Patent: Cinema EOS 37.5-100mm t/3.3 Anamorphic Lens

[Canon Rumors]

Canon has filed an optical formula patent for a Cinema EOS 37.5-100mm f/3.3 Anamorphic lens.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2016-57445</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2016.4.21</li>
<li>Filing date 2014.9.9</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.67</li>
<li>Focal length 37.5 56.2 100.0</li>
<li>F-number 3.3 3.3 3.3</li>
<li>Half angle of view (degrees) 11.49 7.72 4.36</li>
<li>The image height 7.62 7.62 7.62</li>
<li>The total lens length 259.95 259.95 259.95</li>
<li>BF 38.25 38.25 38.25</li>
<li>Anamorphic optical system</li>
</ul>
<p>What is an anamorphic lens?</p>
<blockquote><p>Anamorphic lenses are specialty tools which affect how images get projected onto the camera sensor. They were primarily created so that a wider range of aspect ratios could fit within a standard film frame, but since then, cinematographers have become accustomed to their unique look. This article discusses the key considerations with anamorphic lenses in the digital era.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/anamorphic-lenses">You can read more about anamorphic lenses over at RED</a></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Canon continues to pursue Cinema. I expect that they are seriously considering production of one. Anamorphic Zoom lenses are expensive and usually rented. They have become very popular, so everyone is throwing their hat in the ring.

 

[Policar]

Canon continues to pursue Cinema. I expect that they are seriously considering production of one. Anamorphic Zoom lenses are expensive and usually rented. They have become very popular, so everyone is throwing their hat in the ring.

I must admit that after reading the page at RED (link above) I am somewhat confused about why they should be so popular? Or is it just a "anamorphic is in vogue" thing?

Literally just that. The look (which I love, but in which I can't see any technical advantage) is growing in popularity largely because it's expensive to get and there's a self-fulfilling prophecy of it being associate with expensive productions. There are lots of aberrations and artifacts with anamorphic, which give some "texture" to the image that does look distinctive. Film fetishists and lens flare fanatics (JJ Abrams) glom onto the things to make up for a lack of character elsewhere in the film.

The Rogue One trailer is Alexa65 and old school anamorphic. That looks really good. Strange "3D" oblong bokeh, soft character despite good resolution, barrel distortion that enhances a 3D look as Cooke S4s do over Leicas, bright streak flares that indicate the hotness of a blown out area in a technically flawed but artistically pleasing way, while adding depth. Anamorphic lenses started to compete with Cinerama but now they deliver a technically WORSE image because digital is so much better than film that sensor size matters less. It's a familiar story: when I shot large format I remember everyone shooting 8x10 either wanted a technically perfect lens or one with "character" that was technically garbage, because the format had so much inherent image quality that it captured whatever you gave it, be it transparency or "character." Whereas a bad lens on 135 was just a bad lens on a consumer format. So with the Petzval and Otus we see the same thing in FF digital.

In video the Alexa 65 and Alexa M are so good the same thing is happening again. Basically, hacks are putting expensive "character lenses" on their expensive camera to make up for other problems. But hey, it's expensive, and only big productions can afford it, and so it looks expensive. Whether Canon can emulate it well enough to make a poor man's version will be interesting. Technical quality has never been their strength, but they don't exactly have a history of making good anamorphic lenses. The lower end ENG stuff for the C300 Mk II makes a lot more sense to me.

So it's a weird idea for sure.

 

[Antono Refa]

Wouldn't using an anamorphic lens on a digital sensor cause the image to be over-sampled horizontally during projection? Wouldn't that lead to a soft image?

 

[Bernard]

One of the big differences between cinema and today's megapixel-obsessed still photography world is that most cinematographers try hard to get good-looking soft images.

Fact is, 2K, 4K, 8K, even 35mm film, are way too harsh for closeups of human faces, especially when you project them across a 60-foot-wide screen. Even shots that aren't close-ups will get irritating if they're too sharp. As much as some still photographers would like to think otherwise, staring at medically-sharp images on a big screen for two hours is very tiring.

This means that you need a way to smooth-out the image and yet keep them visually interesting. Using a blur filter (either a piece of frosted glass or a Photoshop filter) doesn't work very well. That creates mush.

Anamorphics can help. They are "sharp but soft" because they have twice the sampling rate vertically, and they also have unique aberrations.

Many cinematographers have rediscovered vintage lenses. 1950s Baltars, 1960s Cookes, 1970s Arri (Zeiss) sets are now worth many times what they were 10 years ago because they have a built-in look that can't be emulated digitally.

I'm only scratching the surface of course. Cinematographers have many more tools to work with: lighting, diffusion, makeup, framing, focus, etc. The key takeaway is that sharper is not necessarily better. There is no pixel peeping in cinema, the audience sees the whole picture.

 

[Policar]

One of the big differences between cinema and today's megapixel-obsessed still photography world is that most cinematographers try hard to get good-looking soft images.

Fact is, 2K, 4K, 8K, even 35mm film, are way too harsh for closeups of human faces, especially when you project them across a 60-foot-wide screen. Even shots that aren't close-ups will get irritating if they're too sharp. As much as some still photographers would like to think otherwise, staring at medically-sharp images on a big screen for two hours is very tiring.

This means that you need a way to smooth-out the image and yet keep them visually interesting. Using a blur filter (either a piece of frosted glass or a Photoshop filter) doesn't work very well. That creates mush.

Anamorphics can help. They are "sharp but soft" because they have twice the sampling rate vertically, and they also have unique aberrations.

Many cinematographers have rediscovered vintage lenses. 1950s Baltars, 1960s Cookes, 1970s Arri (Zeiss) sets are now worth many times what they were 10 years ago because they have a built-in look that can't be emulated digitally.

I'm only scratching the surface of course. Cinematographers have many more tools to work with: lighting, diffusion, makeup, framing, focus, etc. The key takeaway is that sharper is not necessarily better. There is no pixel peeping in cinema, the audience sees the whole picture.

Anamorphic looks very different from spherical... and is sharper stopped down usually. The choice to with a completely different look has less to do with cosmetics than you'd think... the digital cosmetics market is already very large and with enough budget you can clean up skin and still have it look sharp at any resolution.

 

[mkabi]

Canon continues to pursue Cinema. I expect that they are seriously considering production of one. Anamorphic Zoom lenses are expensive and usually rented. They have become very popular, so everyone is throwing their hat in the ring.

I must admit that after reading the page at RED (link above) I am somewhat confused about why they should be so popular? Or is it just a "anamorphic is in vogue" thing?

Here, read this: http://petapixel.com/2014/05/07/shooting-anamorphic-lens-dslr/