-2013 at 08:31 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. test lens Pentacon 1.8/50 Panasonic gh2 hack flowmotion 2.2
    By the Windcharger in forum User Videos
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-31-2012, 07:50 PM
  2. Test Panasonic GH2/Lens Helios 50mm F2
    By rollingpictures in forum User Videos
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-05-2012, 09:39 PM
  3. Anamorphic test
    By the Windcharger in forum User Videos
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-21-2012, 10:32 PM
  4. For sale - Panasonic AG-DVX100B (PAL) + 16:9 anamorphic lens
    By Fisheye Photo in forum Ebay and other classified ads: gear, cameras and video editing stuff
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-16-2010, 04:56 AM
  5. For Sale - Panasonic AG-DVX100E PAL + 16:9 anamorphic lens
    By Fisheye Photo in forum Ebay and other classified ads: gear, cameras and video editing stuff
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-16-2010, 04:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •