Please don't get me wrong, but I think this video emphasises the advantages more than the disadvantages. I use an anamorphic lens myself. As a disadvantage, you can see even in the video that although more pixels are used, the sharpness decreases significantly. The gain in light is partly lost again through the lens. The 30% that you gain in 16:9 images with black bars by stretching the 21:9 image is lost in IMAX sequences, because you lose 30% of the image information there. This can be seen well, for example, in the cut-off sky, if you compare the images see kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZsiCe5Sk3qe6omg.html with those of the anamorphic lens see kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZsiCe5Sk3qe6omg.html There may not be such important content there, but the image composition still looks different. Another disadvantage is that especially the edge sharpness decreases depending on the quality and size of the anamorphic lens (keyword chromatic aberration) and there is a geometrical (pincushion) distortion. An unmentioned advantage is that you can project a wider image at a shorter distance.

Will an oppo 203 do this for me on my epson 5050? (With an anamorphic lens of course)

Love your videos, and love your patient description of things. But one thing you didn’t mention that I think is important for people to understand is that the scope portion of the content is fixed on the imaging chip. The stretch you do doesn’t suddenly take those fixed number of pixels and have them occupy all that extra real estate with actual information. There’s serious data interpolation going on, so you still have the same original quantity of actual information. You just have additional pixel resolution, as opposed to source resolution. And those of course are two different things.

You incorrectly state, when using the lens on the imax section, that the only real compromise is that the image is stretched out. No the compromise is that you are cropping the top and bottom of the image any time the aspect ratio is not scope. That’s actually not a major compromise either. When Aquaman (or any other changing ratio movie) was shown in a non-imax theater they cropped the top and bottom just like you’ve shown here. This video seems to over complicate what is actually very simple with regards to anamorphic lenses. They allow you to utilize the entire 4K panel for scope provided you have a means of stretching the image vertically in the player or projector.

Terrific video. Necessary one. Well explained. BUT I still have a question...in this setup using an anamorphic lens do you no longer need to have remote in hand to switch between aspect ratios?d And what are a few of the best on the market you'd recommend for a JVC NX7? or Sony's just debuted 715 and 915?

What anamorphic lens do you recommend? The cheapest I could see $10K

How does an anamorphic lens work with older widescreen films NOT in a typical scope ratio? Like on 70mm movies that are displayed in 2.20:1 or 2.76:1 (2001 A Space Odyssey, Patton, West Side Story, Ben Hur, the Hateful Eight), does it just get stretched and reformatted to 2.39:1 or does it retain it's OAR with extra space on the sides or top? Same thing with the original 2.55:1 Cinemascope (Rebel Without a Cause, Bridge on the River Kwai, La La Land), does it actually stay in 2.55:1 when projected with a lens or does it get converted and distorted to another ratio?

whoever came up with the idea to switch formats during a movie is a very naughty boy

For 150”” what color can be the wall for the best 4K vision let me know please thank you for you info thanks again

If you have this setup on a 2.35.1 screen like you guys have at the end how much of the IMAX shot are you missing out on? Or just 16/9 content in general. I watch alot of both but not sure exactly what you are getting with just 16/9. I'd ideally want to use the full 2.35.1 at all times regardless

My projector doesn't have a v- stretch I heard there was some kind of video scalar I can get do you know anything about that or I can get it and how much it cost . thank you

Quick Question: Do you need a projector that has the ability to use the anamorphic screen ratio (like in the video when you click it to “A”), or can you just manually or permanently put on the anamorphic lens to stretch the 16:9 picture out. So basically what I am asking is, do I need both, the ability to click the anamorphic screen ration button in the projectors settings, and the anamorphic lens, or can it I just put the anamorphic lens in front of the 16:9 image and have it be stretched out? Let me know

Hi. Great video! I have a question. If I have a 4k projector and plan to watch a 1080p (Blu-Ray) anamorphic film (like, For a Few Dollars More), will I be losing pixels the same way I would lose in a 4k film if I use the built in projector zoom? Because the fact that the film is only 1080p means that maybe I won't lose pixels, because the projector chip has 4x the number of pixels of the 1080p film. Is my thought correct? Thank you

Great advantage, a very expensive solution but you pay for convenience

THE BATMAN 2022 is shot with anamorphic lenses with 2.39:1 I think and from the trailers the film looks awesome. Will IMAX do the film justice?

