Squeezed looks more normal.
I thought Anamophic lenses were brought in to get Cinemascope, ie wide screen movies, on to standard 35mm film so using the same 4:3 format for a 2:1 movie.
Wasn’t that dreadful film Rosemarie one of the first to use it?
I must admit I can’t see why you’d need one for digital cameras.
watch with full screen Click on vid and bottom right up/down arrows
Getting there slowly 
trial and error method, now a question of subject matter
Interesting point of view from another site here i put this video. The person as on about it not looking correct about height if clip and it should be a full video. then I realised their mistake. They were watching it on a piddly little 14" screen so the effect is totally lost. to get the full benefit one shold use at least a 27" screen or larger.
I fail to see how anyone can comment on anything that is not shown as presented instead of a tiny screen
On a 24" screen, your bins look squashed in the video (short and fat).
that id due to the angle of the camera. take a photo high up will look tall and thin, low down short and fat.
proper size adjustment of 1.33x
which makes them look thin . so a compromise has to be reached
I am still curious as to know WHY? What’s wrong with 16:9? For a start it makes the best use of your TV screen with no letterboxing.
Don’t get it at all.
1 Like
test vid for full screen
I transfer all my photos on to this laptop and together with cropping and resizing I change them all to 16:9 and they fill the screen and look brilliant. I can even bluetooth them onto the TV and they fill the screen also.
I even made a list so I can choose the resolution.
TV size Pictures 16:9
Times x Wide x Height
80 1280 x 720
90 1440 x 810
100 1600 x 900
110 1760 x 990
120 1920 x 1080
130 2080 x 1170
140 2240 x 1260
150 2400 x 1350
160 2560 x 1440
170 2720 x 1530
210 3360 x 1890
I like 3:2 OGF but I have a similar list to yours (though far less comprehensive) on a post it note stuck to my laptop keyboard (mainly to create stills for videos).
1 Like
I don’t need to use a TV screen to look at photos, that is so weird. nor do I use a laptop with a small screen. Again so weird. Maybe in Australia they don’t have desktop computers and 27" monitors.
You’re obviously confused by the distortion caused by your anamorphic lens @realspeed, it was OGF that talked about looking at photos on his TV. Perhaps he uses them as a screen saver? I don’t know, you could ask him.
However as I type this on my desktop computer I am interested in your plans for this anamorphic lens and why you bought it for a digital camera? Surely you didn’t buy it just to make more videos of the most photographed garden in Bexhill?
If you are good I might come up with some more roo photos for you.
1 Like
Don’t worry @realspeed you have our deepest sympathy being stuck with a meagre 27" monitor when our laptops can use the full UHD glory of our 55" TV.
BTW I am surprised that you as a photographer didn’t understand perspective - the 16" screen on my laptop looks exactly the same size from about half a metre as your 27" screen looks from its recommended viewing distance of 70cm, likewise my TV from 1.5 metres or my phone viewed from 20cm.
Even better they have variable frame rates so don’t suffer from the stutter of your monitor.
Now that is weird.
Still interested in why you bought the anamorphic lens and what you intend using it for.
@realspeed has got a Lumix G Camera which is Micro Four Thirds. The sensor has an aspect ratio of 4:3, and so should all his pictures to get the highest possible resolution. No doubt he is going to crop to help the composition, but it’s best to start with a good hi-res pic.
I’ve got so used to 4:3, I have my phone set the same.
My cameras default to 4:3 too and my phone is the same but when I crop I usually go for 3:2 I like the proportions (Picasa calls it Large Print, 10 by 15) naturally I do use16:9 for special purposes but 3:2 is the one I like. It is just my preference, of course on the rare occasion I get prints I use their proportion to crop - usually 5 by 7
16:9 is supposed to be a very pleasing proportion and I as I understand it this new lens is for video only but I keep hoping RS will shed some light on what he wants to use it for, I understand its point in film cinematography but I am at a loss at the moment. He is usually pretty forthcoming about his equipment but not this piece for some reason.
Stupid me I left out the most important part.
I can understand using the whole of the 4:3 sensor if it produced a 16:9 image but it doesn’t appear to, the resultant film is letterboxed. That’s the bit I don’t get.
I only crop to to get closer to the subject, or to position the subject in the frame differently.
I think RS is at a loss. Give him time.
To be fair neither cropping nor a telephoto lens changes perspective, in the days of film when I was very interested in photography I only had a wide angle lens on the camera because it forced me to get in close. However wide angle in those days was nothing like the lens you can get today from memory it was 35mm.
These days I am just a happy snapper with a compact camera and poor eyesight.
In answer to Bruce. the reason why I bought it is simply to find out more about Anamorpic lenses and how to get the best out of them. Like everything else it is wrong to make comments if not having already tried onsself.
As I am still it the trial and test stage I won’t comment if keep or sell to see If I like or not. Circumstances now dictate what i can take photos of I will say no more
It is an interesting subject, if your lens can create a 16:9 on your 4:3 sensor. There must be a formula to calculate it.
Dividing both sides the 4:3 is a ratio of 1.33333:1
16:9 is a ratio of 1.7777:1
They are both recurring values.
So it is the relationship between 1.3333 and 1.7777 that the anamorphic lens has to deal with to reproduce a 19:6 video on a 4:3 sensor.
Dividing 1.7777 by 1.3333 you end up with 1.3333 which you mention in your initial post and I would guess that the 2x figure you mentioned is the Cinemascope ratio. I suspect that you just need to know the factor of the lens that you have.
However it if continues to create letterbox videos I can’t see the point of it. Looking forward to your next report. What does your lens say?
PS I hope my maths is correct.
PPS I don’t have an anamorphic lens