i took an early adopter gamble on the new Ulanzi 1.33x Anamorphic lens for the OP. I had a chance to test it out yesterday and have put a few shots together.
My initial impressions weren’t very positive. The lens seemed very soft and, most disappointingly, wasn’t a true 1.33x but more like a 1.2x, meaning the final ‘desqueezed’ image isn’t as widescreen as you’d expect.
However, after sorting through and editing all the footage today, I like it more. It definitely has character and the anamorphic flaring quite impressive for something so cheap.
I thought the image was sharp enough but transitioning the lens upward didn't look that smooth. Also I didn't mind that type of lens flare. Thanks for sharing, I quite like it.
Montfrooij Posted at 1-31 00:58
I still struggle to find a good reason for these lenses.
Can you make a with and without comparison?
PS, the footage looks nice if you ask me.
The idea of anamorphic lenses is to give a wider field of view while preserving the characteristics of a longer focal length - avoiding the perspective distortions wide angle lenses tend to create.
As a by-product of their design they produce oval shaped bokeh and horizontal, linear lens flares. These characteristics have become associated with high-end film production and are desired by many videographers and film-makers.
Up until now, anamorphic lenses have been prohibitively expensive and / or very large and complicated.
Obviously, the OP sensor is too small to produce oval bokeh but the Ulanzi lens does produce very vivid flaring and a slightly wider field of view. A true 1.33x lens would allow a 2.35:1 cinemascope ratio to be obtained from the 16:9 sensor. Unfortunately, the Ulanzi (my copy at least) only makes an image about 1.2x wider horizontally, so a 20mm field of view instead of the usual 24mm. A subtle difference. The flares are the real selling point.
Montfrooij Posted at 1-31 00:58
I still struggle to find a good reason for these lenses.
Can you make a with and without comparison?
PS, the footage looks nice if you ask me.
I’ll see what I can do in terms of a before and after comparison. Thanks!
gazmat Posted at 1-31 03:35
The idea of anamorphic lenses is to give a wider field of view while preserving the characteristics of a longer focal length - avoiding the perspective distortions wide angle lenses tend to create.
As a by-product of their design they produce oval shaped bokeh and horizontal, linear lens flares. These characteristics have become associated with high-end film production and are desired by many videographers and film-makers.
Now I have not investigated them very well, but what is the 'real' difference with adding bars?
I got round to making a video comparing footage from the two new Ulanzi lenses for the Osmo Pocket: the OP4K Wide Angle and the OP-11 1.33x Anamorphic Lens.
Looking at field of view, there's not much difference between them. The OP4K is wider vertically but the horizontal field of view is pretty much the same for both lenses (about 20% wider than the standard Osmo Pocket lens). The OP-11 is certainly not a true 1.33x.
In terms of distortion, the OP4K Wide Angle is highly rectilinear, exhibiting almost no barrel distortion. The OP-11 Anamorphic on the other hand has noticeable barrel distortion - about 13% according to Ulanzi's website. The benefit of the anamorphic lens over the wide angle is that the OP-11 maintains the prespective of the Osmo Pocket's standard lens while giving a horizontal field of view equivalent to a wide angle lens. The OP4K exhibits all the perspective distortions you'd expect from a wide angle lens, such as objects in the centre of the frame appearing further away.
Sharpness is where the most noticeable differences can be seen. In terms of centre sharpness, both lenses are softer than the Osmo Pocket's standard lens but are acceptable. The anamorphic lens seems to maintain this level of sharpness across the whole frame, whereas the wide angle lens deteriorates significantly in the corners and edges, where the image is extremely soft and blurred.
The unique characteristic of the OP-11 Anamorphic are the distinctive horizontal blue lens flares which are produced when points of bright light are in the frame. These are easy to produce, vivid and attractive. it's worth noting that the blue lens coating on the OP-11 makes images considerably warmer than those taken with the standard lens or OP4K.
The OP4K Wide Angle Lens is a step up from the previous Ulanzi/Kase version which produced soft and distorted images. However, its poor corner and edge sharpness means it still can't compete with the Freewell offering. The lack of distortion and blurry edges might make it an interesting vlogging lens, though.
The OP-11 Anamorphic lens gives a unique look which I like more and more as I use it. The slight softness and warm colour cast are quite appealing. The flares are excellent and it does a great job of maintaining an even image across the frame. If you re looking to letterbox your footage it is a much better option than applying black bars to the normal wide-angle lens.
I got round to making a video comparing footage from the two new Ulanzi lenses for the Osmo Pocket: the OP4K Wide Angle and the OP-11 1.33x Anamorphic Lens.
Excellent comparisons and agree with your conclusion.
This anamorphic filter looks great! But since it's actually closer to 1.15x (as opposed to 1.33x), what is the best way/settings to desqueeze it in post? Any premiere pro users out there who have used this filter?
I made a test on Ulanzi Anamorphic lense X1.33 and the result is such a unsharp video as showed below. Both foreground and background were unsharp. Can someone tell me what was wrong?
lvl.3
Captain
Second Officer
First Officer
Core User of DJI
lvl.2
lvl.4
lvl.1