I have a 16:9 screen that is semi permanently masked to 2.40, and I use an ISCO anamorphic lens to watch scope movies. I can either leave the lens in place and scale 1.85 content to the same height, or remove the lens and zoom in. I prefer to leave it in place so the pixel density and image brightness remain the same for 1.85 content. I always watch 1.85 less wide than scope which is how it is intended. For IMAX content, I remove the lens and top and bottom masking, This way I see all aspects in correct relation to each other, so that IMAX and Scope have the biggest visual impact, as intended, and 4:3 and 1.85 are the smallest. 16:9 is a TV ratio, not really a movie aspect ratio (though some have been made in that ratio). The only movies that should be seen taller than scope are IMAX. If you zoom for scope, you are effectively moving 33% closer to the image, so the pixels are visually 33% larger, and the image is coarser than if you use an anamorphic lens with good scaling. With an A lens and scaling, the image is using more pixels to render the image (2 million more for 4K content, 0.5 million with Blu Ray) so transitions in diagonals and circles for example will be smoother. With a good lens the image isn't softer though may appear so in some cases due to more pixels and smoother transitions. When you compare zoomed with an A lens most people see an image improvement, and is why they spend money on the A lens, which can often be many thousands of dollars. Why spend more if the image is worse? Poor lenses such as early prismatic lenses without a 5th corrector element can only be focused on the horizontal so will appear softer with larger resolution projectors. Depending in the type of lens, will determine if there is light gain or not. For example, a horizontal expansion lens may not necessarily give an increase in brightness - it depends on where the projector is in it's zoom range before you add the lens. I have seen set ups with those lenses that have dropped the measured lumens at the screen by a little or remained the same. The only lens that guarantee an increase are the vertical compression lenses (like Panamorph DCR lenses) which can add above 30% (as much as 38%) as I recall.

Good video. Note about safe zone and not losing important content was new information to me, but i have doubts that all directors conform to this rule. Wouldnt it be better to have an option in software to automatically squeeze the narrow segments so that parts of the movie would have black bars on the sides when projected on wide screen? The source material was intended to be played on 16x9 screeen, thats why there is letterboxing in wide segments.

Question: You have to manually put on the anamorphic lens attachment before the movie, and you have to manually detach after usage for normal 16:9 content again ?

We’re can I get a anamorphic lends for a optima UHD 60 projector? No to expensive

I am yet to enter the world of projection screens but I sure hope the cost comes down on these lenses when I do :-)

I think the first company to produce a really good cheap lens will take over the market I wish I had all that money to get one I would do it in a heart beat but sadly I don't I'm hopeing some day one anamorphic lens will come out for a good price

My problem is that lens is like 6k!? That's more than most people's pj!

You can't get extra resolution that isn't there on the source.

The info is good, sort of. The screen is NOT anamorphic , it is a 2:39:1. The thing in your hands is the anamorphic lens. No doubt you know all this but just didn't use the right terminology. With the projector in anamorphic mode, it squeezes the sides of the image in toward the centre and the lens then expands it back out. So when the projector is in A-mode and set to fill the height of the screen, the projected image does not fill the width. The A-lens, when positioned in front of the projector lens then unsqueezes the image to fill the width. You are correct (and this is one of the major advantages of using an A-lens setup with 2.39:1 movies) is that you make the projector use all of its available pixels, no masking is required. This increases resolution and brightness. So, in the main, you are right but explained it badly. What you should also mention is that when watching a regular 16:9 movie, that the A-lens is removed from in front of the projector, otherwise you will get a distorted picture.

Wouldn't it be better to get a 16:9 screen and just mask the letterbox bars with black velvet plates? When you watch IMAX content you can just remove the black velvet plates so you get the full IMAX image

How does the Anamorphic lens handles the Snyder Cut 4:3 aspect ratio?

Just get a square wall

All directors, cinematographers, studios and distributors should be told at the development stage of a cinematic feature: PICK ONE FORMAT AND STICK TO IT!!!

I now this is 3 years old but just came across it. At 4:30 I have to disagree, you can stretch the image over the chip to use all your light output but you can't gain resolution from the image. A movie at an aspect ratio of 2:39:1 is only 3840x1607 pixels, not full 4K. Using the anamorphic lens is not going to change that.

The best way to see a movie with variable format, is to use a projector with immediate automatic lens memory. Using the anamorphic lens in the 16: 9 image is deforming it. In the sample for being a landscape, it is not noticeable, but I would like to see your test in another scene with people or objects, these would be deformed at the sides.

stretching an imax image seems like the wrong thing to do

You shouldn't call it an anamorphic screen. It's a 2.35 screen. Not all 2.35 movies are anamorphic. Some use super 35, and do NOT use the anamorphic lens.

Hollywood directors are killing physical media with the 2.4 format 🤦

So youre distorting the image by stretching it out? What? Do you think thats what the filmmakers want you to do? When you go see Dark Knight in IMAX at a theater, you WANT to see the change in aspect ratio. It goes from 2:1 anamorphic to 1.43:1 IMAX depending on the scene. Thats part of the fun! Why would you change that? Now youre not only losing part of the image, youre also stretching it out and distorting it. WTF

Why would i spend all that money on a home theater just to end up watching a stretched movie picture? I would understand if it's the year 2005 and you just got your first HDTV and started watching stretched TV on it, but i think we're way past that now.

Wow, um... anamorphic doesn’t mean what you think it does and as far as a “cinematic feel” more than half the movies shown in cinemas are in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio so...

This is so dumb u cn get this by prisms glass wedge 5x7 inches u need to and wala u get the same effect for cough cough 32 bucks each

Anamorphic lenses should only be used with CinemaScope material - start to finish. Multi-aspect ratio films shall be viewed in 16:9. Any form of stretching or cropping is unacceptable.

stretch the picture.....no thanks

No this is nonsense - Unsqueezing a non squeezed movie is just distorting - DO Not Buy an Anamorphic lens to do this