View Full Version : To Anamorphic or Not?
Hello,
I am going to be buying a DVX100A sometime in the next couple of weeks. I am debating on whether to get an anamorphic adaptor or not. I will be doing short films with the hope of them getting them into festivals. Some festivals require the shorts to be blown up onto film.
Has anyone seen what a film that was shot in 4:3 (then cropped to 16:9 in post) looks like after it was blown up?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
GuRamalho
02-17-2005, 10:37 PM
Perfect because I was going to send a post with exact same question… I am on the same situation, shooting a short with a slight possibility of transfering. On www.dvfilm.com they say you MUST have the adaptor to transfer DVX material to film, Is it total true? ???
Barry_Green
02-18-2005, 12:28 AM
It's not a must, no... but it sure can help. The anamorphic is difficult and limiting to use, but when used properly it gives you about 35% more resolution. (of course, used improperly it'll make your shots look WORSE than if you hadn't used it at all!)
I've blown up mini35/letterbox footage, but that's not a fair comparison. I haven't seen straight letterboxed footage blown up. I know Jan Crittenden has, as has anyone who watched "November" at Sundance. Hopefully someone who has seen it will write in with their observations.
acoreasc
02-18-2005, 07:42 PM
November was actually shown off an HD master at Sundance - I understand it looks amazing
geffy
02-19-2005, 11:22 PM
have you considered maybe it would be better buying a camera that is native 16:9, or hdv it would probably be better, 100s days are numbered see my thread
http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX2/YaBB.pl?board=HDV;action=display;num=1108567176
Jan_Crittenden
02-20-2005, 05:50 AM
have you considered maybe it would be better buying a camera that is native 16:9, or hdv it would probably be better, 100s days are numbered see my thread
http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX2/YaBB.pl?board=HDV;action=display;num=1108567176
Actually the poll is pretty well slanted to purchase the DVX either now or in the next three months. 18 now, 16 in three months, 8 buying an older DVX ,16 waiting to buy an old DVX in three months, 16 waiting for the DVX100B, and this number, 76, is larger than the 7 folks that are going to buy a non Panasonic product and then there are 28 hopefuls that think that marrying in to wealth is possible. Lastly, you have the 17 people that are looking for a non existant HDV product from Panasonic, so I am assuming that they voted here as that was the Panasonic HD choice. We will be offering an DVCPROHD product, nothing like HDV.
So the survey basically says that buying a DVX100A still makes sense and it really is a matter of whether you buy it now or you wait. There is incentive for those in the US to buy now, a $300 rebate.
As far as the Anamorphic question, yes it does add resolution, but it also carries with it an additional burden. It front weights the camera and it takes more care in the focus arena. Yes November was shot without the anamorphic, and yest it was upconverted to HD, frankly when I saw it at Sundance, I thought it looked great. When I saw Murderball and Rock school, and Steve Bucemi's film Lonesome Jim, it too looked great. It doesn't take an anamorphic adapter to make a great film, it takes talent and a great story to make a great film.
Hope that helps,
Jan
David Jimerson
02-20-2005, 08:53 AM
have you considered maybe it would be better buying a camera that is native 16:9, or hdv it would probably be better, 100s days are numbered see my thread
http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX2/YaBB.pl?board=HDV;action=display;num=1108567176
As unscientific is that poll is, it still doesn't support your conclusion . . .
Antoine_Fabi
02-21-2005, 09:47 AM
I see a huge improvement when using the anamorphic adaptor.
Yes it is a little limitating, but NO, it is not "that" hard to work with.
the only limitation is that you cannot use full zoom with open iris, but other than that, it worth every penny, and it worth the 2 second more for checking your max zoom/aperture.
For sure, i would prefer not using the anamorphic adaptor, but the sqeeze mode has less resolution, and the difference is important to me.
Overall, i really like the anamorphic adaptor, it produces razor sharp images.
Soulfabric
02-21-2005, 11:45 PM
For sure, i would prefer not using the anamorphic adaptor, but the sqeeze mode has less resolution, and the difference is important to me.
Overall, i really like the anamorphic adaptor, it produces razor sharp images.
It sounds like what Jan might be saying is that November was shot in standard 4x3 and then letterboxed or converted to a 16x9 image in post. This is a really important issue for me as well. I'm starting to shoot a doc and I want it to be anamorphic, but I don't want the weight, conspicuousness, price, or hassle of using the adapter. Perhaps I can still get a beautifully projected anamorphic image w/o one - especially if I can master on Digi-Beta or HD...
Thanks for your postings all.
Barry_Green
02-22-2005, 12:13 AM
You are correct, "November" was shot in 4:3 and masked/converted to 16x9 for projection.
MovieSwede
02-22-2005, 01:59 AM
have you considered maybe it would be better buying a camera that is native 16:9, or hdv it would probably be better, 100s days are numbered see my thread
http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX2/YaBB.pl?board=HDV;action=display;num =1108567176
Well its more easy to upconvert SD to HDTV in post than it is to give HDV extra latitude in post.
And the anamorf isnt so hard to use that everyone is telling. It take some time to learn to use it correct, but I use it all the time now.
seanh420
02-23-2005, 03:14 PM
would it be possible to get a "grab" of november posted just to see what it looks like? i couldnt find the movie on amazon to buy.
Bokes
02-24-2005, 10:53 AM
I have used the adapter. I had no trouble with focus. My main complaint was slight distortion on the sides.
I am curious as to why the DP's on films like "November" and "Lonesome Jim" chose not to use it. I'm sure they knew the films would get Blow-ups.
Yea, Jan, Barry, why was the Anamorphic not used in the above mentioned films? Would there have been a "good" (and maybe not so obvious reason) why not? ???
Barry_Green
02-24-2005, 10:55 PM
There are definitely good reasons not to use it -- it slows you down, and it limits the type of shots you can get -- no full-zoomed-in, tight-focus headshots in low light, for example.
Filtering and matte-boxing are also more difficult with the anamorphic installed.
When used properly it's a good thing, but there are many tradeoffs associated with it.
There are definitely good reasons not to use it -- it slows you down, and it limits the type of shots you can get -- no full-zoomed-in, tight-focus headshots in low light, for example.
Filtering and matte-boxing are also more difficult with the anamorphic installed.
When used properly it's a good thing, but there are many tradeoffs associated with it.
OK - I know you've had to say all of this at least a THOUSAND times to everyone! (me espeically) but thanks again! Some of us just need a lot of reinforcement.
goober542
02-25-2005, 03:17 PM
Use it for establishing shots, its will help you there. Its a tool just like everything else, it has its place and time. If your not going to do a film out I say trash it though.
*If your not going to do a film out I say trash it though.
Wouldn't the increased resolution be useful even if not outputting to film?
I can see lower quality resolution on a cheap TV screen.
Isn't there some justification to using the Anamorphic adapter to "set up" a series of really good scenes with higher resolution punch that can be used intermittently in documentary work? Place these in with some high res. SLR stills, and some standard squeeze mode shots and you could concievably get a good blend of shots. Or is this wishfull thinking on my part?