4 ms·

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

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?

imtringued 3y ago
Oval faces are considered more attractive.
thih9 3y ago
> 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”. See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  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.
  - thih9 3y ago
    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-anamorphic-ever-sirui-saturn-review/ https://www.diyphotography.net/the-smallest-full-frame-anamo...
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    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-lens-flare-2015-11?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-star-trek-has-so-much-le...
- anArbitraryOne 3y ago
  That is a funny spelling mistake
yetihehe 3y ago
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.

imtringued 3y ago

Oval faces are considered more attractive.

thih9 3y ago

> 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”. See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format

JKCalhoun 3y ago
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.
- thih9 3y ago
  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-anamorphic-ever-sirui-saturn-review/ https://www.diyphotography.net/the-smallest-full-frame-anamo...
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  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-lens-flare-2015-11?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-star-trek-has-so-much-le...
anArbitraryOne 3y ago
That is a funny spelling mistake

yetihehe 3y ago

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.