November 3, 2013

Replicate the Anamorphic Look and Feel with Vashi Nedomansky's Free After Effects Plugin

The anamorphic look is highly desired by many filmmakers for many reasons, including unique lens flares and bokehs. We posted an article a week ago on shooting anamorphic, and one thing some of you might've noticed is that anamorphic adapters and lenses can be expensive. So, if you find yourself in a bind financially, but are still wanting your images to resemble the aesthetic that anamorphic provides, Vashi Nedomansky of VashiVisuals is offering his After Effects plugin, VashiMorphic40, for the low, low price of free. Continue on for more details.

Getting your images to look as though they were shot with an anamorphic adapter or lens isn't as easy as throwing a letterbox over it and calling it good. There's much more to the anamorphic aesthetic than the aspect ratio. Again, the long horizontal flares, oval bokehs, and interesting, quasi-3D effect makes shooting anamorphic so desirable. What VashiMorphic40 does is replicates this look and feel.

As you may know, if you shoot with an anamorphic lens, your image is going to vary based on the lens and camera combination you use. Knowing this, VashiMorphic40 was designed to match 16:9 footage to the curvature and look of the 40mm Panavision Primo Anamorphic lens, which Vashi mentions was the only lens used on Chinatown and used 95% of the time on Rushmore and The Life Aquatic. To see what this plugin can do, check out the video below:

The effect of the plugin leans heavily on the curvature of the image, as well as the blur and vignette (which is a free plugin by Creative Impatience that can be downloaded here) to give it a “vintage” or stylized look. Just to be clear, this plugin does not replicate the lens flares or bokeh found when shooting anamorphic. Vashi explains VashiMorph40's design:

I find the lens distortion is the most appealing aspect of the 40mm Panavision Primo Anamorphic lens. It’s not exactly barrel distortion and it’s not a fish-eye…it’s a more complex curvature and I find it very pleasing visually. It has a tell-tale bulge  in the middle of the frame that protrudes out of the frame. This is what gives it a faux 3D “pop” that helps DPs and Directors to stage such dramatic shots.

I think it goes without saying that the best tool to use to get anamorphic images is an anamorphic lens, or at least an adapter. However, if you can't afford to rent or buy one, or don't want to pay for a PL mount adapter for your camera to accommodate one, the VashiMorph40 plugin might be right up your alley. You can download it for free here.

And if you do plan on taking Vashi's plugin for a spin in After Effects, here's the workflow he recommends:

 After Effects Plugin Project Workflow:

  1. VASHIMORPHIC is by default 1920×1080 / 23.976 FPS / 16:9 aspect ratio.
  2. Use a full frame camera with a 28mm or 35mm lens. APS-C camera use a 20mm or 24mm. BMCC use a 10mm or 12mm.
  3. Capture your footage in 16:9 format and frame for 2.35 during the shoot.
  4. Import your footage into the “Your Footage” layer of After Effects.
  5. Adjust CI Vignette settings to taste.
  6. Default setting is 10% Opacity and 200 pixel feather.
  7. Adjust Corner Blur to taste. Default is 3 pixels with repeat edges on.
  8. Render out footage to the codec of your choice.

What do you think? Is the VashiMorph40 plugin a helpful tool to give your images a more anamorphic feel?

Links:

Your Comment

96 Comments

this is like replicating tilt/shift or fisheye effects in post
hilarious
what's next ... color key???

November 3, 2013 at 9:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
sek

3d pop is a property of wide angle lenses, not anamorphic lenses. The wider you go, the bigger get the close objects and the smaller get the far objects, beacuse of perspective distortion. It has nothing to do with lens being anamorphic imho

November 3, 2013 at 10:33AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Burak Soysal

Yeah agreed – this is just adding a wide barrel – anamorphic is all about bokeh and flare.

November 3, 2013 at 12:59PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

with anamorphic lenses that barrel distortion is more pronounced and happens to look exactly like what this plugin does. if you watched the video it also adds a vignette-blur to enhance bokeh and heighten the effect. and if you really think anamorphic is defined by lens flares, then you can just add those in after effects too.

November 3, 2013 at 1:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

12
Reply
Allen

anamorphic PRIMARILY provides a different perspective than spherical lenses. With a 40mm anamorphic lens, you get the vertical perspective of a spherical 40mm and the horizontal perspective of a 20mm.

November 4, 2013 at 5:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
RobW

Anamorphic is all about bokeh and flare when you don't have a story to tell.

November 4, 2013 at 9:50AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Pat

Are you out of your vulcan mind?

December 4, 2013 at 12:43AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
FA

I feel like this effect is kind of gimmicky. Almost like applying an Instagram filter on your footage. I understand wanting to have the anamorphic look to an extent, but somethings aren't meant to be replicated in post.

November 3, 2013 at 10:48AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Chris M

This is just a wide angle affect as said before.

Seriously, I'm starting to lose faith in upcoming generations of budding filmmakers - flares, light bleeds, log look, shallow depth, camera-whoring etc seems to be the most important thing - above content and form.

November 3, 2013 at 11:05AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Fresno Bob

agree 1000% ....well said

November 3, 2013 at 12:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Tim

...and you completely ignore the fact that young filmmakers regard content and form as inherent.
Spend an hour looking around Vimeo or watch a bunch of new music videos and what strikes me is how much story and drama are primary to most young filmmakers. And how formal shot structure is making somewhat of a major comeback. See how editing has slowed dramatically in music videos for example.
Even this, a nifty plug-in being given away FREE, is built to replicate a small aspect Polanski's greatest film, and the work of Wes Anderson. Not too shabby for examples to aim for - to understand every layer of the image-making in those films.
Don't be that old guy - 'kids today!'. Trust me, the general level of knowledge among 20 year old film kids today is a quantum above 10/20/30 years ago. The level of work often astonishes me. I'm jealous as hell :-)

November 3, 2013 at 1:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

6
Reply
marklondon

I'm writing a short film, trying to incorporate a deep story and explain a large back story all in about 20-30 minutes. It's one of the hardest things I have done to date. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100%.

