Anamorphic: digital vs film
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:34 am
Hello Forum.
I am researching anamorphic question, whether it worth it and what is the benefits compare to round lenses.
So far those are image differences that I have found:
If something is missing, please update me.
My question however is about 3). Since anamorphic lenses were invented when there were no digital sensors but only a film cameras, the resulted image end-up physically on a film stock.
If I got it right, desqueezing digital image from modern sensors will lose details while desqueezing light coming from a physical film stock will maintain more information? Like, there is no pixels on a film stock - so you can potentially recover some information, does it makes sense?
If somebody did that kind of testing or know more how it works, you are very welcome to educate people like me!
Thanks
I am researching anamorphic question, whether it worth it and what is the benefits compare to round lenses.
So far those are image differences that I have found:
- 1. You have wider angle on higher focal length, compare to round, depending on stretch (i.e. 2.0 anamorphic 80mm should have similar (distorted) angle as 40mm)
2. You have shallower depth of field on the equal focal length because of the above ^
3. Your image is distorted even when desqueezed - but this is not a bad thing*
4. Flares and different bokeh light shape
If something is missing, please update me.
My question however is about 3). Since anamorphic lenses were invented when there were no digital sensors but only a film cameras, the resulted image end-up physically on a film stock.
If I got it right, desqueezing digital image from modern sensors will lose details while desqueezing light coming from a physical film stock will maintain more information? Like, there is no pixels on a film stock - so you can potentially recover some information, does it makes sense?
If somebody did that kind of testing or know more how it works, you are very welcome to educate people like me!
Thanks