Is there a chance to ever see an Anamorphic mode on BMPCC4K

Hey, do you all think we can hope for an anamorphic mode like there is on the GH5?
Could BM bring it trough an update? That would be useful

This has been asked so many times before, I am starting to think this is the most requested feature for the pocket 4k ever....

The GH5 has a 4:3 aspect ratio native sensor, which is windowed for 16:9 and other formats it can shoot.
The most popular Anamorphic mode uses a native 4:3 aspect ratio that is then stretched into a wide aspect ratio. Thr Pocket 4K has a native 17:9 aspect ratio sensor, so shooting a 4:3 would be a pillar column crop into the sensor, so you would not be shooting 4K in this smaller window. The Pocket 4K can not shoot a 4K 4:3 image that is needed. Hard to add something, the hardware can not support.
Cheers

The GH5 has a4:3 aspect ratio native sensor, which is windowed for 16:9 and other formats it can shoot.
The most popular Anamorphic mode uses a native 4:3 aspect ratio that is then stretched into a wide aspect ratio. Thr Pocket 4K has a native 17:9 aspect ratio sensor, so shooting a 4:3 would be a pillar column crop into the sensor, so you would not be shooting 4K in this smaller window. The Pocket 4K can not shoot a 4K 4:3 image that is needed. Hard to add something, the hardware can not support.
Cheers

It doesn’t have to be 4K. The ARRI Alexa doesn’t shoot 4K anamorphic, I believe it’s 2K. And the Ursa Mini Pro shoots 3K anamorphic lol.

The GH5 has a4:3 aspect ratio native sensor, which is windowed for 16:9 and other formats it can shoot.
The most popular Anamorphic mode uses a native 4:3 aspect ratio that is then stretched into a wide aspect ratio. Thr Pocket 4K has a native 17:9 aspect ratio sensor, so shooting a 4:3 would be a pillar column crop into the sensor, so you would not be shooting 4K in this smaller window. The Pocket 4K can not shoot a 4K 4:3 image that is needed. Hard to add something, the hardware can not support.
Cheers

Sorry but this is an invalid argument :p You could shoot anamorphic just like the UM4.6k if BMD just crops the sensor for a smaller resolution (like the 3k mode).

EDIT: Chris beat me to it !

... and they could also offer another mode that uses the full 17:9 and would need to stretch it less in post ...

The look would be less Michael Bay but that's not necessarily a bad thing

I think Denny is pointing out the large degree of unused photosites using the native 16:9 or 17:9 sensor in a 4:3 crop with a 2x anamorphic lens/adapter. Shooting with a smaller squeeze like the new 1.8:1x stretch reduces the waste but it remains to be seen if 1.8:1x. will gain traction. Virtually everyone requests a 4:3 window in order to shoot 2x anamorphics. If BMD does embrace another deployment of an anamorphic sensor window, I would strongly recommend they keep the 6:5 window that desqueezes to 2.4:1, very close to Widescreen as the more economical solution. And add 1.3x and 2x monitor stretch options on the BMPCC4K, now please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, I was not arguing it had to be a 4K window, just pointing out you are loosing resolution by using a window crop of the larger sensor. Looking at the bigger marketing picture, I think Anamorphic shooters would be a very small segment of the market, just like S16 shooters, who want a S16/2K window, me included. But I have a feeling, this is a lower priority for BMD right now. Look how long it took to get a Anamorphic shooting mode on the Ursa Mini, which in my opinion, is a better camera choice for Anamorphic Cinema shooting.

Trying to make one camera do it all, does not always work out very well. Not saying the Pocket 4K can not be a good Anamorphic platform, but perhaps, not the best platform choice. However, this is just my opinion, and not an argument for making any specific choice — that is up to you.
Cheers

waiting this

I'd like to know who are all these cinematographers who purchase an inexpensive $1300 camera but want to use a $30,000 anamorphic prime on it?

I mean seriously, have you guys priced some of these anamorphic lenses? I'm not talking about the cheap projector lens hacks or the SLRmagic Anamorphot add-ons (equally hacky), but actual anamorphic primes like Cooke or Arri lenses.

If you're ok with the hacky way of doing it, then you can live with the crop in post and maybe what you're really asking for is a custom size for the monitor image.

