Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
What do you mean by "anamorphic"? I think I don't understand the word the way you are using it.
I mean here those attachments or primes which squeeze the width of a scene into a smaller aspect ratio. So that you go from a 16:9 or higher to a 4:3 or even 1:1 square. I am referring to images as typically shown in theaters. They may have very wide aspect ratios. But those images can still be of an actor's face or some other similarly small field of view. I'm thinking of scenes from the movie "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" where images of Lee van Cleef and Clint Eastwood were portrayed in tight close-ups while maintaining the background in perspective. It highlighted the sense of the sinister nature of that film. For this reason I don't think the aspect ratio of an image can be used exclusively to determine what is classified as panoramic.

Given the popularity of digital photography and now High-Definition TV, I predict that many still photographers will begin considering the use of anamorphic lenses, since those captured images can easily be processed to be viewed as required. Consequently, the standard formats of photographs will no longer be valid. Instead it will become more and more common to see "prints" with aspect ratios taking advantage of the HDTV screens and wide computer monitors so prevalent today. And furthermore, there will be a negotiation of the boundaries between analog and digital photography, where the components of each are used together in conjunction.

I hope that explains what I meant.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson