>>4145230
I don't know, but why would you want to take photos with an animorphic lens?

>>4145240
For the kino look.

>>4145240
to get that cinematic look

>>4145230
true anamorphic obviously. crop adaptors are cope

>>4145230
From the one video I saw on the topic, anamorphic adapters work okay, but it isn't as good as having an actual lens. The horizontal lens flares don't look "correct"

File: Untitled.001-5-1300x750.jpg (77 KB, 1300x750)

77 KB JPG

>>4145230
>adapters btfo dedicated lens for price and versatility
alot of modern movies are film on picrel

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1080

>>4145230
>lense

>>4145274
>devoid of any technical knowledge so resorts to grammar nazi
lol I love triggering faggots like you

File: DSC04014-Modifier.jpg (534 KB, 4920x2216)

534 KB JPG

>>4145230
I posted about anamorphic lenses photography last week.
>>4142557
The experience is great but focussing is really complicated. I tried using an external monitor with desqueeze and zoom to really fine-tune the focussing, but it gets really bulky and way less fun to shoot.
The post setup is as follows : ajust shit in Lightroom or camera raw, then when you're happy with the look, go into photoshop, desqueeze and hope it looks good.
Then it's done as the desqueeze part deletes the raw.
Also keep in mind that Sirui lenses have different squeeze factors at different focus points. In my experience, close ups are more 1.25/1.27 than 1.33, but you can get away with 1.33 if it's just landscape, which is really hard to shoot for some reasons, but maybe I'm just bad at it.
That said I really like the lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.2 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2023:02:17 17:27:29
Exposure Time	1/6400 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	6.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4145294
damn, how did i not see this thread... somehow it's hidden, i'll go check it out thanks

>>4145298
It's not like there's thousands of replies.
I'm more into video than photo, but I wanted to try it anyway.
I pretty sure that with some mastering and film emulation, you can transform your camera into a xpan

>>4145294
>focussing is really complicated
well yeah, anamorphic lenses really need a dedicated and experienced focus puller

>>4145294
Dumb ass you're meant to have a separate focus puller lol

>>4145230
>>4145240
What's a cheap animorphic lens I can slap on a Nikon F mount? I don't care about high end quality. I just want something that works to play around with.

>>4146035
>cheap animorphic
lol, lmao even

>>4145246
faggot

>>4145776
A pullman in mocking Sonora slang, kek
Crossing the border never fails to bring a new chhckleworthy word to my awareness.

>>4145230
ok so it turns out the adapter is like 800$ lol... i thought it would be like $30 ffs..fml... no anamorphic kino for me

>>4151048
Anamorphic lenses were traditionally just normal lenses then adapter lens throw on top of it. There could be some exceptions to it, but I'm fairly sure that that's how it's still done today. With obvious benefits of modern coatings and design.

>>4151048
My anamorphic were $350 (50mm f1.8 1.33x) and $500 (24mm f2.8 1.33x), bout the cheapest I've seen outside of random used / old stuff.

File: 2022-11-26 03-33-51.png (640 KB, 1126x607)

640 KB PNG

Is this the anamorphic look?

>>4145230
Only 2x squeeze looks good

File: Screenshot_20230311-13501(...).jpg (559 KB, 1440x811)

559 KB JPG

Been taking x2 anamorphic photos for a while now. Good results with an mft camera

>>4145273
>alot of modern movies are film on picrel
no they aren't. the ones that are look like shite.

File: LoC_CGC-7085_IWantYou_199(...).jpg (591 KB, 770x844)

591 KB JPG

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D850
Camera Software	GraphicConverter 9 (9.7.6)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	228
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	105 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2018:06:20 18:19:48
Exposure Time	1/13 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: LoC_CGC-7085_IWantYou_199(...).jpg (556 KB, 1238x525)

556 KB JPG

>>4156595

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D850
Camera Software	GraphicConverter 10 (10.6.4)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	230
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	105 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2018:06:20 18:19:48
Exposure Time	1/13 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

can't you get the same result with an open gate? what am i missing here?

File: TEST-A-Comparing-Spherica(...).jpg (4.07 MB, 6000x4180)

4.07 MB JPG

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4096
Image Height	1716
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Unknown
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:07:24 14:08:49
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4180

>>4156615
You're mixing terms. Open gate is used to shoot anamorphic. Without anamorphic lens, you just get 4:3 or 3:2 output.

>>4156671
a-50 is what you're looking for. Look how more pleasing, and less distracting, background is on it.

File: Practical-Optics3-TEST-C-(...).jpg (4.3 MB, 6000x4180)

4.3 MB JPG

>>4156671

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4096
Image Height	1716
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Unknown
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:07:24 14:24:44
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4180

File: TheNoseKnows.png (1.62 MB, 1188x983)

1.62 MB PNG

>>4156595
>>4156596
lol, was anamorphic lense first invented to try and disguise the obvious over representation of a certain type of people in film? but the audience couldn't handle the rest of the scene distortion so they invented ultra-wide as a cope...interesting

>>4156675
>film crew in the background
these all have shitty backgrounds so bit of a retarded statement.
This is a shitty test too, should be testing the same frame, i want to do a headshot does A-50 close to subject look better than A-135 further away?

I consider buying either a Cine Lens (7Artist Vision) or an anamorphic lens by Suri for my APS-C camera. Any recommendations? Currently own the Simga 16mm F1.4

>>4151252
Which one do you prefer? 50mm or 24mm? And why didn't you take the 35 mm?

>>4157151
I probably use them about the same, but the 50 definitely gives more of the "look". Would have got the 35, but not available for my mount. Seeing how much I use them this year, and if a lot, I'd love to pick up the Laowa Nanomorphs. So much smaller, and a greater squeeze too.

>>4145230
>anamorphic lenses
How does these even work, won't there always be a cope with quality? Why not just go wider? Because theses in short squashes wide into normal, right?

>>4157632
They're used to get more quality by using more vertical resolution.

>>4157635
Won't that "ruin" the vertical resolution/quality? Is it just a cope with not having wide enough sensors/film in reality?

>>4157640
No, it ruins the horizontal one if anything but it's still better than using the same area spherically

>>4157632
To go wider normally, you'd end up just cropping off the top and bottom entirely. Anamorphics give you the extra width, while still making use of the full sensor. You may lose a little during the de-squeeze, but you had more image data to start with.
I've even heard the odd use case of using a rotating PL adapter and have the squeeze go vertical, so you end up with a more square image.
They also just give a very different look aesthetically compared to cropping, see >>4156671 >>4156679. Sometimes they're even used for creative effect like anamorphic in dream sequences, and spherical in regular scenes.

>>4157635
It was said that resolution was better. That was valid only for film, and even there it was iffy claim at best. Todays spherical lenses will be sharper even when cropped. Main advantage now is bokeh. As long as you go for natural f2.8 look on wide lenses, not something that blows it completely out. Then it doesn't matter.
>>4156671
>>4156679
Are really great examples.