Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 50 of 50
  1. Collapse Details
    #41
    Senior Member Jaime Valles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,936
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    Have any proof of that? I mean any actual studies of viewers that elicits a different response. I'm talking cold hard emotional studies of this sort of thing. Not just the opinion of film makers but the actual study of real viewers.
    I do not have actual studies to back up the idea that different types of lenses evoke different emotional responses from viewers. I only know the effect they produce on me. To my eye, spherical lenses look like real life. Anamorphic lenses do not. Which one I use depends on what type of story I'm trying to tell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    There is a massive difference when comparing anamorphic/spherical vs 24p HD/ 60i standard definition in the eyes of the viewer. It is a lot easier for a user to see those kind of differences so yeah of course they would notice it looks like crap. The difference between anamorphic and spherical however is not so cut and dry and not every viewer notices it or pays much attention to it.
    I only mentioned 24p, HD and shallow depth of field because you brought it up in your previous post. Those are certainly more noticeable than anamorphic vs spherical, but they're still aesthetic choices. Again, see The Hobbit. They basically had an unlimited budget, and shot a movie that should have looked incredible, because they had incredible production design, lighting, makeup, etc. But the decision to use 48p made the audience feel something was different. All my friends who went to see it with me were complaining about how cheap it looked. "Like the news" they said. None of them are filmmakers or into photography.

    Anamorphic is much more subtle than 24p vs 48p, but the Star Trek images I posted above show a clear difference between the two types of lenses. Shooting anamorphic is an artistic, subjective choice, and it certainly ain't invisible.

    You are now talking quality vs aesthetic choices which are very different things altogether. We should always strive for industry acceptable quality in what we do but the choice of using anamorphic or not is not a quality choice but strictly an aesthetic choice.
    Once again, I absolutely disagree. My role as a cinematographer is not to "strive for industry acceptable quality." My job is to help tell the story visually, period. If that means using a 60i 1/3" CCD camcorder to shoot the movie, then so be it. Objectively, it will look like crap. But subjectively, you can end up with 28 Days Later. That movie objectively looked terrible when I saw it in theaters (shot with Canon XL-1s cameras). But the funny thing is it suited the story! It was dirty, grungy, coarse and lacking in fine detail. Perfect.

    The goal is not to make movies look as pristine as possible. The goal is to tell the story as effectively as possible. Sometimes, that means using cameras or lenses that are of technically inferior quality. It's gotten to the point that I generally dislike cinematography that's too pristine. Anamorphic lenses often help take the sterile look out of movies, which I appreciate.

    You also kind of missed my entire point which was not that Star Trek 6 was great because it was spherical but that it didn't matter. The quality didn't suffer and neither did any aspect of the film because of that choice. Even in professional circles I rarely see anybody criticize Star Trek 6 because it was shot spherical. Before you posted those examples I honestly never even thought about it. Its just a silly example because in the end it means squat to just about everybody. Shooting 480i 60i 4x3 however would matter to just about everybody.
    As a kid I remember seeing films like Die Hard, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Blade Runner, Alien, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Trek II, and even back then (before I knew anything about how movies were made) I could tell they were different than other movies. Magical in some elusive way that I couldn't place my finger on. The cinematography made an impact which I doubt would have been as potent had they not been anamorphic. Hell, I could tell there was something different about Aliens which made it somehow not as cool looking as Alien. Kickass movie, though.

    I disagree that the audience can't notice if a movie is anamorphic or not. They may not know why it looks different, but they know it does. At least some of them do. There will always be rubes out there that don't care what it looks like because they're busy texting their significant others in the theater. The same morons that leave 5 minutes before the movie ends to avoid traffic getting out of the parking lot. I don't want to make movies for those troglodytes. I make movies for me, and I assume if I appreciate what they look like, then others will, too.

    Of course I don't have a problem with anamorphic at all. What I have a problem with is those that somehow feel it is superior. It is not superior. It is an equal aesthetic difference.
    Finally, something we agree on! Anamorphic lenses are not superior to spherical. In fact, I would go so far as to say they are objectively inferior. Barrel distortion, mumps, hazy focusing, blurry edges... Spherical lenses are certainly "better" in all those ways. But subjectively? That's up to the director and cinematographer.

    A while back I bought an anamorphic lens adapter to use with my GH4. It was a projector lens retrofitted onto a 50mm Canon FD lens using a clamp with screws. LOVED the look, but the focusing mechanism was tricky at best, and not worth the major hassle. If these Samyang anamorphic lenses are good quality and inexpensive, I very well may take a look and see if they can do what I want.
    Jaime VallÚs
    AJV Media
    Video, Photography & Graphic Design: www.ajvmedia.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    478
    Default
    Any news about these lenses??


