>>2963943>Does shooting with a 2.39:1 aspect ratio with a dslr look as good as using an anamorphic lens?I think you know the answer already, or this is bait. But I'll explain anyway.
It doesn't look the same because the lens construction between spherical and anamorphic are completely different, so various things change when shooting anamorphic:
1. out of focus areas are twisted in a rather un-natural (or perhaps cinematic, if you like, see pic related) way that is especially noticeable when you rack focus or move the camera. Anamorphic bokeh is also oblong rather than spherical, matching the oblong shape of the lens
2. spatial relationships change. think about it like this: we're shooting an MCU on a 40mm lens. With the spherical lens you will have to be at a different distance from the subject than on an anamorphic, thus changing how much and/or what of the background you see
3. optical aberrations: Lens flare for example looks very different on some anamorphic lenses compares to spherical; often with anamorphics you get those thin line flares across the screen (think for example of Escape From New York, shot on Super High Speed Panavision anamorphics). This also applies to other optical aberrations that 'hit' the two types of lens very differently.
TLDR: No, hard matting spherical lenses on a DSLR won't look remotely like anamorphic lenses. It will look like hard matted spherical lenses, which can also work fine.