If you want to do it the "real way" there are plenty of options out there including the URSA Mini Pro which offers a 3K anamorphic mode, as well as a proper PL mount.

I am starting to believe that many people who ask for an anamorphic mode don't even know exactly what they're really asking for.

The didactic self righteous pedagogues of the creative world would adamantly suggest there are no anamorphic lens options under $30,000, but certainly, embracing the creativity of others instead of criticizing them would be the more constructive path.

I'd like to know who are all these cinematographers who purchase an inexpensive $1300 camera but want to use a $30,000 anamorphic prime on it?

I mean seriously, have you guys priced some of these anamorphic lenses? I'm not talking about the cheap projector lens hacks or the SLRmagic Anamorphot add-ons (equally hacky), but actual anamorphic primes like Cooke or Arri lenses.

If you're ok with the hacky way of doing it, then you can live with the crop in post and maybe what you're really asking for is a custom size for the monitor image.

If you want to do it the "real way" there are plenty of options out there including the URSA Mini Pro which offers a 3K anamorphic mode, as well as a proper PL mount.

I am starting to believe that many people who ask for an anamorphic mode don't even know exactly what they're really asking for.

Well you have other lens other than the hawks and the Cookes that cost $60,000 per lens. You got the Atlantic which cost 8,000 and slr magic actually have anamorphic lens for MFT sensors. And i wouldn’t call projector lens fake anamorphic lol

certainly, embracing the creativity of others instead of criticizing it would be the more constructive path.

Hey man, I'm more on your side than you think. Here's something creative for you -- there is no reason why people can't shoot anamorphic 1.33X with the SLRMagic Anamorphot adapter right now without Blackmagic needing to do anything!!! Mind blown yet?!?

That’s the hack I use, I can’t pony up for the real thing, and I do enjoy using 16:9 to derive 2.38x economically. Ironically, except for last weekend’s dramatic narrative interior shoot with the Tokina 11-20mm, I’m using the hack regularly with the 32mm APO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think Mr Petty wants to give us anything anymore......

I'd like to know who are all these cinematographers who purchase an inexpensive $1300 camera but want to use a $30,000 anamorphic prime on it?

I mean seriously, have you guys priced some of these anamorphic lenses? I'm not talking about the cheap projector lens hacks or the SLRmagic Anamorphot add-ons (equally hacky), but actual anamorphic primes like Cooke or Arri lenses.

If you're ok with the hacky way of doing it, then you can live with the crop in post and maybe what you're really asking for is a custom size for the monitor image.

If you want to do it the "real way" there are plenty of options out there including the URSA Mini Pro which offers a 3K anamorphic mode, as well as a proper PL mount.

I am starting to believe that many people who ask for an anamorphic mode don't even know exactly what they're really asking for.

Nice gatekeeping buddy

Ray, Anamorphic is a way to shoot Cine WideScope images with a standard gate camera, and apart from thr slight distortion Anamorphic look, on a computer screen or home TV monitor, it looses most if its impact. You need to see a movie shot in one of the Wide Screen formats on a theatre screen, from about the 1/3rd way back from the front. You get almost immersed in the scenes, as the screen wraps part way round your vision area. This does work, but I agree, you loose the whole effect when viewed on a small screen.
Cheers

To be honest, I don't think a film becomes 'cinematic' just because it's been taken with an anamorphic lens.

Bingo! Now you try explaining that to some of the kids around here and not get crucified for it.

Anamorphic lenses came about as a solution to a problem inherent with physical film and cameras at the time, it was an ingenious solution at that. Over time, some of the visual artifacts of anamorphic lenses (aberrations if you will), such as soft edges, oval bokeh, vignetting, very pronounced blue-ish horizontal flares, and a stretched background blur became synonymous with cinematic in the eyes of some (I believe in large part due to growing up watching films shot that way).

I agree that there is a certain magical element to films shot in anamorphic, and for those who can afford a set of proper anamorphic primes (or rent them) I think some narrative projects absolutely can benefit from that look.

However but for most digital camera workflows nowadays, simply cropping to a 2.35 or 2.4 aspect ratio in post will create a similar sense of wide openness to the image (provided it was shot with that intent).

To be honest, I don't think a film becomes 'cinematic' just because it's been taken with an anamorphic lens.

Bingo! Now you try explaining that to some of the kids around here and not get crucified for it.

Anamorphic lenses came about as a solution to a problem inherent with physical film and cameras at the time, it was an ingenious solution at that. Over time, some of the visual artifacts of anamorphic lenses (aberrations if you will), such as soft edges, oval bokeh, vignetting, very pronounced blue-ish horizontal flares, and a stretched background blur became synonymous with cinematic in the eyes of some (I believe in large part due to growing up watching films shot that way).

I agree that there is a certain magical element to films shot in anamorphic, and for those who can afford a set of proper anamorphic primes (or rent them) I think some narrative projects absolutely can benefit from that look.

However but for most digital camera workflows nowadays, simply cropping to a 2.35 or 2.4 aspect ratio in post will create a similar sense of wide openness to the image (provided it was shot with that intent).

You can't just crop in post and get an anamorphic look as you know, you just end up with a widescreen look. No one ever purchased/rented anamorphic glass just to get a 2.35 aspect ratio lol. Ultimately, for the many people who do own some form of anamorphic glass, or who might decide to use a bmpcc4k with a more expensive rental, an anamorphic mode be it 3k resolution or some other variant isn't much of a big ask, and wouldn't require some great engineering innovation on the part of blackmagic. At the end of the day, you can always just choose not to use such a feature. There are plenty of features in every camera I own that I choose not to use. Ultimately, I agree with Kays that just using an anamorphic lens doesn't equal a "cinematic" look (and the term cinematic is a crazy subjective concept in the first place), but as you mentioned, in the right context it can be exactly what an image needs.

But thanks for coming down from the mountain you clearly live on to bestow your anamorphic wisdoms upon us though oh great Film god. We would be lost without your guidance, lol. For those of us who continue to blaspheme and shoot anamorphic on a bmpcc4k, we would like the ability to go into the settings and quickly jump into a mode that is better suited for shooting with anamorphic lenses

ok now that they stopped bragging and sniff their own farts,

Is there a chance to ever see an Anamorphic mode on BMPCC4K?

But thanks for coming down from the mountain you clearly live on to bestow your anamorphic wisdoms upon us though oh great Film god. We would be lost without your guidance, lol.

Wow, thin skin much?

Anamorphic lenses came about as a solution to a problem inherent with physical film and cameras at the time, it was an ingenious solution at that.

Actually, anamorphic and other wide screen technologies were mostly desperate attempts to save the Hollywood industry of the late 1960s in the wake of TV. Studio executives who can't think well in purely artistic ways can only come up with more technical solutions... But what ultimately got the masses back to the big screen was good stories, when a new generation of creative filmakers like Scorcese, Coppola or Spielberg emerged. Most of their movies were shot in 1:1.85 with spherical lenses.

Still, widescreen movie can offer a quite immersive experience when well exploited. But, like Australian Image implied, this is only relevant when viewed on an actual wide screen ! There's absolutely no point of using it if the end diffusion is on small 16/9 screens, or even most TV screens, you'll only end up with a cropped image and awkward framings for most shots.

Like I said, we already can make very powerful and emotional movies with spherical lenses. So unless our video will have stunning visuals that will be viewed on a theatre's big screen, I advise to save our money and shoot spherical. And if our video does have stunning visuals to be shown on big screen, then it should deserve a proper production with a sufficient budget to rent what's needed.

Even if you absolutely want to use the p4k with anamorphic lenses, there's still a way around by using the 4:3 frame guides and crop in post, sure you won't get full 4K image but you will still have a very good over 3K image, isn't it already quite cool ? I agree it would be better to have crop mode to record less useless pixels, and the squeezed image while framing might be annoying, but hey, it's only 1300$...

Grant JUST ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!

Our wishes were heard!

Grant JUST ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!

Our wishes were heard!

I saw the announcement today:
At 1:37:14 ...(6.6 firmware update for BMPCC 4K) "...we've got a 1.33x anamorphic desqueeze for preview in the 16:9 modes, ...we've got a 4:3 anamorphic mode with a 2x desqueeze preview"

I'm trying to understand what this means. In a month or two will I be able to take a normal lens and use it in this anamorphic mode?

I have been considering buying affordable modified anamorfake lenses with a new oval fixed iris and string like ironglassadapters.com and other cottage industry vendors offer. Will I be able to leverage the cool oval bokeh bubbles and full width line flares, like you see in JJ Abrams films, on one of these lenses and be able to watch it with a wide letterboxed image on a normal TV screen without much loss of resolution?

Or is this something that will require that I shell out big bucks for an anamorphic lens?

Don’t forget the reasonable budget option of shooting with an adapter. I’m using the SLR Magic 1.33x-65 Anamorphot Adapter on my SLR Magic APO primes with good results. That’s my go-to option now on the URSA Mini 4.6K. Maybe I’ll move that configuration to the BMPCC4K in a month or two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don’t forget the reasonable budget option of shooting with an adapter. I’m using the SLR Magic 1.33x-65 Anamorphot Adapter on my SLR Magic APO primes with good results. That’s my go-to option now on the URSA Mini 4.6K. Maybe I’ll move that configuration to the BMPCC4K in a month or two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That sounds like a versatile option. I'd have to save up a bit to get one though. I don't know much about how these work. Do you have any of the issues that an Etsy and EBay vendor, HeliosModifications in Liverpool mentions?

Mir-1 37mm lens with anamorphic oval bokeh & flare streaks (F3.5 fixed) $132.08 shipping $20.13 USD
"...this does increase it's tendency for normal lens flares in other situations and may add lines to the bokeh. The aperture ring is connected to the disk so instead of opening/closing the blades, it will rotate the disk through 180 degrees to allow you to keep it upright if the adapter to your camera has rotated the lens.
Placing the disk where the aperture stop is, instead of over the end of the lens prevents the vignetting and chromatic aberration associated with that method."

I'm all for investing a few bucks to build my personal brand as a filmmaker, and having a style that makes them stand out.

In the final analysis however, shouldn't the investment in the tools you use be balanced by whether or not these tools help in telling the story?

Sorry, dondidnod, but I’ll decline getting into the debate of adding things at the back of the lenses rather than the front. A true anamorphic lens is superior but I can’t afford to do that. The quality adapter I use suffices for my needs. I’ll let others play with the rear variations having previously read criticisms of that approach elsewhere. They may be right but I’m not trying it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is good news!
Ive just started with an ISCO ultrastar 2.1 and 50mm FD taking lens and the results are amazing (well, to me anyways), very sharp and focus down to a meter.
Also ordered the Rapido Tech FDV for single focus. Will see in Sept how this goes.

Great to see the anamorphic being added to the P4K, thank you BM, I would like to just add that there are other anamorphic adaptors that would benefit from an adjustable squeeze ratio I use a Berthiot, so if it is possible to consider more than the 1.33x and 2.0x that would be appreciated like a 1.5, thanks.

But great news non the less - Thanks again

Matt

Great to see the anamorphic being added to the P4K, thank you BM, I would like to just add that there are other anamorphic adaptors that would benefit from an adjustable squeeze ratio I use a Berthiot, so if it is possible to consider more than the 1.33x and 2.0x that would be appreciated like a 1.5, thanks.

But great news non the less - Thanks again

+1

I just got my $132 USD anamorfake Soviet era 1966 Mir-1 37mm lens from Heliosmodifications. I screwed it into a $4 MFT adapter and walked down to the main drag of my suburban bedroom community last night for some test footage.

I shot this on a BMPCC 4K in Prores 422 HD at ISO 5000, shutter at 1/125 sec. at 29.97 fps. In post I changed the size from 1920 x 1080 to 2554 x 1080. This is a still from the video clip.

I'm trying to understand what this means. In a month or two will I be able to take a normal lens and use it in this anamorphic mode?

An anamorphic lens compresses the footage horizontally and makes things look thin, which would normally impact monitoring as you would be looking at a squeezed image on your display while shooting.

The feature that was just announced is one to "expand" the image horizontally (or to do a matching vertical shrink rather) to correct the aspect ratio for monitoring purposes so that the image appears to have "normal" proportions when you are shooting with an anamorphic lens.

If you turned this on while using a "normal" lens (non-anamorphic) it would instead make things appear to be wider than they actually are (or vertically compressed depending on how you look at it).

Beautiful still dondidnod!

The rolling shutter though is not looking well controlled though. I thought it would be better, but good to know. When shooting HD, the response is decent, but 4K/UHD is something that needs care. When shooting a still shot of a moving subject with the camera, best to go to maximum frame rate that will give a reasonable exposure. Not sure easy at night. A still at project frame rate of 60 fps best. Or smaller shutter angle.

BMPCC4K:
16.2ms for 4k,
7.8ms for HD


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I picked up a vormax Anamorphic lens from russia. Going to do some filming with it this weekend.

The shot has a nice vintage look to it, the tail light blur says, long exposure, which for a still is appropriate.
Cheers

The Anamorfake lens has a length of fishing line that diffracts a bright light all the way across the frame. I can rotate the oval iris plate with the iris adjustment ring to position the line vertically so it diffracts light and compresses the image horizontally.

In the previous picture the modern car is stopped with the brake light on. The '57 Chevy is coasting to a stop. The simple blue coating of the 1966 and earlier Mir-1 lens gives it a warmer more vintage look that a multi coated lens won't give you. It makes it much more susceptible to flaring, and care must be taken to avoid veiling the entire frame when shooting into the sun.

The Vormax lens attachment sounds interesting. I'd like to see the images it produces. Will the coating it has tame the flares? Will that coating make focusing easier by increasing contrast?

I got about 10 minutes of usable background footage of classic cars that I intend to use in a student film this semester.

Here is another example of the Anamorfake lens with a brighter light, at the same settings. The lens does not have the optional blue or amber paint inside that ironglassadapters offers. The tint is part of the custom HID headlight.

Anamorfake 1.33x 1966 37mm Mir-1 fixed F/3.5 lens

CruiseAnamor3_1994CapriceA-2.jpg (740.29 KiB) Viewed 19323 times

Here is another one with the California Highway Patrol motorcycles. My motorized slider is at the end of it's travel and the neon CHABOT sign is at the low point of it's brightness cycle.

I decided to compare similar shots with my two 1966 Mir-1 37mm lenses. Parts of San Francisco are built on sand dredged from Golden Gate Park that allows buildings to move. Maybe that is what happened with the tall building in the background.

On the top is the Anamorfake modified lens with a M39 to M42 ring and M42 to MFT adapter taken at 6:53 PM on 8/29. I desqueezed it by 1.21x in post, since 1.33 looked too wide. On the bottom the lens has a closed iris and is attached to a M39 to M42 ring, a M42 to EOS adapter and a DEC Lensregain .75x focal reducer taken at 4:37 PM on 7/15. Shot on the BMPCC 4K.

Anamorfake 1966 Mir-1 37mm fixed F/3.5 1.21x desqueeze - top & 1966 Mir-1 37mm closed iris - bottom

Union&AugLadyAnaMir1_09-121Top&ClosedBottom.jpg (534.32 KiB) Viewed 19105 times

I tried to get a full width flare from the Anamorfake lens during the golden hour, but it would not do it. I tried desqueezing it at 1.33 on the top, but preferred the 1.21 desqueeze at the bottom. Shot on the BMPCC 4K using the Anamorfake Mir-1 37mm F/3.5 lens at 6:57 PM on 8/29.

Anamorfake 1966 Mir-1 37mm fixed F/3.5 1.33x desqueeze - top & 1.21x desqueeze - bottom

PowellLadyAnamor_17_HDAnamorph1080133CTop&D1Wide121CBottom.jpg (349.3 KiB) Viewed 19105 times

Another comparison of the two 1966 Mir-1 37mm lenses. On the top the lens is attached to a M39 to M42 ring, a M42 to EOS adapter and a DEC Lensregain .75x focal reducer. On the bottom is the Anamorfake modified lens with a M39 to M42 ring and M42 to MFT adapter taken on a BMPCC 4K. I desqueezed it by 1.21x in post. Both shots taken from the same camera location.

Washington Square 1966 Mir-1 37mm - top & Anamorfake 1966 Mir-1 37mm fixed F/3.5 1.21x desqueeze - bottom

NBeachChurchMir1FullTop&AnamorMir1-D1-121.jpg (549.34 KiB) Viewed 19105 times

To be honest, I don't think a film becomes 'cinematic' just because it's been taken with an anamorphic lens.

However but for most digital camera workflows nowadays, simply cropping to a 2.35 or 2.4 aspect ratio in post will create a similar sense of wide openness to the image (provided it was shot with that intent).

