How to mod any lens for anamorphic bokeh | Hacker News Reader

How to mod any lens for anamorphic bokeh

vmoldo.com

60 pointsvmoldo33 comments

I don't want to start a "who did it first" because I don't know for sure, but given when this was posted, it feels wrong not to mention Tito Ferradans [0][1] at all. From what I can tell, he is the one who really popularised this mod and if you're interested in getting that anamorphic look on a (relative) budget, his channel is full of great tips.

[0] https://www.tferradans.com/ [1] https://youtube.com/c/AnamorphicOnABudget

I modded a vintage Leica Summicron about 10 years ago using some metal a colleague machined to try the effect mentioned in the article. Did it have anamorphic bokeh? Sure. But it never gave me the feel of anamorphic, as the look is all in the desqueeze. Since it sat in between weirdo spherical and anamorphic, I just never found much use for it.

Yeah, my results doesn't feel anamorphic as well :(

To be fair we were doing this in the 80s with crappy M42 lenses and slightly less scientific method. Pentax 50mm one that came with your GDR clunker could be pushed pretty hard if you were on a budget.

The main reason for this though was to make the bokeh look like it was from a more expensive lens.

Adding shaped apertures for custom bokeh does not an anamorphic make. Nor is Tito the first to discover such a basic and old technique

Checkout my results![1]

I've used this technique sometime ago, with an minolta srt-101. The lens it came with (55mm f1.8) had the elements screwable by hand, making the mod easy.

[1]https://troialog.tumblr.com/

the most noticeable I made I think was this one

https://64.media.tumblr.com/c4a110c4bf7013f082e81b3561bf6791...

That is an excellent example of the cinematic effect.

Very nice photos. As a friend said, "There's something about film...."

Stay young.

Here’s a ready to buy version of the mod and the product page includes before and after comparison pictures: https://www.vid-atlantic.com/products/cinemorph

That product is the real deal - actual anamorphic lens, not the same as the bokeh mod.

Edit: I mixed this up with the iPhone 14 lens attachment. (Which is the real thing.)

“ Anamorphic lens looks, without using an Anamorphic lens. Also known as Anamorfake or Anamorfaux!”

This is a really smart idea beautifully implemented so it can offer a great deal of practical use. Awesome post.

It will look similar to an anamorphic lens, but not exactly like it. The lens flares will be different for instance, and the color fringing, too. But it's pretty close to the real thing.

Not sure why you'd want an oval aperture on a lens... but if you wanted the thinnest possible light blocking area while maintaining material strength, could you make a thicker print which tapers down to a thin opening at the edges of the aperture?

Oval faces are considered more attractive.

> Not sure why you'd want an oval aperture on a lens...

The article says: “to produce the type of anamorphic boke you can see in the movies”.

Anamorphic lenses used in cinema compressed the light horizontally to squeeze a wider aspect ratio onto a narrower strip of film.

It's funny that we chase what amounts to an (unfortunate?) artifact that a normally round aperture becomes oval.

An actual anamorphic lens on a 35mm camera body would be interesting as you would actually also get the wider aspect ratio. I imagine they either do not exist or that they would be prohibitively expensive — thus this "hack" (and I use the term with fondness).

Edit: I see there are anamorphic lenses in the $600 to $1200 or so range on Amazon. Kind of annoying I suppose to have to stretch everything in post.

Anamorphic lenses do exist; some are indeed very expensive, but there are "affordable" ones too (only slightly more expensive than regular lenses).

https://www.diyphotography.net/the-smallest-full-frame-anamo...

Just to be comprehensive, anamorphic lens flare[1] is substantially different than that of a normal lens too. The title's specificity of "anamorphic bokeh" is correct, but it's important, like you pointed out, to let the audience know that there are several components to the "anamorphic look" of which bokeh is one and squeezing another.

You can see a hint of lens flare in the final example image and it's what I'd expect from a normal lens. This ultimately is a creative decision, but a mix of anamorphic bokeh and normal lens flair may not meet viewers' expectations depending on the execution.

1. See Abrams and Mindel's 2009 Star Trek(&c) as an example of anamorphic lens flare https://www.businessinsider.com/why-star-trek-has-so-much-le...

That is a funny spelling mistake

Yes, you could, but, from article:

> Also, I have to say that I didn’t notice a significant sharpness difference between 0.1mm and 2mm disks. I usually aim for a thickness of around 0.33mm (or 2/3 printing layers) This will produce plastic disks that are firm, thin, and a bit flexible.

Nice, but when can we do this in our phones?!

Since regular bokeh on smartphones is usually emulated (portrait mode), if you want comparable amount of anamorphic bokeh then software is the way to go too.

Searching for anamorphic bokeh in an app store returns some results.

https://www.shopmoment.com/products/anamorphic-lens

This is "better" than the mod, this is a real anamorphic lens.

If it is a real anamorphic lens I assume you will need to digitally stretch the resulting images horizontally. In my admittedly brief skim of your link I saw no mention of it.

Edit: found the same lens on Amazon, read some reviews. Yep, it's the real glass. Images need to be stretched to 'normalize". One reviewer: "Yes you’ll need the moment app to desqueeze the image." (Of course can probably do the same in any image editing app.)

Not quite. This is kind of complimentary to the anamorfake techniques in that it squeezes the image, which the lens mods don't do, but doesn't produce oval bokeh.

I got one on Ali Express for ~30 USD and I think it's pretty much the same as the more expensive ones elsewhere.

If the bokeh was circular before, how can it not be oval after you flatten the image?

Good point, I should have said vertical oval bokeh. Desqueezing will produce slightly horizontal oval bokeh, but the tiny bokeh balls that smartphones are capable of being ~25% wider (not 33% as advertised) is going to make fuckall difference. For example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV-GGmTiyyc

And then people complain about how ugly they are compared to the people in movies, YouTube and other social media. The answer is that it's all fake.

How does that relate to the topic?

Going by their otherwise good comment history, I'd guess they're not in top form right now.

I've posted worse comments lying in bed tired, half-dead, and down with a cold.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com