AF-100 and anamorphic desqueeze
- Thread starter gunleik
- Start date
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
How are you un-squeezing in post? What aspect are you settling in?
I'm curious to see people using anamorphics on their AF100's. That means, unless using the very expensive Hawk 1.3x lenses, their aspect ratio would be unsqueezed 32:9... or 3.55:1.
This would be much, much wider of an aspect ratio than 2.39:1 (2.40). Interesting to see if this might catch on. Of course I've seen many people double a 16:9 horizontal FoV and only unsqueeze to 2.40. Yikes! Not sure if they were avoiding the pillar boxing or just didn't know that 2x squeeze lenses aren't really for 16:9 -> 2.40.
I'm curious to see people using anamorphics on their AF100's. That means, unless using the very expensive Hawk 1.3x lenses, their aspect ratio would be unsqueezed 32:9... or 3.55:1.
This would be much, much wider of an aspect ratio than 2.39:1 (2.40). Interesting to see if this might catch on. Of course I've seen many people double a 16:9 horizontal FoV and only unsqueeze to 2.40. Yikes! Not sure if they were avoiding the pillar boxing or just didn't know that 2x squeeze lenses aren't really for 16:9 -> 2.40.
Marc Villafan
Well-known member
No, only the given choices in the safety zone menu under DISPLAY SETUP.
The choices are:
90%
14:9
2:1
GRID
4:3
1.85:1
2.35:1
astigmatic
Well-known member
I just started playing with anamorphics and 3.55:1 looks amazing. It really makes 2.40 look blah. I'm curious if this aspect ratio will be accepted by film festivals.
Doubtful. Looks good for webpage banner ads though!
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
It really isn't festivals that have strict guidelines. They usually just want a base-line submission to ease the amount of equipment they need to play everyone's film back. These days, they usually want HD 16x9 delivery. However, you can fill that 16x9 HD image up anyway you'd like, by letterboxing, pillar-boxing, two frames side by side, etc. Go nuts. It just has to be on that canvas, and unfortunately those looking to submit a film in any aspect other than 16X9 will loose resolution doing so.
But by and large, it's broadcast standards or large distributors who get really picky on the standards.
3.55:1 (or in that ballpark) does give filmmakers a new and even more wide canvas to work upon. I'm sure for some stories it might be the right choice, while for others, certainly not. Who knows if it will catch on as a standard.... but I doubt it considering my cable provider still gives me pan and scanned 4:3 on movies even on HBO and Showtime. On my HD channels I sometimes, if lucky, get letter boxed true 2.40:1. Otherwise, I again get pan-and-scanned versions displayed at 16:9.
I'll never forgive Netflix On-Demand for showing Ben Hur (2.76:1) in 4:3.... F#$K that.
http://transamws6.com/pics/theater/ben_hur_big.jpg
I'm about to jump on Vitorrio's Univisium bandwagon and flip broadcasters the middle finger.
How can a broadcaster re-edit (for time), re-dub (for sensorship), re-frame (for filling the screen so dumb people don't complain about black bars), and further damage a film?! It's so sad to see the very blood, sweat and tears of many filmmakers, and may I also say artists, get perverted so. All that work in the camera, in the edit, all to get changed by some 19 year old intern at Comcast, editing away and choosing what to show and what not to show the audience.
If you want to direct a movie, I'd go work at a cable provider. You can re-edit and re-frame all the classics.
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
2.35:1?
I'd thought those Panasonic tech geeks would know better. I brought this up back in the day, and so did Barry... What's up with that? Tell Jan to smack them for me. Twice for not listening to Barry and I when they had the chance.
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
I'd like to see what you've got! New aspect ratios are freeing.
astigmatic
Well-known member
cool, 2.76:1 Beh Hur must looks amazing. I've never actually scene it in it's true form, only on TV.
Nothing worth showing right now, just cruddy tests around the house.
Nothing worth showing right now, just cruddy tests around the house.
MadMonkFish
Well-known member
Marc Villafan
Well-known member
Yup..Its such a simple fix that can be easily updated with a firmware update. It doesn't make it any better that they brought Barry, among other prominent individuals, on to test pre-production models and they don't take their very valid suggestions.
Maybe it was a time-crunch type of thing, but I hope we see it changed.
I too would love to see a 3.55:1 anamorphic aspect ratio.
astigmatic
Well-known member
Cool - the 'gear' arrived from you know where & you know who?
yup finally got them! Lenses in good condition physically and optically considering they're 30-40 years old.
I'm finding with my tests that cropping to 2.39:1 you loose a lot or resolution. The Ben Hur sample of 2.76:1 seems to be a good balance, though still unconventional.
MadMonkFish
Well-known member
Yes - half the fun is their age... it's weird having such old lenses on new gear, but quality optics stand the test of time and really show how good old mechanical stuff can be!
I also think the cosmetic marks add a little bit to their charm... they feel like antiques :love4:
Barry_Green
Moderator
I've got to admit, that one was frustrating. It's not like they didn't hear me, it's not like I didn't make it abundantly clear, it's not like I didn't explain things perfectly. They just didn't do it.
Now, with that said, frankly it's a very minor issue -- the difference between 2.39 and 2.35, on the LCD, amounts to about four pixels. That's all the difference you would see, the top line would be moved up two pixels and the bottom line would be moved down two pixels. No big deal. But it would have been nice.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yep, that's why I think cinema anamorphics on a 16:9 camera are kind of silly. They work okay on a 4:3 camera, because that unsqueezes to 2.66:1, which is close enough to crop with very little loss. But on a 16:9 camera you're getting 3.56:1, and after unsqueezing that you're going to have to crop off so much of the image that it doesn't leave much usable. I think you're better off just cropping with letterbox bars, rather than shooting with the anamorphic and then unsqueezing and then chopping the sides to get something usable...
The killer anamorphic ratio for a 16:9 camera is a 1.333x anamorphic. Hawk makes some rare cinema 1.33x anamorphic lenses, and Century/Schneider makes some 1.33x anamorphic adapters for video cameras (although I don't know if they're adequate to the task of resolving an HD image). Using a 1.33x anamorphic will give you a true 2.37:1 aspect ratio.
I've used the Century Optics 37mm 1.33x with the Lumix 20mm f1.7 pancake, and even when stopped down, it looks pretty sharp in the middle, but blurry on the sides. As with the Pansonic LA7200 1.33x anamorphic adapter, the Century Optics has no focus adjustment, which I consider a drawback.
As for the 2.35 versus 2.39 debate, digital technology has produced a precise compromise. Anamorphic 1.33x adapters were first produced to squeeze the HDTV 16:9 aspect ratio into a standard 4:3 video frame. When you use the same 1.33x adapter on a native 16:9 frame it produces the cinematic widescreen aspect ratio that Barry noted - 2.37:1 (to be precise, it's 64:27, though the HDTV industry usually misapproximates this as "21:9"). Philips has already introduced a "Cinema 21:9 LED TV" with a resolution of 2560x1080, which is exactly 2.37:1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philips_Cinema_21:9_TV
astigmatic
Well-known member
20mm is pretty wide, and with the edges not being on the same focal plane to begin with, I can imagine the bluring. Have you tried it on standard or tele lenses?