Would it not be easier to first stretch the photo and then edit? Because when stretched to correct size one would have a better view of the details of the photo.
Like many of my comments; it comes down to the use of the photo. For most people cropping or stitching will be sufficient. Of course, it is different if you concentrate on videos.
It would be great if the camera manufacturer offered an anamorphic lenses lineup themselves with autofocus. The disadvantage is that the cinematic aspect ratio is not Standard at printing services. If it is available you pay more for non standard aspect ratios. The same issue is finding a frame.
Perhaps rent the new hasselblad x2d 100c when needed, could be good for panoramas, 11656×8742 16bit 15stops dynamic range, that is pretty big image with lot of info in it, if you just crop that to your liking.
Is the horizontal flare correctible? Could a lens maker produce an anamorphic lens without the flare? I know Sirui coats some of their lenses to offer different flare colors, blue, amber and silver. But could it be eliminated? Informative video, as always. Thanks!
Thanks. The horizontal flare is one main reason to use anamorphic for video/movie. That's what I understand anyway. I guess it would be possible to get rid of it too.
Hello, I would like to ask you something. I have a lumix g9, can I use anamorphic lenses to record video and then do the dequeeze in my editing program without a problem? I appreciate your response, thank you very much.
I find it all too much hassle. I have been taking anamorphic panoramic street photos since 2016 when I cropped my Leica X frame and my jaw dropped (that Photo is my UA-cam banner). Now I just use an ordinary medium wide prime and crop it; what I see is what I get. It started with an experiment. I asked myself what is our natural field of view; I never believed it was a 50mm. So I stood way back and took a photo on my phone. Then I sat down and noted the edge of my field of view. The result shocked me. When I measured it on a computer it was exactly anamorphic. I crop to 4K monitor size 3840x1600 (6000x2500 for art show photos) but also sometimes an XPan crop. If I want wider I take a few shots and stitch using the amazing Hugin program. I soon had my first show "The Panoramic Street". It is now my main format usually using my Sony A7II with Zeiss 35mm f2.8 sometimes a Samyang 24mm f1.8. Have fun.
When you say What is our natural field of view? do you include peripheral vision? Our peripheral vision isn’t in focus. I reckon the idea is that 50mm is our natural field of view in relatively sharp focus.
@@johntravena119 all of our field of vision is in focus; we don't see an optical image in focus of a certain size size even though our lens has a field of 45mm square. Our sight is a scanning system like an electron microscope, it has infinite depth of field all in focus. The visual field is set by your brain not the lens. Don't take my word just because I am a physicist, do the experiment yourself but, be honest, don't pander to what you have been told. Photography is full of nonsense like this like dynamic range. The eye for any situation has 10stops, we don't see into shadows and highlights without accommodation.
@@johntravena119 no, think of your eye producing a sharply focused point and then building up the image by sticking many points together. Your centre of interest is what gets most attention and your brain pretty much fills in the stuff not scanned well. We evolved as hunter gatherers so we are interested in a wild field (are there lions sneaking up on us) and less above so we produce a wide flat field. We think we see a solid image but we dont; the brain makes up what it cant actually see. Of course if something is way out of focus for the eye lens then your eye will not resolve it and your brain can do nothing to make sense of it.
It's not his studio, he is sharing it, so it's not that simple and I would not want to go there every time I want to film. Besides, this will be over soon anyway😀
I don't get it. 1. Why don't I just use 14 mm lense on full frame and crop up and down? 2. When you scretch squezed anamorphic horisontally by a factor of, say, 2, photoshop developes a-r-t-i-f-i-c-i-a-l-l-y 50% more pixels! Not good! I could as well just streatch myy 14 mm file twice as big at both directions, crop it, and get as many horisontal pictures.
No, generally the resolution loss is less severe than cropping, for the same output framing. First, the cropped version (from standard, spherical optics) means having to use a correspondingly wider angle lens. So the resolution loss is not just from the horizontal squeeze of the anamorphic but vertically as well. Second, the anamorphic squeeze loses resolution only for the highest frequency scene details, roughly at about whatever the squeeze factor is. Scene details already below this are reproduced faithfully at the unsqueeze. Play with this on graph paper and you'll see why. Anyhow, this is all academic. Current cameras all have so much practical resolution that it just doesn't matter. This is especially the case if you're targeting social media for the output.
I haven't seen particularly wide anamorphic lenses. I suspect that the TS-E 17 would match that 35mm anamorphic lens in every respect and then some, after some cropping.
You can squeeze vertically if you wish to achieve the same effect. I've been using tons of anamorphic lenses both in moving pictures and stills and I don't see any bad things happening. Using a wide angle lens isn't the same because an anamorphic lens of focal length X and squeeze factor S behaves vertically as X but horizontally as X*S, creating interesting visuals an X spherical lens can't.
To get a panorama, you don’t need any special lens at all, it’s enough to even take a few frames with your hands and then stitch them into a panorama. The main condition here is that the lens has minimal distortion and, of course, you need to be able to edit spatial distortions in Photoshop.
Interesting video! Thanks for the info, I may try this process in the future.
Thanks. Give it a try.
Would it not be easier to first stretch the photo and then edit? Because when stretched to correct size one would have a better view of the details of the photo.
That's a great idea. I don't remember what exactly I said in the video because that's a while ago😀
Like many of my comments; it comes down to the use of the photo. For most people cropping or stitching will be sufficient. Of course, it is different if you concentrate on videos.
Thanks for sharing.
It would be great if the camera manufacturer offered an anamorphic lenses lineup themselves with autofocus. The disadvantage is that the cinematic aspect ratio is not Standard at printing services. If it is available you pay more for non standard aspect ratios. The same issue is finding a frame.
Perhaps rent the new hasselblad x2d 100c when needed, could be good for panoramas, 11656×8742 16bit 15stops dynamic range, that is pretty big image with lot of info in it, if you just crop that to your liking.
Thanks. That is one option.
The Fujifilm GFX series has built in panorama mode and share sensor with the Hassy if I´m not mistaken.
Is the horizontal flare correctible? Could a lens maker produce an anamorphic lens without the flare? I know Sirui coats some of their lenses to offer different flare colors, blue, amber and silver. But could it be eliminated?
Informative video, as always. Thanks!
Thanks. The horizontal flare is one main reason to use anamorphic for video/movie. That's what I understand anyway. I guess it would be possible to get rid of it too.
Hello, I would like to ask you something. I have a lumix g9, can I use anamorphic lenses to record video and then do the dequeeze in my editing program without a problem? I appreciate your response, thank you very much.
Yes you can. This video might be useful for you: ua-cam.com/video/MQBVGPLV6zY/v-deo.htmlsi=pVTRTSZFm6ZfEird
Is there any way of digitally reaching the FOV like the Widelux panoramic camera has (about 140˚)?
Many cameras and every phone camera has the panoramic mode.
What if you fix the distortion in lightroom first before you desquezz it?
The problem is, like I tried to explain in the video, that there are two opposite distortions in the same photo. You can fix them in Lightroom.
@@mattisulanto Thank you for the reply!
Could the distortion be fixed by a lens profile?
I find it all too much hassle. I have been taking anamorphic panoramic street photos since 2016 when I cropped my Leica X frame and my jaw dropped (that Photo is my UA-cam banner). Now I just use an ordinary medium wide prime and crop it; what I see is what I get. It started with an experiment. I asked myself what is our natural field of view; I never believed it was a 50mm. So I stood way back and took a photo on my phone. Then I sat down and noted the edge of my field of view. The result shocked me. When I measured it on a computer it was exactly anamorphic. I crop to 4K monitor size 3840x1600 (6000x2500 for art show photos) but also sometimes an XPan crop. If I want wider I take a few shots and stitch using the amazing Hugin program. I soon had my first show "The Panoramic Street". It is now my main format usually using my Sony A7II with Zeiss 35mm f2.8 sometimes a Samyang 24mm f1.8. Have fun.
Thanks for sharing.
When you say What is our natural field of view? do you include peripheral vision? Our peripheral vision isn’t in focus. I reckon the idea is that 50mm is our natural field of view in relatively sharp focus.
@@johntravena119 all of our field of vision is in focus; we don't see an optical image in focus of a certain size size even though our lens has a field of 45mm square. Our sight is a scanning system like an electron microscope, it has infinite depth of field all in focus. The visual field is set by your brain not the lens. Don't take my word just because I am a physicist, do the experiment yourself but, be honest, don't pander to what you have been told. Photography is full of nonsense like this like dynamic range. The eye for any situation has 10stops, we don't see into shadows and highlights without accommodation.
@@vicibox Don’t we scan though because the center of our vision is in much sharper focus?
@@johntravena119 no, think of your eye producing a sharply focused point and then building up the image by sticking many points together. Your centre of interest is what gets most attention and your brain pretty much fills in the stuff not scanned well. We evolved as hunter gatherers so we are interested in a wild field (are there lions sneaking up on us) and less above so we produce a wide flat field. We think we see a solid image but we dont; the brain makes up what it cant actually see. Of course if something is way out of focus for the eye lens then your eye will not resolve it and your brain can do nothing to make sense of it.
You would think Peter would let you use his studio while you’re moving. Lol.
It's not his studio, he is sharing it, so it's not that simple and I would not want to go there every time I want to film. Besides, this will be over soon anyway😀
Hmmm.... Lots cheaper than an XPan.
Yes, much cheaper. You can buy many anamorphic lenses for the price of one XPan + lens😀
I don't get it.
1. Why don't I just use 14 mm lense on full frame and crop up and down?
2. When you scretch squezed anamorphic horisontally by a factor of, say, 2, photoshop developes a-r-t-i-f-i-c-i-a-l-l-y 50% more pixels! Not good! I could as well just streatch myy 14 mm file twice as big at both directions, crop it, and get as many horisontal pictures.
I was trying to present anamorphic as one more OPTION. You can crop to your heart's content, of course😀
No, generally the resolution loss is less severe than cropping, for the same output framing.
First, the cropped version (from standard, spherical optics) means having to use a correspondingly wider angle lens. So the resolution loss is not just from the horizontal squeeze of the anamorphic but vertically as well.
Second, the anamorphic squeeze loses resolution only for the highest frequency scene details, roughly at about whatever the squeeze factor is. Scene details already below this are reproduced faithfully at the unsqueeze. Play with this on graph paper and you'll see why.
Anyhow, this is all academic. Current cameras all have so much practical resolution that it just doesn't matter. This is especially the case if you're targeting social media for the output.
I haven't seen particularly wide anamorphic lenses. I suspect that the TS-E 17 would match that 35mm anamorphic lens in every respect and then some, after some cropping.
Correct me if im wrong but you will get jpeg only, not raw/dng when transferring from LR to PS. Not a big deal but still..
You can squeeze vertically if you wish to achieve the same effect. I've been using tons of anamorphic lenses both in moving pictures and stills and I don't see any bad things happening. Using a wide angle lens isn't the same because an anamorphic lens of focal length X and squeeze factor S behaves vertically as X but horizontally as X*S, creating interesting visuals an X spherical lens can't.
Anyone mention you look like an older version of Team Liquid Elige?
I have no idea what you are talking about, but I hope it’s nothing bad.
To get a panorama, you don’t need any special lens at all, it’s enough to even take a few frames with your hands and then stitch them into a panorama. The main condition here is that the lens has minimal distortion and, of course, you need to be able to edit spatial distortions in Photoshop.
Did you watch the video?