Anamorphic 2:35 lenses???
- Thread starter Nicky
- Start date
Christopher Barry
Veteran
It should work. The issue, as I understand it, you are recording to a 16:9 frame in HD and the way Anamorphic lenses squeeze the footage, it end up being a recorded as 4:3 image within 16:9, so you end up heavily crop the top and bottom, then apply a 2x horizontal stretch to the image in post.
The real issue is you are discarding a lot of information. It is possible, perhaps not all that practical, especially for HD output.
The real issue is you are discarding a lot of information. It is possible, perhaps not all that practical, especially for HD output.
Last edited:
cardmaverick
Well-known member
Anamorphic lenses on an adapter would be great with Andromeda. It shoots HD resolution in 4:3 
Match made in heaven.
The only problem I would have though... it only does 8 bit at that resolution/aspect ratio. But it's still 4:4:4. There is a difference for sure, but you can always create custom LUTs and do the color correction in camera at 12 bit, so you could certainly make it work. The only other issue is the loss of about 1.5 stops of latitude.
Match made in heaven.
The only problem I would have though... it only does 8 bit at that resolution/aspect ratio. But it's still 4:4:4. There is a difference for sure, but you can always create custom LUTs and do the color correction in camera at 12 bit, so you could certainly make it work. The only other issue is the loss of about 1.5 stops of latitude.
cardmaverick
Well-known member
Nicky,
Latitude in digital cinema is directly tied to bit depth. The Andromeda, currently, has a max latitude of 9.5 stops, which can be fully encoded into a 10 bit file. A 10 bit file is capable of reproducing a full 10 stops worth of gray tones. 8 bit files can only encode a max of 8 stops.
Somethings gotta give.
It's not to say you can't encode a wide dynamic range file into a lower bit depth file, but you have to be careful and really approach it right, and at the end of the day, its all just one big illusion, because no matter how you bend a files numbers around, 8 bits will only ever encode 8 "true" stops worth of gray tones. If you do some research, you'll find that 8 bit is the bare minimum bit depth needed for just about any image, moving or still, to look decent. DVCPRO HD is 8 bit, and so are many other "pro" formats... 2 extra bits makes a huge difference. Film is usually scanned at 10 bit.....
Latitude in digital cinema is directly tied to bit depth. The Andromeda, currently, has a max latitude of 9.5 stops, which can be fully encoded into a 10 bit file. A 10 bit file is capable of reproducing a full 10 stops worth of gray tones. 8 bit files can only encode a max of 8 stops.
Somethings gotta give.
It's not to say you can't encode a wide dynamic range file into a lower bit depth file, but you have to be careful and really approach it right, and at the end of the day, its all just one big illusion, because no matter how you bend a files numbers around, 8 bits will only ever encode 8 "true" stops worth of gray tones. If you do some research, you'll find that 8 bit is the bare minimum bit depth needed for just about any image, moving or still, to look decent. DVCPRO HD is 8 bit, and so are many other "pro" formats... 2 extra bits makes a huge difference. Film is usually scanned at 10 bit.....
IanD
Well-known member
Hi, I'm currently experimenting with the one Lomo anamorphic lens I own, a 35mm/2.9. I've shot with it on my Extreme in both HD 16x9 and SD DVCPRO 50 at 4x3.
What would the best FCP settings be to extract the 2.35 aspect ratio from the squeezed footage? I'm playing with the distort tool in the motion tab but it looks like it's robbing me of lots of resolution.
Any advice? Many thanks.
What would the best FCP settings be to extract the 2.35 aspect ratio from the squeezed footage? I'm playing with the distort tool in the motion tab but it looks like it's robbing me of lots of resolution.
Any advice? Many thanks.
IanD
Well-known member
Here's the anamorphic lens I've been using for my scope tests on my HVX/LEX. It's a so called square front 35mm t2.9 Lomo. I'm still looking for the right FCP settings to unsqueeze the footage and extract the full 2.35 frame without loosing more resolution.
Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
IanD
Well-known member
I'm still looking for the "right" way to unsqueeze the anamorphic footage in FCP and get an undistorted 2.35 aspect ratio.
I've tried importing the footage as anamorphic 16x9, then in the distort menu stretching the frame to 2.35. It looks ok but seems to lose resolution.
Any FCP wizards on this forum??
I've tried importing the footage as anamorphic 16x9, then in the distort menu stretching the frame to 2.35. It looks ok but seems to lose resolution.
Any FCP wizards on this forum??
Claw
Member
I don't know about Final Cut Pro, but in After Effects I'd try making a composition of 1920x803* (2.39:1 - squashed vertically). Then you can just transform it to the right size, (Drag the clip onto the comp, then right click it and choose Transform->Fit Comp). Then click Composition->Comp Settings and changing the height to 1080 (in the main menu) to hard-matte it (ie. make the video the right size with black bars top and bottom).
Then you can render that out and edit in Final Cut. But beware - it could take a long time to render depending on your machine.
Another way of doing it would be to just make a 1920x1080 comp, drag on a clip, right click it and select Transform->Fit to Comp Width, and then Transform->Scale, and select Preserve: None, Units: Pixels, Width: 1920 and Height: 803*. Maybe you could make it more precise by using a percentage, but it might not scale so well.
If you render it out full quality, you shouldn't loose resolution.
* Note that I calculated these and they didn't come out perfectly, but the margin of error is small enough that you shouldn't notice... Also, depending on the lens, this might be stretching the wrong way - can I have a still or video to try it out? Also, I'm implying that you have a 2.39:1 image stretched to 16:9 - the process will be different if it's the 4:3 area in the middle or something.
Last edited:
Charles Lowthian
Well-known member
I have never shot with actual anamorphic lenses, so from the little i know, the lens projects an image onto the emulsion which can be 'convertered' back to preserve the actual image via the film projector.
I don't think you could 'convert' (in this case, via distorting frame) without loosing resolution in video. Because that would mean transforming 1 pixel into 1.x pixel, so I imagine this could only be done by interpolation, so you'd still loose resolution.
I think the term 'anamorphic' in digital/video refers to just the output ratio and simply the 'crop'...unless there are actual anamorphic digital lenses or anamorphic censors? I don't know much about this area, so don't pick, just inform
Just with that lens in your photo, is it a bit like shooting with a non-flipped adapter, where you have to turn your head 'upside down' to understand the shot you are getting?...does it come up on the screen as squeezed?
Last edited: