Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    6,601
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by epsom salt View Post
    Wait what? People "don't get it" just because they see, not flaws, but different characteristics of the format than you? Easy Mitch, sounding just a tad bit elitist on that one...
    Sorry if it came off that way (well, only so sorry...). It's not that people see different characteristics, it's that they only see the relatively obvious ones of the "flaws" some of those lenses bring without recognizing the more subtle effects that were a part of why the format was developed in the first place. Some of the greatest anamorphic photography does not exhibit any field curvature, oval bokeh or horizontal flaring. Skilled DPs worked carefully to avoid these issues but still found great advantages in shooting in the format. The sense of depth and scale cannot be replicated with spherical lenses on an imager of the same size, because, well, math. So my elitism was to say that one should look beyond the obvious and further into what can make anamorphic beautiful.

    I do agree with Charles that much of the original reason to shoot in anamorphic is no more. In fact on a technical level the reasoning has completely flipped. It used to be that anamorphic provided a significantly larger piece of film negative than a 1.85 or even a 1.33 spherical frame. One could only put so bright a carbon arc projector behind the gate before burning up the print, and America wanted its big drive-in screens. A larger negative also meant finer grain, which was definitely still an issue at the time, especially in color photography of the day. But now all digital projectors use a set lens, they do NOT have a different lens and mask for anamorphic like the film projectors did. For an anamorphic screening the image is smaller and it is made up of fewer pixels. The digital projection is not in anamorphic, it is instead a spherically corrected image framed within either 2K or 4K DCI. It's just a letterbox, just like on your 16x9 TV at home. So the widescreen experience is no longer an advantage on the exhibition end of the equation.

    Take two cameras with significantly different sized imagers and place them side by side. Place a person 5 feet away, another person 10 feet away and then something in deep background. Frame the person in the foreground to the same size with each camera. Now have the person in the background walk to the person in the foreground. There will be a different sense of space and distance, with the larger sensor camera creating a more compressed appearance between the people and the background. And the anamorphic format mimics much of this effect for a smaller sensor appearing more like a larger one. This is something that a lot of people don't realize and it's what I personally like in anamorphic photography. I like it in large format even more because I don't have to fight the other artifacts.

    So that's what I was trying to say -- open up your minds to these aspects of anamorphic photography and perhaps it will speak to you as something interesting for your future use. Perhaps not. And if it does than maybe you'll like the look of the Scorpio lenses because of this, or maybe not. But be willing to explore the image a bit more than oval bokeh and horizontal flare.
    Mitch Gross
    Cinema Product Manager
    Panasonic System Solutions Company


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Greater LA
    Posts
    159
    Default
    I totally appreciate you explaining your understanding of the format. I guess we can just agree to disagree then? I personally don't have a problem with the "flaws" of other lenses as well as the separation that's gained on a longer lens that also boasts a wider field of view when used for story. I get it, but the point of the tool is in the mind of the craftsmen. With this glass you can feel closer to your subject or show epic wide landscapes or a long list of other pros/cons depending on your use. I don't fancy myself a big time DP but I have used anamorphic lenses and appreciate the sometimes "obvious" character that they brought to the images we shot. If that makes me close minded or only interested in the obvious, well, then, "I guess that's like, your opinion man". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c
    All I'm sayin is, you might not have me pegged and maybe the dvxusers are slightly more keen than you think. And it's just a tad bit condescending when you imply we might be a bunch of mindless JJ/ Michael Bay fans just because a couple of us noticed some differences between these and other anamorphic lenses.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    6,601
    Default
    I wasn't trying to be insulting. I just was trying to indicate the other differences and why they may be of value.
    Mitch Gross
    Cinema Product Manager
    Panasonic System Solutions Company


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •