@3POINT I was having trouble with GoogleDrive, so trying a different method. This should work, providing you with a download. This comes from my "HighTail" file transfer account. if you encounter any difficulty, please let me know. https://spaces.hightail.com/receive/UCvyYDCH1z/TGVuc2xlbnNAbGVua2F1Zm1hbi5jb20=

Okay, I could download your sample and have following conclusion:

Your file is 3840x2160p24 and is recognised by Vegas as normal PAR 1.0 , but due to the conversion of the anamorphic lens it should be PAR 1.333. When setting Vegas project settings to PAR 1.333 AND ALSO Stretch the event in Pan/crop, I got the correct Aspect Ratio.

and

Result after rendering with Voukoder:

The only problem I have, is that your footage doesn't look like UHD but rather looks like normal HD. Is this lost of details due to the anamorphic lens?

@Former user I can't leave the de-squeeze up to YouTube, as often, the client, when there is one, will be looking at the actual file, and not seeing it on YT.

@3POINT No, actually, the lenses are quite sharp. Some of the lost detail was due to an experiment I was doing. I was focused on the close distance (the trees). The purpose of doing this was to imagine a person in the foreground, talking to the camera, and I was actually hoping the background would go further out of focus with some nice bokeh. I couldn't judge what the background was doing very well, as i was only viewing through the rather small LCD screen. Next time I try this will be with my 5.5" monitor mounted on camera, and f-stop opened up even further. Some reviewers of this lens model (Sirui 35mm 1.8 Anamorphic 133 ) actually felt the lens was "too sharp" and not looking like a typical anamorphic lens. That was my first time taking the lens out. I do have other clips that are much sharper, but I wanted to post one with some motion in it.

Another factor in sharpness is that this was shot in Canon WideDR and ungraded, which produces an image that is a bit flat and not very sharp. They sharpen up very well in post and the contrast is quite good after post.

Okay, could you replicate and render according my settings?

Working on that now. Did you have a chance to look at that YT video that advocated widening the horizontal? There was a certain logic to what he was saying. Guess it would take some "pixel peeping" to verify. Here it is again:

@3POINT No, that doesn't give me the same result. Produces a taller image, and doesn't have the "anamorphic look." When I put in the 4096x2160, I still have to pull in the 2 sides, and the image gets taller, and the figures walking look stretched. I'm liking where we were with yesterday's numbers. Magix HEVC 5104x1688.

@Former user I can't leave the de-squeeze up to YouTube, as often, the client, when there is one, will be looking at the actual file, and not seeing it on YT.

It's a specification standard, everything should read the PAR, no matter if it's a video editor, a video player, a tv, youtube, vimeo. I checked this myself and found to be true, except for one video player, gopro player, but it's likely a special case, meant for gopro video which may only come in square pixels.

I do think Vegas is overly picky though, when you were confused about your resolution and thought the desqueezed resolution was 5107x2160, I tried with an anamorphic 3840x2160 par 1.33, outputting to square pixels(5107x2160) using Resolve and it created the file fine, but Vegas either crashes or refused to encode using native encoder or voukoder, I'd imagine if you encoder to HEVC 5108x2160 would work in this example, just keep to divisible by 2, unless with the new decoder Vegas has taken a step back, and now divisible by 4 which I think was the case for the old Legacy AVC decoder.

IMO adding extra pixels doesn't add extra quality.

I tried with 5108x2160 and it encodes fine using MagixHEVC, so for your width resolution try with a number divisible by 2, and if that doesn't work divisible by 4, in my 5108x example its divisible by 4.

His video in anamorphic, to understand think about 4096x2160 with a 1.33 anamorphic lens, but the camera doesn't know the lens in anamorphic nor can it adjust PAR afaik. The end result is the same, without the metadata.

@mark-y, @Former user UltraVista is correct. The pixels remain square. But the image has been "squeezed" optically, and not electronically.

