Need Anamorphic Lenses For Your 16:9 Sensor? P+S Technik Has You Covered

Anamorphic Lenses with a 2x squeeze are generally designed for a 4:3 image system -- but most of us are shooting on 16:9 sensors.

P+S Technik is bringing out a couple spherical anamorphic lenses that will be an attractive option for shooters that can't afford Zeiss or Cookes.

Here's some test footage from the PS-Zoom 35-70mm CS (Cinemascope):

Video is no longer available: vimeo.com/124429307


No Film School's complete coverage of NAB 2015 is brought to you by Color Grading Central, Shutterstock, Blackmagic Design, and Bigstock.

No Film School's coverage of NAB is brought to you by Color Grading Central, Shutterstock, Blackmagic Design, and Bigstock

Your Comment

21 Comments

Looks interesting - been thinking about getting something like this for a while. We shot our feature 16:9 with frames drawn on our monitor for a 2:35 crop (it's all epic exteriors, and that frame just... fits... - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wjj9pGH01s) - but something like this would do the job much better.

Only problem - sweet baby Moses in a basket, that's a crap test video. If they ever need any UK testers... ahem... *cough*...

April 14, 2015 at 3:12PM, Edited April 14, 3:12PM

0
Reply
avatar
Alex Richardson
Director
3865

yea, that's hardly test footage... It was probably an afterthought, on the way out the door for NAB. I'd rather have something than nothing, but I'd be happy to buy one at a discount or possibly a gift to do my own tests :)

April 14, 2015 at 9:49PM, Edited April 14, 9:49PM

0
Reply
J.M. Anderson
Director of Photography
558

Love the potential here.

April 14, 2015 at 3:25PM, Edited April 14, 3:25PM

5
Reply
Jeff Dwyer
Director / Editor
88

Looks promising. Any word on a price point?

April 14, 2015 at 3:35PM

0
Reply
avatar
Zia Kalyan
Cinematographer
131

How wide is a 35mm anamorphic frame compared to 16x9 frame?

April 14, 2015 at 5:45PM

0
Reply
avatar
Vincent Gortho
none
1322

This lens has a 1.45 squeeze. so a 35 anamorphic lens with that squeeze will give you an angle of view roughly equal to a 24mm spherical lens.

You can't really talk about it in terms of aspect ratios like you have above. That only affects the shape of your frame not how wide your angle of view is. If you are shooting 16x9 (or 2.39:1 or 1.85:1 or any aspect ratio) that doesn't affect you angle of view. It's never going to change even if you go from a 18mm to a 200mm your aspect ratio won't change. You need to think in terms of angle of view. That is the main thing that will change going from spherical to anamorphic regardless of your aspect ratio or sensor shape.

April 15, 2015 at 1:08PM

0
Reply
avatar
NO Name
1st. Assistant Camera
470

There could be 10000000 anamorphic lenses in the store, but what I need is a good price.

April 14, 2015 at 6:46PM, Edited April 14, 6:46PM

0
Reply
avatar
Edgar More
All
1293

No word on pricing and availability? That seems to be part of their selling point – that they're assumed to be cheaper than their competition.
Also, a 1.45x factor is pretty interesting. Usually you see either 1.33x or 2x. This sounds like it might work even better with the GH4's 4K photo mode at a 3:2 aspect ratio; there would be even less wasted space that way. (Of course, it's pretty nice to have some real buffer area at the sides of the frame – something most video cameras have lacked.)

April 14, 2015 at 7:02PM

5
Reply

No offence, but journalism 101: Who, what, when, where, why, how?
Who can use this? Sony A7s?
What will the cost be?
When will it be available?
Where can it be purchased?
Why didn't you prepare these basic questions before speaking to this man?
How cna we find out more (nothing on their website)?

April 14, 2015 at 7:30PM

0
Reply
avatar
Scott Maclean
Photo/video Enthusiast
89

I don't want to play the journalism teacher role but you've failed the journalism 101 test. the correct answers would be:

who: p+s technik
what: anamorphic zoom lenses
when: april 14 2015
where: NAB
why: the current anamorphic lenses cover a 4:3 sensor
how: they engineered it to a squeeze factor of 1,45 and made it specifically to cover 16:9 sensors with an anamorphic front element to keep the "anamorphic" flare look

April 15, 2015 at 2:26AM

0
Reply
Fernando Mamede
director/dp
183

Wanted to like this so badly! Then saw the test video..sigh.

April 14, 2015 at 8:15PM, Edited April 14, 8:15PM

0
Reply

Guys, I'm really not trying to troll or anything, but the coverage of your correspondent to NAB is just sub-par, in pretty much every single piece. I never expected this from you. Just take a look at News Shooter coverage, for example.
Find out the details about the product before, ask the right, informed questions, essentially - don't be a human mic stand. At least he didn't end with "Right on, right on" this time.
I don't say you owe us anything, but I bet since you're invested this much - you might be willing to re-asses in order to deliver good coverage. Thank you for your effort.

April 15, 2015 at 1:14AM, Edited April 15, 1:14AM

0
Reply
Gleb Volkov
Director of Photography
485

Yep and it's NAB, there are well lit spots everywhere, do your interviews in the light part of the stand, not the shadows... it's seriously depressing. Typical case of "let's get it out there ASAP" instead of spending 10 minutes on preparation, then again they are obviously just beginners who are trying.

April 15, 2015 at 1:42AM

0
Reply
avatar
Mark Paterson
Filmmaker
234

Hey Mark and Gleb, you guys know everything. Where can I find your NAB coverage so I can enjoy all the hard work you've put in to bringing all this news to those who couldn't make it to the convention. I really enjoyed your insightful criticism of this site, I bet the interviews you conducted at NAB and shared with the world are tough, fair and very enlightening. Please provide links!

April 15, 2015 at 10:25AM

4
Reply
Derek Olson
Directomatographeditor
714

Hey Derek. Didn't think it was necessary to clarify, but here you go anyway: It's perfectly OK to criticize something in a constructive way, without doing it yourself instead. You'll see many examples of it in real life: if an actor acts badly, you may say it is so, without necessarily being able to perform any better. If the scissors you're using are blunt, you may say "these are bad scissors" without the ability to solely manufacture the perfect scissors.
Now I can simply shut up and never watch another review on nofilmschool again, but I care enough about this website and community to make the effort and provide critique, in order, so I hope, to make it better for everyone, including you.

April 15, 2015 at 1:59PM

0
Reply
Gleb Volkov
Director of Photography
485

Nojournalism is expected from nofilmschool. *smug face off*

April 15, 2015 at 10:37AM

0
Reply
avatar
Terma Louis
Photographer / Cinematographer / Editor
1650

Any word on pricing?

April 15, 2015 at 7:22AM

0
Reply
avatar
Oliver Milne
Director/Cinematographer
203

$19000. seems pricy but you really can't beat it in PL especially if you have a 16:9 sensor and don't want to loose pixels on the side. Alexa classic owners are rejoicing everywhere. i'm on their waiting list.

April 16, 2015 at 1:13AM

0
Reply
avatar
lars lindstrom
Director of Photography
88

What about the bokeh, the fokkin' flares. Gimme muh flares!!!111

April 15, 2015 at 9:03AM

0
Reply
avatar
Terma Louis
Photographer / Cinematographer / Editor
1650

I like that look, it's a nice subtle look between 2.39:1 flat and 'scope. And it's great to have something that maximized 16:9 sensors... The 1.45x squeeze could be a little problematic on set. I don't know of any cameras or monitors that de-squeeze anamorphic other than 1.33x or 2x, so you'd have to view it 1:1 in post.

April 18, 2015 at 4:32AM, Edited April 18, 4:32AM

0
Reply
avatar
Daniel Mimura
DP, cam op, steadicam op
2358

Grab a Tokina 28-70 2.8 and SLR Anamophot. It works from 35mm to 70mm and it's a 2.8. There, similar or better image and I just saved you ten grand.

April 27, 2015 at 4:02PM, Edited April 27, 4:03PM

0
Reply
Geoff C. Bassett
Colorist
314