Anamorphic look also means shot like a 15mm spherical lens at 1.3T DOF aesthetics. Not so easy spherically.
Sadly just cropping doesn't look anamorphic at all.
Maybe the best way to emulate it is using a 20mm lens (40mm anamorphic) and add characteristics in post. But I bet 90% of the anamorphic look people want comes from Panavision.

Good luck racking focus!

Anamorphic Test.jpg (866.67 KiB) Viewed 18890 times

Here's a quick comparison shot I did. with and without the Vormax 1.33 Anamorphic lens
Same setup, same lens. exact same spot.

I'm looking forward to shooting some actual film with it.

Which “film” camera are you going to use?
Cheers

Which “film” camera are you going to use?
Cheers

Hahahahaha.
Ok, "Can't wait to make a movie with it".
Using a BMCC 2.5k and BMPC 4k

In a comment about the Letus Anamorphic adapter ($2695) (https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/43 ... 00/page/2/) Sean Cunningham said:
"The thing that needs to be confirmed by other sources, and possibly tested at multiple distances throughout the focus range, is whether the Letus is actually 1.33x or not.  A few folks have reported an effective ratio of more like 1.21:1 which would have an impact on our shared affinity for wider angles."

I wonder if other low cost anamorphic solutions have the same issue.

I have noticed that my Anamorfake Mir-1 37mm F/3.5 lens looks too wide when I de-squeeze at 1.33x (bottom) and I get more realistic results at 1.21x de-squeeze (top).

That’s interesting and not right at those distances. When I did testing of the SLR Magic 1.33x-65 Anamorphot adapter, I found that at Near distances, the 1.33x squeeze is too strong and lower values as you suggested are appropriate. For Normal distances, 1.33x is appropriate. I squeeze the vertical dimensions in Resolve / Edit / Transform effect. You can use your judgment for Near as it varies with the actual distance. Because I’m squeezing the Y axis, I use 0.7518 for normal distances and something like 0.82 or higher for near distances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I got a modified Soviet era 1976 Helios 44-2 58mm anamorfake lens with a fixed F/3.5 aperture from HeliosModifications at Etsy last week and tried it out on the UC Berkeley campus.

Here is a shot near the end of twilight.

Helios 44-2 58mm anamorfake F/3.5 lens with a 1.21x desqueeze

Hel442AnUC_202RowLtsDeSqzd_121A.jpg (955.02 KiB) Viewed 17590 times

At 25 feet I did not notice a proper squeeze however. Here is a comparison of the squeezed version as shot on the top, and the same picture with It desqueezed 1.21x on the bottom. A K&F Concept variable ND filter was attached.

Helios 44-2 58mm anamorfake F/3.5 lens - top & with a 1.21x desqueeze - bottom

Hel442AnUCVND053Top&121DeSqzBottom.jpg (603.76 KiB) Viewed 17590 times

Anamorphic Test.jpg

Here's a quick comparison shot I did. with and without the Vormax 1.33 Anamorphic lens
Same setup, same lens. exact same spot.

I'm looking forward to shooting some actual film with it.

is that the Compact 1.33x adapter for mft? How does it appear after desqueeze in post? Is it accurate or distorted?

Anamorphic Test.jpg

Here's a quick comparison shot I did. with and without the Vormax 1.33 Anamorphic lens
Same setup, same lens. exact same spot.

I'm looking forward to shooting some actual film with it.

is that the Compact 1.33x adapter for mft? How does it appear after desqueeze in post? Is it accurate or distorted?

Mine is not the compact.
It's accurate after desqueeze

Does the Vormax 1.33x give you oval bokeh bubbles?

Sirui is again another Chinese company that brings smaller, affordable anamorphic lenses to the market, also for MFT. At the moment only prototypes of a 50mm f1.8 with 1.33x, but the Sirui salesman said there are also plans for a 2x. The special thing about the Sirui anamorphic is that it is very light and small, and below $1000. Sample footage on YT is a bit short on expression, but apparently sharp in the entire image circle.

This is getting really exciting. And I think - for MFT - it's a better solution than the anamorphic glass from Vazen. Tests will tell which way to go.

The only problem I see is that in a few years we will see lots of independent filmmakers using anamorphic, and that the look gets somewhat spoiled by not so talented filmmakers, just like today with the overuse of slow motion.