And the optimal viewing device should stretch optically and not electronically, which doesn't exist, AFAIK. So the viewing device should have NOT the normal 16:9 AS with 3840x2160 square pixels but a 21:9 AS with 5040x2160 square pixels. (Or an 8k viewing device with 7680x4320 square pixels) Otherwise it would make no sense to stretch electronically by adding extra pixels when viewing on a standard 3840x2160 device.

@3POINT Perhaps not optimal, but any screen will work, but you'll have black top and bottom. I've also seen it done with white all around. Looks quite nice. Take a look at this guy's beautiful anamorphic video.

Of course you will have black borders on a standard 16:9 screen, but you will not have the advantage of the higher vertical resolution you recorded.

@3POINT Some people have been trying to "fake it," simply cropping the top and bottom to achieve the format. There was a whole school of experimenters playing with that. Look up the name Tito Ferrandas. Though he is young, he is kind of the "guru" of anamorphic, including lens mods, cropping, high end lenses. I've long loved the look. I started as a still photographer. Still am. I've owned at least 4 "panoramic shaped" cameras, over the years. Widelux, Fuji Xpan, Fuji 6xI7, Peter Gowland custom wide field. was really happy to find I could do this with video. If you watch some of Tito Ferradans' posts on YouTube and on his channel, there's a wealth of info there. This is one of many:

There is much more to the anamorphic "look" than the image ratio. It's the lens flares, the oval bokeh highlights, etc.

My biggest problem was solved when you recommended I export using HEVC (and Voukoder). If you recall, my original problem was that it wouldn't render.

@3POINT Some people have been trying to "fake it," simply cropping the top and bottom to achieve the format. There was a whole school of experimenters playing with that. Look up the name Tito Ferrandas. Though he is young, he is kind of the "guru" of anamorphic, including lens mods, cropping, high end lenses. I've long loved the look. I started as a still photographer. Still am. I've owned at least 4 "panoramic shaped" cameras, over the years. Widelux, Fuji Xpan, Fuji 6xI7, Peter Gowland custom wide field. was really happy to find I could do this with video. If you watch some of Tito Ferradans' posts on YouTube and on his channel, there's a wealth of info there. This is one of many:

There is much more to the anamorphic "look" than the image ratio. It's the lens flares, the oval bokeh highlights, etc.

My biggest problem was solved when you recommended I export using HEVC (and Voukoder). If you recall, my original problem was that it wouldn't render.

Yes, that's the way I do/did it, fake 21:9 by cropping a 16:9 recording. I know that for a "film" or "anamorphic" look there's more needed than only the aspect ratio, as you said lens flares, the bokeh and most importantly the framerate of film. I'm not that purist. I like a more natural look with high framerates (as you could see in my sample which was 2160p50).

Now that we could solve your rendering issue, I'm still wondering on what device you watch those hires renderings? My 4kTV doesn't accept.

There is much more to the anamorphic "look" than the image ratio. It's the lens flares, the oval bokeh highlights, etc.

@Len Kaufman Do you get the characteristic vertical bias focus breathing with that lens, like this?

@Len Kaufman

Thanks! for the detailed explanation; now I understand your question.

• Vegas is misreporting your media format properties, which is not uncommon.

My solution is to:

• Set PAR 1.333 in Media Properties,
• and 3840x1620 in Project Properties.
• 2160/1.333=1620
• 

I hope this is helpful, and Best of the Holiday Season!

@Len Kaufman 

Thank you to all who responded. Due to the proliferation of many new "reasonably inexpensive" anamorphic lenses and adapters, and a very much renewed interest in all things anamorphic, I think Magix might want to consider some additional presets. I'm sure this topic will come up again.

@Former user I haven't had/used the lenses long enough to run into focus breathing. One thing some reviewers have mentioned is "mumps." This refers to slightly different ratios at different focus points. Hopefully, I'll be immune. LOL Just ordered some closeup attachments, as closeup focus is not a strong point of these lenses. This guy posted a review of the lens, with lots of sample clips. He does mention focus breathing.