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #43
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    12
    Default
    Just to add a bit to the discussion. I'm debating going anamorphic or slightly anamorphic (1.33) on a comedy feature possibly with the slr magic adaptor. There is a dual motor focus Ikan pd movie that works with dual lens focus.

    I recently saw a low budget film with Jon Heder that used true anamorphic for all the scenes in the bowling alley (most of the film) and spherical cropped for the rest. It's a great example of how anamorphic created a much more cinematic effect while the cropped spherical look quite pedestrian. It's well worth watching and is on amazon

    https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5871400/


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #44
    Senior Member Mike Krumlauf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    951
    Default
    The thing is.. most people now a days want the gear to do all the work.. so many 21st century filmmakers focus on the gear and not the content. I remember back when I first started in the late 90s.. everyone was shooting on Mini DV.. companies like InDigEnt made shooting features on DV tape a "fad" and the cameras did provide a look that when transfered to 35mm did have a very interesting (yet muted) feel to it. Digital technology has moved people from learning how to light and move the camera properly to focusing on stupid things like Dynamic Range, Resolution, etc to the point where it superseeds the story or vision they are trying to tell. I believe companies have realized this so they are banking on the stupidity of people and "hobby filmmakers". If there is a market, someone will fill it and I know there is a market for the poor filmmaker wanting to anamorphic glass for whatever the reason. To me I really dont see this as a bad thing because out of that heap of crap, there is always a very talented individual working on the bear min of budget and these lenses could give them access to a visual look they otherwise could not get.. but yes.. lots of newb anamorphic crap on the way as well if they are indeed very cheap.. it just comes with the territory. Part of the reason i've always believed cameras like the F35 and Alexa look so good is because 9 times out of 10 you have people who know what they are doing using them. If the Alexa was available for 1500 bucks we'd be seeing a lot of poorly shot images done on the alexa... any camera can look good or bad, its all on the operator. I've seen beautiful things done on Mini DV and some pretty s*%tty things done by film students on Super35mm...
    GEAR
    _________________________________
    Panavision HD900F Cinema Camera
    Optex Cine HD HJ9.5x5 F2 B4 Lens
    Vocas 4x4 MatteBox
    AJA KiProMini
    Apple Mac Pro 8 Core 2008
    Apple Macbook Pro 15-inch 2007
    Final Cut Studio 3


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    478
    Default
    Hmm still no news..


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #46
    Senior Member Jaime Valles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,936
    Default
    I know. I'm looking forward to seeing if this happens.
    Jaime VallÚs
    AJV Media
    Video, Photography & Graphic Design: www.ajvmedia.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #47
    Senior Member marvinhello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    788
    Default
    There's a 40mm T2 1.8x lens being made

    7dd5760ely1g0kwizxikmj21400u0aer.jpg


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Central NY
    Posts
    1,951
    Default
    I bet these will be XEEN price range or higher. Does that really say 1.8x? That doesn't really fit with any of the modern cameras does it?


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #49
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,880
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by optitek View Post
    I think it also depends on the viewer. I found the new Blade Runner, and its derivative- Altered Carbon too blurry and muddy to watch. Really distracting from the story to the point that I gave up on them half way. I like the original BR but expected a step up on the visuals rather than a poorly attempted copy...Or maybe it was a poorly attempted copying of the story...
    Original Blade Runner used blurry anamorphic.
    Blade Runner 2049 was shot on sharp Master Prime lenses.

    2049 unique, and not a copy. It had softer lighting and set design in general, and was a departure from the original. It was visually very different from the original.

    Untitled by onesielaff, on Flickr
    Last edited by James0b57; 03-16-2019 at 09:13 PM.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #50
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,880
    Default
    I can think of no real reason to choose spherical, anamorphic, iphone, or whatever.

    To some people, coffee is coffee, and they’ll never understand, but more importantly, they’ll never care to understand the differences between coffees, while others can tell you how it was roasted and wether the brew was a good match to the roasting style, and what region the coffee is from.

    To me there is a stark difference between Anamorphic and Spherical. But doesn’t really matter. It is like adding grain to digital when people were used to film. Now we add anamorphic to make something look like a movie, even though we have large format high resolution digital cameras. There is no more need to “squeeze” and image onto a small piece of film to get a wider image on screen. Referential mojo.

    Kind of reminds me back when the Varicam and DVX were all the buzz because of the “mojo” look. Part of the look was a slight warmth compared to the clinically cold Sony cameras. We are still chasing that mojo it seems. We could changed the forum name to Mojo-user.

    Here’s to two decades of mojo chasing. I am still unsuccessful and have never shot a film.


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions

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