Then, while I'm writing my story I'm also thinking about the best way to show it. A story is nothing without a screen, so I want to make my 'best' story look 'best' on screen. It's like a business card representing a business. No, I don't want to just pick up and run around with my cellphone camera because it's just "good enough to make a movie with," I want to use a BMCC, or a Scarlet, or an EPIC, or an ARRI. I know I can't, and I know I don't know how to use them but just imagine the possibilities for story telling, being able to light in all kinds of ways. This stuff is not about the technology, it's about creative freedom and I, more than the guy you replied to would know, apparently.

The only reason technology is a common thing on this website is because making an actual film is experience. I could read lots of things about directing actors, but right now they have almost no new content for me. Do I feel like I could still do a good job? No. I just haven't directed before.

So basically everyone assumes that it's all about tech when really tech is just another (large) part of a film these days. The way your film looks is how the viewer is going to see it - It's fine for anyone to have a film boner at tech, but it's not alright to walk in on them masturbating and telling them to stop and go read a script when they have hundreds of them piled around their room.

lol that was crap what did i even read diretide

November 3, 2013 at 2:00PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Tyler

Seriously mate - give up on the short film, you can't write. Diatribe over.

November 4, 2013 at 6:34AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Justine

it's not just a wide angle look. have you ever shot with anamorphic lenses? do you even know what you're talking about?

November 3, 2013 at 1:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Allen

1,000,000% agree

November 3, 2013 at 7:00PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

5
Reply
Ryan

it's possible to agree with something and still be wrong

November 3, 2013 at 9:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Allen

I could tell by this post that it's one of those that would get negative comments. But I just wanted to say, I appreciate these posts. It's another tool for the tool bag. I'll probably only use it once (or not at all perhaps) but now I know it exists and it's free.

November 3, 2013 at 11:11AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Cory

Exactly. I'll likely never use it, but I shared it with some director friends so they know, "Hey, it's around". Content and form are king, but if you can marry a technique that helps it stand out...

November 3, 2013 at 12:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Zack

Yeah, man. I just wish they once and for all created some kind of "awesome content-o-matic" plugin for after effects, so they finally let us gimmick lovers be. This content police thing is getting to my nerves, man. =D

November 3, 2013 at 7:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Jay

Yeah, what's with all of the hate...it's free.

November 3, 2013 at 11:22AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

+100000000000000

November 3, 2013 at 4:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply

+1

November 3, 2013 at 11:52AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
hansd

It's nice its free and all but its a lens distortion effect. This doesn't do anything anamorphic.

November 3, 2013 at 11:57AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Stewe

i'm not sure what it will take to convince you guys that anamorphic lenses add distortion other than to link to other websites that discuss it, so here:

http://benmoulden.tumblr.com/post/11372622990/anamorphic-distortion-comp...

and now, a quote from this article http://www.fxguide.com/featured/super-8-ilms-production-value-on-screen/ about the making of JJ Abrams' Super 8: “In anamorphic lenses,” says Kavanagh, “you get a lot of barrel distortion – the lens creates a bow effect on the actual image and you get the beautiful lens flares and everything."

now if you google it, there are plenty of other websites and articles that discuss anamorphic lens distortion. i mean it's seriously like selective ignorance around here!

November 3, 2013 at 10:03PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Allen

I appreciate the post and the free tool (though it really does seem like merely a wide angle effect, not anamorphic), but I am with Fresno Bob on this one. I'm not a great filmmaker, but I get to teach high school students filmmaking besides making them, and most students think filmmaking is more like instagram than serious, dedicated work. They love the effect but don't want to take the time to learn how it is made. I don't think it is entirely their fault. Digital media seems to come with some pretty heavy assumptions for the user...one being that any effect desired has some automatic plugin or an easy way to simulate a look. I'm all for exploring these areas, but I wish more students took the time to understand the effect more fully. But thanks for the post V. Renee.

November 3, 2013 at 12:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Tobin

...and this opinion just makes me sad. It's you that hasn't grasped the paradigm, not them.
And it has been ever thus by the way.
At least you're polite!

November 3, 2013 at 1:24PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
marklondon

Trust me, high school students don't care. I'm a high school student and I cringe extremely hard whenever I see a "serious" student film. It's only done to get a grade. You basically have to not hand it in to fail. 18 year olds, using a DSLR, not racking focus in their shots, using an on board mic... I get wound up thinking about it. The teachers have 550Ds and they go on how "it's the best money can buy"... the whole thing makes me want to burn the classrooms to the ground. You can likely tell why I'm not studying "media" in high school right now. They simply don't want to grasp it. Go to a college with serious film makers and say that again. No point in judging people who don't actually care about film.

November 3, 2013 at 2:05PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Tyler

Everyone relax. Is just a cool little thing, for people who want to at least try to replicate a style they can't afford to shoot organicly. Stop being such dicks about everything. Nice article nfs.

November 3, 2013 at 12:46PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

6
Reply
Bill

Yep!

November 3, 2013 at 1:19PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
marklondon

to those that say it isn't creating an anamorphic look... it absolutely is, and this is coming from someone who has shot with anamorphic lenses quite a bit. this plugin does a great job of recreating the look and feel... it's not just a "wide angle" look as many of you have naively argued.

November 3, 2013 at 1:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Allen

Can you go into more detail, perhaps? I can't say I have seen an anamorphic look like this... well, at least consciously. I thought the fisheye would catch my eye more like it does in these photos. Is this filter to replicate certain types of anamorphic lenses? I just want an deeper understanding of it all and hopefully others here will see too.

November 3, 2013 at 2:07PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Tyler

Holy crap, you're right. Maybe the effect isn't as exaggerated in the examples given but jesus, looking at some images on google you can see when referencing to to "straight" horizontal edges they do actually curve. I'm kind of shocked that I didn't pick this up sooner. F**K! Maybe that's what the effects are missing. I'm literally having a revelation dude, I'm mind blown.

November 3, 2013 at 2:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Tyler

here are some additional examples

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/professional2.jpg

http://www.ruairirobinson.com/temp/lens_distortion.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m70wx4gMWX1qchprqo1_1280.png

http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/tarantino-anamorphic.jpg

now, of course, the wider the lens the more noticeable it'll be, but any anamorphic lens will carry some level of distortion. you probably never noticed it before because of the wide aspect ratio, which does a good job of disguising it

November 3, 2013 at 4:33PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Allen

If you think re-creates the anamorphic look than you have never shot with anamorphics, why lie?

November 3, 2013 at 7:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Stewe

sigh.

i'm not lying. nice try though. ;)

November 3, 2013 at 8:36PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Allen

You are full of shit, otherwise you would know that anamorphic shooting and look have little to nothing to do with it barrel distortion.

November 3, 2013 at 9:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Stewe

it's unfortunate that no matter where you go on the internet, even on cool websites like this one, a dark cloud like you always shows up.

November 3, 2013 at 9:33PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Allen

I agree with Allen i havent shot on those lenses but ive seen plenty of movies where there is subtle distortion

November 3, 2013 at 9:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Whispers

This does replicate the look of an anamorphic lens, at least as far as what is possible in post. It does not of course recreate it, which is impossible but it is a nice effect to add to VFX footage inside a largely anamorphic project (i doubt anyone would notice a few shots created this way). Unfortunately a few public bloggers have made shooting anamorphic about flares and bokeh and NoFilmSchool sometimes advertises these people and pushes them as experts, the post about creating depth a few months back via the Underwater Realm Crew is one such post mishap that largely got it completely wrong.

Anamorphic is really not about flares and oval bokeh, they are symptoms and you don't go out of your way to shoot anamorphic because of symptoms, we now get countless "flare test' videos on youtube and more drones being converted by influential camera operators after watching such videos as "everything you need to know about anamorphic" that never mentions the actual reason you would use it in the first place and even uses 1.33x adaptors while shooting in 4/3 mode? that gets you a 16:9 image, none of the benefits but hey you do get flares ;0). The absolute point of shooting anamorphic is the lens angle it gives you, having for example 50mm worth of compression on your subject with 25mm field of view is just something that can not be recreated, these other symptoms, flares, oval bokeh and even as above, screen distortion can all be recreated in post but they are also all that some bloggers go on about, why?

I recently worked with a director who loves long lens but hates wide angle lenses because of how they distort the image, he's always worried about actors getting to close to wide lenses but he also feels the longer lenses are ominous with film and that wide lenses are more tv/news castor, i feel the same and that he has a point. Shooting anamorphic with him would be brilliant as it he would get the best of a long lens and a wide lens, it would make my life a lot easier and open up tons of composition possibilities that you don't get on a normal shoot and put him at ease as a 25mm lens is now a choice he can have as it can be used while having 50mm compression.

November 3, 2013 at 5:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

5
Reply
Anthony Brown

Absolutely. I definitely see this plugin being utilized on a project that was shot mostly anamorphic, but has maybe some effects shots that need to be matched in post, or some pickups or b roll that perhaps weren't shot anamorphic for whatever reason.

November 3, 2013 at 6:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Allen

The "symptoms" are a direct result of the absolute though. People talk about them and like them because those differ from anamorphic lens to anamorphic lens...not the absolute value as you call it. If you shoot on a 50mm Kowa, a 50mm Hawk, and a 50mm Primo you get the same coverage. If that was indeed the ONLY reason someone shot anamorphic then it really wouldn't matter which lens they choose, right? A 50mm Lomo should do just as well as a 50mm Hawk?

November 3, 2013 at 10:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Oh Come on, don't be a a simpleton Luke :0) you're one of these influential camera operators with a following that do exactly what I mention above and should really no better, you have an opportunity to teach while also bringing people to your blog/business. Of course lenses differ between brands! What a statement!, its like saying a size 9 shoe from any brand will be the same, for example, your 24mm lens comparison is not worthless because they are the same focal lengths? in fact that video helped sell me and a director on Samyang primes and allowed me to borrow the rental budget for our short film to go towards buying and owning those lenses (thanks). I'd love to see a comparison between the SAME focal length or magnification factor of different brand anamorphic lens/adapter out, even the flare and blur comparison is valid in that respect (especially for VFX based films) and in that kind of a review/comparison you wouldn't need to mention the angle of view and its benefits as you are conducting a review and not teaching anything about cinematography or anamorphic lenses, you're advertising to someone who knows how to use said item and if they don't then they're not really in a position to choose between different products yet and should go and do said research (maybe via your site?).

When you move over to teaching someone you have to break away from this anamorphic erotica you guys are all plugging about flare and blur and instead explain the magnification ratio, what aspect ratio that results in and what's required in post, the challenges, benefits and negatives of operating and monitoring (what monitors support anamorphic viewing) maybe even a little history of anamorphic and CinemaScope as a pretext (filmmakeriq does exactly this kind of history based lesson) and mention the uniqueness of the double lens angle. Symptoms (beautiful or not) happen by accident and shouldn't be the focus of your lesson but even then you could show how to combat the symptoms of flare when it's not desired or how it can help with over exposed areas (the flare can mask harsh roll off) and what focal lengths/aperture settings are needed on said anamorphic lens to reduce blur. That's a lesson.

Of course your reviews and teaching/tutorial blogs are going to be more tech based which is fine but please, if you're teaching someone something try and not make it a review/comparison or a plug of your opinion ("Anamorphicly" rating of magnification squeeze for example? That's an opinion it's not part of "everything I need to know about anamorphic"). Focus on what's needed to be taught.

Sorry to sound so personal Luke but its popular blogs such as yours that focus/obsess on the symptoms of anamorphic lenses that lead to plugins like this, which overall is a good thing but it ends up having people in mindless debate over how this does or does not look like an anamorphic lens because popular opinion is so focused on flare, blur and bokeh (someone even posted "anamorphic is about flare and bokeh") it just becomes endless boring comments going back and forth over a simple effect like this when it should just be "thanks man! I could use this plugin this way etc"

I like your videos and I like your site, I may seem critical but it's just honest feedback.

November 4, 2013 at 6:31AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Anthony Brown

My video covered one tiny section of the iceberg that is "anamorphic understanding". You're upset because I didn't give a proper overview of the entire process?

November 4, 2013 at 12:54PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

9
Reply

My name should appear but if its not, my name is Anthony Brown, i am 31 and an aspiring DP from London, most of my narrative work is currently tied up in post as they are not my films, they are films i have DP'd, no features yet but thats my aim for next year. Here are some frames from the mainly narrative work i have done, please note 90% of this has been shot on the AF100 and not a Red Epic;

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153103923155276.1073741825.6...

I primarily come from a broadcast background, i started on small chip video cameras and covered super bike events and personal ski trips before trying to enter the field professionally but to date I've worked for BMW, RedBull, Kawasaki, Aprillia, Tanita, SpireGTR, Fujitsu, BUPA and have shot live events for the ISA and london fashion week, i love shooting Live, its a real challenge to not be edited for 4 hours when your tracking a sports professional at the long end of 200mm lens on 2X crop system.

When i first started, i created a small youtube presence under the name of XSVpro, kind of doing what you are doing Luke (establish a brand of sorts), I specialised in photography at first and was even printed in a few sports magazines but mainly used the page to post videos I shot for smaller clients who didn’t have an internet presence. my page is here https://www.facebook.com/XSVproductions?ref=hl

I've largely moved on now as i have a passion for lighting, composition and film and Im working/studying very hard to achieve my goal, when I'm not shooting i have a 70 hour week security job in Oxford Circus, Security pays ok and is extremely flexible. I meant no disrespect to you Luke but i am off of my "fat ass" as you say and find your response childish, I'm not in competition with you i just disagree with your approach to this subject and see your 50K followers as being misinformed over the subject of anamorphic photography, you're not some messiah dishing out information and i'm sure you would agree, I am sure you started Neumann films for the same reason as everyone who builds a website, its good business, i don't mean thats your only motive but please drop the high horse crap about giving back to the community? this is an industry, NoFilmSchool is a community and me trying to put a few facts right and give you feedback should be seen as a good thing, you think I care about white noise? I don't feel like I am ready to be a public teacher as I am not ready unlike some who pick up a DSLR and begin a blog, its ok at first, mostly gear reviews but then they start teaching, what are your credentials to teach, you cant even get continuum of motion right in a simple blog post, it must be because you have a 4k image and couldn’t help but reframe and play around but ended up demonstrating exactly why a film would not cut together.

Oh and i never "hated" on this post in regards to the A:E project thats available for free, i posted an opinion and you responded which is great as you usually delete my messages from youtube (but then i've only posted once), i guess so there is more room for you to call your followers Noobs? even with your quite inaccurate video that shows the effect of Anamorphic on a still image that is already 2.39:1?? Luke you are vertically stretching a 2.39:1 image to demonstrate the anamorphic effect.

Oh god I just realised your video has “The Film Look” in its title..... I give up

November 4, 2013 at 3:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Anthony Brown

We came to the conclusion that the information in the video was correct, yes? That was the point of the entire video, whether you think it deserved it's own video is irrelevant. Others do and did. I suggested places where people could go for much more in depth info (EOSHD) and provided links to them. WHAT IS YOUR DEAL?!

November 4, 2013 at 7:07PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply

You totally missed the purpose of what anamorphics are used for in your video. In your video you just crop horizontally to "simulate" the squeeze. That's a clear and obvious misunderstanding of how anamorphics work. Everyone keeps circle-jerking to an anamorphic aspect ratio completely failing to realize the amazing part about these lenses is what your focal lengths are doing vertically and horizontally. Someone on here was talking about a director that hated wides and used anamoprhics to get a nice CU of the actor but still encapsulate the "wideness" of the shot. That's the perfect example. So say you want to use 60mm focal length. That means your character you rack focus on has the DOF of a 60mm lens at whatever you stop it to. But with an anamorphic 2x, your frame extends horizontally to capture a 30mm shot while your DOF stays the same. You're not "cropping" anything with anamorphics, you're extending.

That's THE most practical decision in using anamorphics. Another example. You're shooting on location in a small room with no space to reposition the camera. You really want to get a nice closeup of a character, but you also want to show a character enter a door in the background whose face is out of focus until you rack to reveal. You get the 50mm spherical lens out and you get a beautiful close up with the background nice and blurry. However the door is out of frame and you have to introduce a camera movement which the director isn't thrilled about. You swap out to the 25mm spherical. Now everything is in frame, but you run around turning off lights and putting up flags and even wide open on the 25mm the you can clearly make out who enters the door. The director is not pleased. Here comes the anamorphic to save the day. You 50mm anamorphic lens will do everything that needs to be done. It will get the correct framing with the correct amount of depth of field.

November 4, 2013 at 11:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Charles

Also, use a name and a website. Jesus. Do you know how much credibility you lose when you post these comments under anonymity? Who are you? What are your credentials? When you do this, no matter how founded or intelligent your comment might be, you get lost in the fray and it becomes white noise. Why not make your own video if everyone else is doing it wrong? Why not show other people how to do it right? Get off your fat ass and ADD to the community. Stop being a spectator and be a player. It's as easy as making your "Anamorphic 101" opus tutorial. Get out, do it, and post it here. If you put half as much effort into it as you do hating on free shit in these comments it will be pretty good.

November 4, 2013 at 12:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

5
Reply

Credibility is only lost when you say something is something its not, i have the intelligence to not put out opinion as fact or a kick start guide.

November 4, 2013 at 3:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Anthony Brown

Passive agressive response. Stop taking such vague potshots. What in my anamorphic video is "false" in your mind?

November 4, 2013 at 4:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

How are my posts vague? i am responding to your "potshots" Luke, your going on about "get off your fat ass" "hating shit", show your credentials and now this. I even need a web site to comment according to you. Try and be a professional, criticism is going to be high for you when you put yourself out there (which is commendable), have 50K followers and get your "tutorial" posted on to a site like this. Everything is just wrong about your video Luke, you go on for 15 mins, you rate things, you don't show true examples, you stretch the image and go on about flares.

Tell you what, why don't you point out what you are teaching people and we will go from there.

November 4, 2013 at 4:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Anthony Brown

"Stating opinion as fact". That's vague. What exactly are you referring to?

My anamorphic video was meant as a guide to show resulting aspect ratios when pairing different lenses with different recording formats in a normal 16x9 final output. I led up to this with a VERY brief overview (for someone just starting out) of where they could rent out lenses to use them on their own (only way to truly learn anamorphic). LIKE I told you on YouTube:

Step 1 - Go out and get test shots using a 1.33x, a 1.5x, and a 2x on three different cameras. A GH2, a ML raw hacked Mark III (resolution 1920x1288) and the RED Epic in ana mode.

Step 2 - De squeeze in post and SCALE down to a 1920x1080 window.

Step 3 - Post those results along side what I show in the video.

Those aren't my "opinions" on the resulting aspect ratios. Those are facts. Simple math.

November 4, 2013 at 5:00PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Thats not vague, it's actually quite direct Luke, I'm not asking you to chase some rabbit down a hole here. We didn't have an exchange on youtube i think you are referring to someone else, my comment was just deleted.

You are now talking about what the final image will be once mastered as a project on a timeline and i can't fault you on that, it is basic math and not really relevant seeing as the magnification of the Anamorphic lens in conjunction with the project horizontal resolution directly dictates what the vertical resolution will be, no one needs you and your calculator taking up more of our lives in your 15 min video, there are SO many other things you could be talking about but you mostly waffle about flare, bokeh, and project resolution?.

Your opinions on anamorphic magnification are not what i am referring to. You are challenging me on my credentials and asking me to put out my own video and put you right blah blah blah, so i stated that i don't believe i am the right person to teach thousands of people and i have the right mind not to do what others do and put opinions out there as fact. Luke it is people like you that have lead to an anamorphic lens being all about Blur, Bokeh and flare and the main point of what they mean today and why they were created are just lost, you are just like the type of blogger that over popularised shallow depth of field and the 5D, the whole "i want more DOF' comments, wait, didn't you own a 5D? there is no lesson about cinematography coming from you, its gimmicks first and i think that is a waste of your time, talent and the following you have created.

November 4, 2013 at 5:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Anthony Brown

"Mostly" in your world means 10-15%? Again, I gave a (admittedly) generic overview about the characteristics of the format, ONLY to lead up to my main point...which was getting these calculations out there and on the screen. Now, we get to the center of your problem and why it's wrong (this is where it gets fun).

You say that "we" don't need your calculations taking up our time when it's such an easy thing to do. This is your main and only fault. "You" don't represent "we". "We" is the general collective of people that subscribe to my channel. YOU may not need it and that may very well be true. You are not the general collective.

I only make tutorials that would have helped myself as a beginner. When I first started becoming interested in anamorphic one of the more difficult concepts to grasp was the different squeeze factors. A video like this would have helped "2011 me" a LOT. Grasping such a simple concept would have helped me gain confidence to rent/try anamorphic and thus, sped up the entire learning process.

The video accomplished this. People with very little knowledge of the format now have a base. I would honestly suggest learning the rest on your own. Rent out some lenses, take the shots through post, and figure out the more advanced stuff on your own.

To call out the video and say that it's presenting false info just because YOU have no need for it is just ridiculous. Your accusations hold NO weight. You summed it up yourself, "you would be correct with your calculations but no one needs you and your calculator taking up all of that time". Talk about stating opinion as fact? Hypocritical much?

November 4, 2013 at 5:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Neumann in 9 via KO. Valiant effort by Brown but in the end, he had no defense.

November 4, 2013 at 5:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Im sorry Luke but are still plugging your video? as the creator of the video its kind of pathetic to stand there and say "its valid, its valid", Luke you didn't event use different examples, you are talking largely to your DSLR followers but include the Red and its 4:3 mode only for you to treat it like an old school DVX trying to achieve 16:9, would you seriously shoot anamorphic just to recreate what you have as standard in even an iPhone? and are you still thinking this is a competition? what are you 5? but more to the point you actually call yourself the winner, that must be the culture you are from, if your not a winner you must be a loser?.. Luke your not a winner or a loser here, we have different opinions, its just yours are being backed up with your own videos where you master bate over anamorphic flares and even use the same image to compare magnifications? Was you high?

I'm sorry but you're just bugged down in the specifics of your project timeline, we are talking about cinematography, i could care less what the editor has to do in order to work out what his project settings are, for me i just set the right setting on the my AC7 and shoot as if i had camera tape over my monitor, of course I've gone through post in order to do my job but I'm not the guy editing Luke, I'm the guy with the light meter

November 4, 2013 at 6:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Anthony Brown

I'm sorry but I have ZERO problem saying my video is valid when a troll says it isn't. "we are talking about cinematography, i could care less what the editor has to do in order to work out what his project settings are".

Again, for the last time. YOU are in the minority. Most people care. A lot of people shoot AND edit their own stuff, shocking as that may be to you.

November 4, 2013 at 6:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Not with a Red camera with hawks, thats mostly a rental item for most and most only rent for a larger project and that doesn't mean giant feature films, it can be a 12-15 min film going through all of the right stages, collaboration is the word I'm looking for.

Luke, take a pill and relax, you can swear, SHOUT and call me all the names you want. I gave links to my Facebook which in turn brings you to my twitter and youtube channel, a Troll doesn't do that. I posted the best to my abilities about Anamorphic lenses. I had the balls to not be a sheep, unfortunately you are surrounded by them. For example, you linked people to EOSHD's pdf, (i paid for that a while back, its great) but your followers are posting comments on YOUR video saying "avoid the PDF, i learned more watching Lukes video", how sad is that? you yourself say that you only scrapped the tip of the iceberg and we both respect the info in EOSHD's pdf that you linked to but your audience are obsessed like you about the symptoms of anamorphic and now regard his information as worthless and even worse are posting publicly to that fact. You see, you did that, you have the followers, you have the responsibility but you prat away about flares, seriously your like rabbit staring at headlights when it comes to your flare obsession.

You quite simply don't like the fact that i have an opinion. My first criticism of your video is that its missing the point of Anamorphic lenses, you do talk about flare, blur and bokeh, the symptoms of shooting with Anamorphic lenses, even great as they are, they are not the "BENEFITS" of shooting with a cumbersome Anamorphic adapter or an expensive Anamorphic lens that will have you missing turn arounds or make a dent in your budget for the sake of flare and blur! thats why its ridiculous you shot 1.33x in 4:3 mode, do you not get that??

And you tell me to go and "learn" about anamorphic...

November 4, 2013 at 6:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Anthony Brown

And people claim that no one knows how to write dialog anymore.

November 4, 2013 at 1:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
DLD

So please, simply tell us why and whats the difference between a circular lens an anamorhic. Do we get better resolution? Latitude? I love the look, for me it defines cinema. you wrote all those words but didn't tell us why or how others should explain in theory or whatever?? This could turn into a good, constructive conversation that actually expands some of our knowledge based on the teachings of this, other sites and specifically Mr. Neumanns. So to hold anyone's feet to the fire for not explaining their versions effectively maybe we can hold your feet to fire and you'll share some of your knowledge with us. This is what this site is for, constructive criticism, right? Let's see what you got.

November 4, 2013 at 2:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Anthony Marino

I am just putting something together for you.

November 4, 2013 at 5:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Anthony Brown

Sorry for the wait.

Hi Anthony, hey we have the same name ;0)

I know your post was meant more as a challenge or to “hold feet in a fire” but I don't want aggressive exchanges with a fellow Ant so hey i'll give it a go ;0)

First off have a watch of this, - http://filmmakeriq.com/lessons/the-changing-shape-of-cinema-the-history-... - it mentions Anamorphic in regards to the evolution of aspect ratio but the key element to draw from this is “why” it was created or more to the point why it was used or introduced in cinema in the first place.
Essentially it was in response to quite expensive and complicated multi camera/projection systems that were designed to bring wide aspect viewing and the resolving power to cover such a canvas to the cinema and bring audiences back, TV was booming and paying to see 4:3 black and white wasn’t good enough. Cinerama was created, a three camera setup with 27mm lenses on 6 perf film, the result was a 147 degree image being created with a 27mm vertical field of view (on 6 perf film), a comparison today on super35mm film/sensor is impossible to recreate, you would need a non fisheye lens at 5mm just to achieve a 136.2 degree of horizontal viewing space but of course this would still not deliver the vertical viewing angle as its just one lens and would look damn ugly in an over the shoulder shot, not to mention a beauty single or close up :0)

Key elements to take here are multiple cameras (more resolution) and a lens setup that stitched a wider shot together with out using an extreme wide angle lens.

The 1.66:1 ratio was being mimicked on the cheap but it didn’t deliver what the more expensive multi camera systems were delivering in terms of resolving power as they weren’t cropping the film and projecting it on a larger screen and nothing could could mimic the actual double field of view of Cinerama. In the pursuit of wide, affordable but crisp cinema, Anamorphic or Anamorphoscope was introduced to the cinematic world (it was actually created in the 1920s!). Watch Mr Hess's excellent video for the full history.

Now more to your questions. A regular “round” lens has a proportionate affect on both the horizontal and vertical angle of view, an Anamorphic lens distorts the image in only the horizontal direction, it actually opens up the field of the view of the lens in the direction it has the most impact on (Horizontally), you could now use compression and wide viewing angles at the same time! Even today that is only possible in a 3d environment but back then it was being done in real life with tech from the 1920s

So,

1st, you don't get more resolution, its more that you can now achieve the aspect ratio you want without sacrificing any resolution, which is the main point of these being used (in response to a 3 camera Cinerama setups) to say the opposite is to say that cropping an image is the normal thing to do, its not, its the cheapest thing to do and always has been, the pursuit of anamorphic was to avoid cropping the image but thats not to say high end films such as Skyfall which combine round lenses with a crop are doing so because of cost but because Roger Deakins preferred round lenses and there single angle of view and the 2.39:1 ratio for Bond, he's collaborating on that decision as an image choice. Essentially Anamorphic gives you more composition options.

2nd, you don’t get an increase in latitude, that really is a system requirement (film, sensor etc), what you do get though are stylised flares, seeing as a flare is going to be from a light source, technically you can extend the rolloff of the white point of the light source as it will be masked by a nice stylised flare but thats not to say that just controlling your exposure should be ignored or that you should go out of your way to induce a flare. You can put a flare filter or ¼ Hollywood filter in front of a round lens and get the same kind of highlight benefit, the West Wing did exactly that, a tv show that was shot on film but in the press room the lights would flare in a very similar way to a 2/3 inch broadcast camera (kind of square stars), but I think this was to best emulate what americans saw on there tv screens of the real press room and not really for the flare. In fact, in pursuit of the “film look” you should look into this, film has a high resolution and a nice highlight roll off, anamorphic could get you closer to these qualities on lesser systems.

3rd, Aspect ratio now is also a lens choice! Its not about how much you are going to throw away anymore, you can actually work shop the aspect ratio without losing any of the character the original lens gave you in terms of compression (where distances to objects seem to be shorter or more to a point faces seems more natural). Without anamorphic as an option you can only get certain wide shots with wide lenses which might not be appropriate for the story or the look. Focal length affects the relationship between the character and the audience, a long lens can seem like its spying on someone but as a round lens it might only allow a close up, with anamorphic you can have a close up but additional screen space.

Essentially, anamorphic lenses today, allow you to hold onto resolution, give you screen space back without asking you to change a lens and have a natural and not ugly flare characteristic that can add subjective style to a movie but also can help lower end camera systems mask some of there deficiency's, be that low resolving power or reduced latitude.

The cons are price, ease of use, contrast (flare can affect that), blur (sucks for compositing) and distortion (sometimes it looks nice though). Old anamorphic films were being projected through another anamorphic lens onto curved screens essentially cancelling out a lot of the distortion, the distortion this effect above adds to your footage is actually our reaction to how old anamorphic films look when not viewed on a curved screen (such as a computer monitor)

I hope that helped.

Kind Regards

Anthony Brown

November 4, 2013 at 6:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Anthony Brown

Wow. You're a scholar and thanks for your In depth reply. I was not challenging you negatively, I kinda figured you had it in you and I do hope there's no hard feeling between you and Luke. Between the two of you, this community can surely benefit from both your knowledge and passions. Plus you both seem like really nice fellows. But back to learning, yes I did see the History of aspect ratios a while back and it was amazing. Lol, I went on eBay and bought a projection lens (hypergonar) I think it's great. Waiting on my #1 diopter to get here so I'm learning and I'm becoming fractionated with it so far. So I really appreciate your insight as well as the others ;). Thanks Ant. Stay well

November 4, 2013 at 11:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Anthony Marino

We did thanks Anthony, moved the conversation to Facebook and resolved this debacle. Me Neumann is a stand up guy providing content for a wide demographic of camera users for free, he has to drip feed info as there is a wide spectrum of knowledge in his viewers and he has to cater to the larger group and bring them up to speed before he can bring out the good stuff!

November 5, 2013 at 6:26AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Anthony Brown

Charles and Anthony Brown are bang on about the descriptive usefulness of anamorphic lenses. Getting the CUs you want with the wider framing that isn't available with longer focal lengths of sphericals.

November 5, 2013 at 1:11PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

It's great that this is free, but this is an AE project that uses another plugin "CI Vignette" to work. I had to download it just to use the project.

http://www.creativeimpatience.com/vignette/

The real champion is the Creative Impatience and their free plugin for AE and Premiere. I'm not going to say Vashi is shamlessly ripping off a free plugin to promote themselves. (You could just download the plugin and figure it out in 5 seconds.). It's just funny what constitutes real effort.

November 3, 2013 at 6:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

Sathya...It's obvious you didn't actually go to my original post and read it. You could have learned that
Bart Walczak, the owner of Creative Impatience, is a friend of mine. You could have read I asked his
permission to include CI Vignette in VashiMorphic40 and he agreed. You could have then used his
download link and followed the workflow I created and provided.

http://vashivisuals.com/vashimorphic40-free-anamorphic-effects-project/

Next time, before you pass judgement on people...please take 30 seconds and get the facts right.

November 3, 2013 at 6:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Thanks for responding Vashi. First, please don't be offended. Most people want a plugin to solve everything and After Effects can do everything without any plugins. The tutorial in your original post explains clearly how to create the effect. What's funny is that you didn't even need CI's plugin (but did your friend a solid and used it anyway).

November 3, 2013 at 7:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Thanks Sathya...not offended, just wanted to be clear on my choices for the components of the project. Goal was to keep it free, simple and accurate to the 40mm Primo lens.

November 3, 2013 at 10:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Nice work on this and thanks for sharing! Interested to see how this pairs with that Vid-Atlantic Filter.

November 3, 2013 at 10:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Will give it shot with my Cinemorph filter Luke. On 5Dmkii (or full frame equivalent) the minimum focal length allowed is 80mm. I will use my Nikon 85mm 1.4 AIS and shoot some tests. I will have to tweak the Bezier Warp to get the right curvature...but I know how to do that now! Appreciate your comments.

November 3, 2013 at 11:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

I don't understand the negativity here, guys.

1. You didn't have to lift a finger for it to exist.
2. It's free.

Someone took the time to research, create, and walk you through how to use this tool. He made it available to you without asking for anything in return. I simply DO NOT get it.

November 3, 2013 at 8:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
avatar
V Renée
Nights & Weekends Editor
Writer/Director

It's just a barrel distortion plugin which you can already do without having to do install anything.
If you think the person is giving away out of the kindness of their heart you are a little naive.

It's being given away because:

1. it will drive traffic and awareness to their site
2. it's not worth anything so you can't sell it.

November 3, 2013 at 8:34PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Stewe

so what?

November 3, 2013 at 8:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Allen

She said she didn't get it, I explained. That is "what". Kapeesh?

November 3, 2013 at 9:11PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Stewe

My comment was rhetorical. Also, don't mistake my lack of cynicism for naiveté. Vashi's a good guy.

November 3, 2013 at 11:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
avatar
V Renée
Nights & Weekends Editor
Writer/Director

When can NFS implement user and comment ratings... The negativity in the comments section for every single article is becoming a joke - it seems to be the same people, again and again...

November 4, 2013 at 6:13PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Lloyd

What's with all the hate? The guy made a free plugin and NFS is just telling us of its existence. Nobody said this is the same as shooting anamorphic. It's a f*cking free plugin you can use to experiment and have some fun on a shortfilm. Where's the crime?

November 3, 2013 at 8:11PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
maghoxfr

What does anamorphic mean?

November 3, 2013 at 8:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Filthy Punt

That's funny.

November 3, 2013 at 9:49PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Mitch

Thanks for sharing the link and thanks to the creators! Funny thing is if I shot with a 40mm Primo I'd be trying to get rid of the distortion in post not add it haha! Still though - might come in useful! Cheers :)

November 3, 2013 at 8:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Kraig

thing is with some lenses to remove distortion they just streach out the edges unnaturally, example of that are some of sigma's wide angles probably 8-16mm a bit of distortion in the right places could make for a more natural image.

November 3, 2013 at 9:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Whispers

The only ones who should be up here are the SLR Magic and Letus crew. It's a fantastic plug-in for the money. You want something better go rent some hawks. :)

November 3, 2013 at 9:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Anthony Marino

*up set*

November 3, 2013 at 9:44PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Anthony Marino

Seems nice to me for those who'd like to use it. AND IT'S FREE!!! Thumbs up. Another creative tool!! And for FREE.

November 3, 2013 at 10:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

7
Reply

What some people fail to realize is that this effect was first used by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany. That's why so many people are hating on it.

November 4, 2013 at 12:26AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Dan

It always astonishes me how people see presets like this come out and jump on how it doesn't look identical to the thing it's supposed to emulate. Well duh. Of course it doesn't. The whole point of using it is that you didn't have the lenses you needed for the look to begin with. I'm not saying it's good or bad either way (I personally think it's a silly thing to use) but for some it's a fun effect.

November 4, 2013 at 12:42AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Jared

Here's some very casually shot SLR Magic Anamorphic adapter footage from last friday's meetup in LA.
https://vimeo.com/78386964

November 4, 2013 at 1:34AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
alan

The main mode of this is to simulate a 'film' look, correct?
Any other uses?

November 4, 2013 at 6:46AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply

no, it's to simulate anamorphic barrel distortion. you can use anamorphic lenses on digital or film cameras.

November 4, 2013 at 7:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Allen

So essentially this makes it look like a low quality anamorphic lens without flairing lol

November 4, 2013 at 8:20AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Vlad

Honestly guys, i tried but cannot understand the complaints... For god's sake, Vashi has shared this tip for FREE and i've being using this procedure for months now. It's a very good approach for people like me that can't afford Lomo's or Hawk anamorphic stuff. Thanks Vashi.

November 4, 2013 at 12:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Alex Roman

This is actually exactly what I too have been tinkering around with to replicate the odd way the anamorphics do their barrel-distortions. Allthough my way involved actually stretching the footage, then there's a reversed optics compensation, and then the results is squeezed back to the original size and cropped. I've tried to simplify that process using varipus forms of Warps. But nothing really worked. I'll probably try this version out when I get back home on monday. Because the main part, the barell distortion seems to replicate the effect quite well.

And wow... please don't feed the trollz... ;)

November 6, 2013 at 3:42AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Let me know how it works out for you. I battled for a couple weeks to get the right lens distortion without resizing. Bezier Warp was the most accurate and least destructive method i could find for VashiMorphic40.

November 6, 2013 at 2:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

I fukin love filmconvert

November 8, 2013 at 9:40AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Natt

По моему мнению Вы допускаете ошибку.
Предлагаю это обсудить.

March 29, 2014 at 6:01AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

hi there!!!!

i can not used the app in cs4. could you help me or i need the new version of after effects... i got a 32 bit notebook, i can not install the new version...
and i want to try it!! help me. thanxxx

June 15, 2014 at 3:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
fer