Which focal length is considered as normal lens for Anamorphic aspect ratio?And also when an anomorphic lens is attached to a spherical lens,the focal length doubles.so can we consider 100mm as normal for cinemascope where as the 50mm is for spherical?what is th case in Block lenses?
Normal Lens
- Thread starter Kapil Raj
- Start date
David Mullen ASC
Active member
An anamorphic lenses sees twice as much horizontally as a spherical lens of the same focal length, so anamorphic lenses "behave" more like wider-angle lenses and one compensates by using longer lenses.
So a 50mm anamorphic seems like a semi-wide-angle lens although vertically it sees what a 50mm spherical lens sees. I don't know what "normal" really means but I believe that a 50mm anamorphic lens really replicates human perspective quite well because it has the wider peripheral view of human vision yet otherwise, has the same degree of vertical enlargement that a 50mm spherical lens creates, which is very natural-looking.
So a 50mm anamorphic seems like a semi-wide-angle lens although vertically it sees what a 50mm spherical lens sees. I don't know what "normal" really means but I believe that a 50mm anamorphic lens really replicates human perspective quite well because it has the wider peripheral view of human vision yet otherwise, has the same degree of vertical enlargement that a 50mm spherical lens creates, which is very natural-looking.
a "normal" focal length is the one, in a considered format, that gives the same angle of view as the human eye. There of course are some approximations, since the human eyes don't have a rectangular field of view and we have the ability of somehow "zoom" into our field of view. That's where brains take part of the game. This is actually why "modern" cinematography is more concerned about field of views that "esthetic" proportions, given by the gold number.
Anyway, the image obtained should, therefore, give to the spectaor the same perspective than if the real scen was before his eyes. The problem is that the relative distance beetween him and the screen here is taking a part too..
Considering one is supposed to watch the screen by the distance of the diagonal of the screen, as to have his whole field of view covered by the screen, and considering the human angle of view (about 37° horizontally) it is often considered that the "normal" focal length is about the diagonal of the format.
The lenses commonly used "approach" these values. In 35 mm, some directors like the 40, the 35 or even the 32 mm much better for the "normal" focal length
But the "normal" focal length only makes sense if you then watch the screen at this distance ! if you seat in the back of the theater, or on the front seats the perspective of the shot won't be so "normal" (and you'll get a pain in the neck - in the front seats -
)
Anyway, the image obtained should, therefore, give to the spectaor the same perspective than if the real scen was before his eyes. The problem is that the relative distance beetween him and the screen here is taking a part too..
Considering one is supposed to watch the screen by the distance of the diagonal of the screen, as to have his whole field of view covered by the screen, and considering the human angle of view (about 37° horizontally) it is often considered that the "normal" focal length is about the diagonal of the format.
The lenses commonly used "approach" these values. In 35 mm, some directors like the 40, the 35 or even the 32 mm much better for the "normal" focal length
But the "normal" focal length only makes sense if you then watch the screen at this distance ! if you seat in the back of the theater, or on the front seats the perspective of the shot won't be so "normal" (and you'll get a pain in the neck - in the front seats -
)Similar threads
Network Sponsors
