Anamorphic lens required?

R

rkat55

Member
Hi guys,

So, i've got a new dvx100b and getting ready to shoot a guerilla-style
feature length film and I'm wondering, after reading through Barry's book, it seems the only way my film will have a chance of being shown on a big screen (theatre) is to shoot with an anamorphic lens. (I plan on submitting to film festivals, etc).

Did I understand this correctly or are there other options?

Thanks for your input!

Rick
 
Last edited:
Blaine said:
Here's a couple of threads that might add to your understanding of using an anamorphic lens.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=7644&highlight=anamorphic
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=68413&highlight=anamorphic
Click to expand...


Thanks, interesting threads, Blaine. But that first one is way to technical and I have a feeling I'd end up with a film I couldn't output to DVD or 35mm if I tried using it. I guess to play it safe I'm going to have to find an anamorphic lens on ebay or try to rent one or something.

Anyone here have any experience outputing 24p to DVD or 35mm and NOT use an anamorphic lens?
 
If you're seriously thinking about going the 35mm film route there are many things that you'll need to keep in mind to make sure you get the best quality possible. I'm not sure you need to do that right away. It's a HUGE expense on the order of $30,000-50,000 for a feature. Most film festivals accept formats other than film and they are still shown on the "big screen." It really depends on which fest you are trying to get into. If this is your first film you have a lot more things to worry about than going out to film.

If you're thinking of going to DVD, you can output your file directly from most NLE's. You certainly CAN use an anamorphic adapter but it isn't necessary. I've got a feature I did on the DVX100A in a 4x3 letterboxed format.
 
If you want an anamorphic lens pm me, Ill give you a good price: Perfect condition hmm lets say $450 incl. shipping. I am a verified paypal user. Purchased from Willoughbys NY still have original reciept from last year.

Buying new cam in next day or so and will trade in if not interested.
 
Blaine said:
If you're seriously thinking about going the 35mm film route there are many things that you'll need to keep in mind to make sure you get the best quality possible. I'm not sure you need to do that right away. It's a HUGE expense on the order of $30,000-50,000 for a feature. Most film festivals accept formats other than film and they are still shown on the "big screen." It really depends on which fest you are trying to get into. If this is your first film you have a lot more things to worry about than going out to film.

If you're thinking of going to DVD, you can output your file directly from most NLE's. You certainly CAN use an anamorphic adapter but it isn't necessary. I've got a feature I did on the DVX100A in a 4x3 letterboxed format.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i sure don't have 30K to spend on this. Were you happy with shooting in 4x3 letterbox? And will that be able to be blown up to 35mm if you get lucky and a distrib wants to put it in theatres?

Also, Blaine, regarding Hollywood Gothic...Where did you film that? Is it in the L.A. area? I'm scouting locations right now and that looks like a great place. Love the trailer too, btw. It looks great. Hope my film looks half as good.
 
ncje said:
If you want an anamorphic lens pm me, Ill give you a good price: Perfect condition hmm lets say $450 incl. shipping. I am a verified paypal user. Purchased from Willoughbys NY still have original reciept from last year.

Buying new cam in next day or so and will trade in if not interested.
Click to expand...

Will definitely think on this one. Thanks. Will let you know asap.
 
If you want an anamorphic lens pm me, Ill give you a good price: Perfect condition hmm lets say $450 incl. shipping. I am a verified paypal user. Purchased from Willoughbys NY still have original reciept from last year.

Buying new cam in next day or so and will trade in if not interested.
Click to expand...

if he doesnt jump on that, i may have to...assuming that offer is open to others as well :)
 
rkat55 said:
Yeah, i sure don't have 30K to spend on this. Were you happy with shooting in 4x3 letterbox? And will that be able to be blown up to 35mm if you get lucky and a distrib wants to put it in theatres?

Also, Blaine, regarding Hollywood Gothic...Where did you film that? Is it in the L.A. area? I'm scouting locations right now and that looks like a great place. Love the trailer too, btw. It looks great. Hope my film looks half as good.
Click to expand...
Was I happy with it? Yes, I guess I'd have to say I was...that said, if I were to do it over again, I'd upgrade to shoot to at least an SDX900 which shoots native 16x9. It's a real LONG SHOT to have a LOW budget movie blown up to 35mm to distribute in theaters. But if you hope to do that, I'd suggest you talk to the people who do the transfer and ask what they need before starting.

The movie was shot in Santa Ana at a building which has now been bought by the Scientologists. When we shot there, it was the Santa Ana Performing Arts and Events Center.
 
Blaine said:
Was I happy with it? Yes, I guess I'd have to say I was...that said, if I were to do it over again, I'd upgrade to shoot to at least an SDX900 which shoots native 16x9. It's a real LONG SHOT to have a LOW budget movie blown up to 35mm to distribute in theaters. But if you hope to do that, I'd suggest you talk to the people who do the transfer and ask what they need before starting.

The movie was shot in Santa Ana at a building which has now been bought by the Scientologists. When we shot there, it was the Santa Ana Performing Arts and Events Center.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, Blaine. Of course I know it's a long shot, but my thinking is, if I'm going to shoot a film why not hope for the best? My basic philosophy on it is if you prepare for success you just might get lucky. We're just going to do our all out best given our lack of experience and whatever confines we're working with. My goal is to make the absolute best movie I can with as little money as possible.
 
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of DVX films shot in Squeeze mode or shot 4:3 and cropped to 16:9 that have been in film festivals, with no anamorphic adaptor at all. Squeeze mode can be very good.

The anamorphic adaptor is technically the best way to shoot 16:9, but if you consider the other complications it creates, it might be a better trade-off to just shoot Squeeze mode, and not have to worry. Use the extra time to light better, or pay attention to other details.

BTW, I've had ten different films in film festivals and on TV prior to getting a DVX. I was using a GS400 and converting to 24p with DVFilm Maker. I think as far as film festivals go, it's more about a good story and getting the right film to the right people. Much more so than the difference between Squeeze and anamorphic, which the festival screeners will absolutely not be able to tell the difference between.
 
Joshua Provost said:
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of DVX films shot in Squeeze mode or shot 4:3 and cropped to 16:9 that have been in film festivals, with no anamorphic adaptor at all. Squeeze mode can be very good.

The anamorphic adaptor is technically the best way to shoot 16:9, but if you consider the other complications it creates, it might be a better trade-off to just shoot Squeeze mode, and not have to worry. Use the extra time to light better, or pay attention to other details.

BTW, I've had ten different films in film festivals and on TV prior to getting a DVX. I was using a GS400 and converting to 24p with DVFilm Maker. I think as far as film festivals go, it's more about a good story and getting the right film to the right people. Much more so than the difference between Squeeze and anamorphic, which the festival screeners will absolutely not be able to tell the difference between.
Click to expand...

Thanks Joshua. I love that kind of down and dirty in the trenches experience you offer. I am aware it's mostly about having a great story and getting it in front of the right people.

Couple quick questions Joshua, what complications are you referring to using anamophic and which do you think would be better between squeeze and 4:3 as far as what I'm trying to do?
 
I haven't used the anamorphic, but the buzz is that it has some issues with focusing (auto focus doesn't work?, can't focus long or short?, not sure exactly). It's extra weight, and needs to be adjusted properly, complicates use of filters, etc.

If you want 16:9, squeeze will give you better resolution than cropped 4:3. However, cropped 4:3 has the advantage of being able to tweak up and down in post to fine-tune your composition.

If you output is something even tighter than 16:9, like 2.35:1, then squeeze is perfect, and you'll have that same reframing flexibility.

It seems like all scene file adjustments are applied prior to the crop and zoom of squeeze, so the DVX book suggests always using THIN detail setting with squeeze. You also need to find the right detail, matrix, and gamma settings for your project. Test, test, test.
 
Hey guys.....I've been reading the post and I would like to offer my two-cents! Joshua is absolutely correct------the anamorphic really complicates matters. I'm currently shooting a "feature documentary" which is intensive in terms of re-enactments and interviews. At first, I thought the anamorphic lens was a MUST and insisted on using it. The anamorphic is a mixed bag of pro versus con. Here's my take:

Focusing/lighting issues: Josh is correct that lighting and focusing is not as smooth with the anamorphic. The first interview I conducted with the anamorphic had to be reshot. The lighting was pretty intense that we used to shoot our subject; but the anamorphic lens has a way of absorbing light---in other words, you have to really, from my experience, overlight everything in order for it to look acceptable. On our monitor, the interview looked good. When it was downloaded using FinalCut, it was extremely dark. Now, I realize, I am not a guru when it comes to filming----I am an editor who has turned camera guy! So I may be blaming my inexperience/problems on the anamorphic----but I don't think so.

FISHEYE: I also had a lot of problems with the lens in terms of fisheye effects in long/distance shots. As long as I was focused right on an individual, like, for instance, in an interview, UP CLOSE, there was no issue. The minute we pulled back and shot the subject at a distance, the edges of the screen became fisheyed----in one shot the straight edge of a wall clearly bows as the edge of the wall ended up being right at the edge of the frame....it had to be cropped out.

GLARES: I got a lot of strange glares through the lens in various lighting situations which were really a pain in the butt! Both lenses; the camera and the anamorphic were cleaned thoroughly before the shoot, so I know it wasn't dirt or dust that caused the disturbances. The footage was still usable, I just had to work some magic to get rid of the issue....

LIGHTING CHANGES - I noticed with the anamorphic lens, the lighting was constantly changing in the interviews. We set our subjects up, in several interviews, with a black backdrop and some very warm lighting on one side of their faces while leaving the other side unlit, or very dimly lit. The shots were focused in fairly tight on the individuals. I noticed that everytime they turned their face or moved a hand or made some gesture, the lighting shifted and it seemed like the camera was constantly adjusting....very annoying when you're trying to color correct because your picture never seems to be consistent.

NOW, having said that, I decided to shoot one of the interviews [we're still shooting this project] WITHOUT the anamorphic to see if I could see a visual difference in quality. I used the DVX's squeeze mode. I was very, very, very pleased with the end result. NONE of the issues I mentioned above were present in squeeze mode. In fact, I've been so pleased, that we've switched over to squeeze mode for shooting the rest of the project and abandoned the use of the anamorphic lens altogether. The anamorphic, when it's set up properly, does do a nice job. BUT, if you're fairly new to the camera, it can really set you up for disaster if you're not sure what you're doing [i.e., I had to fly back out of state a second time to reshoot the very first interview I did] I think the quality of the DVX is terrific without the lens, and I beg you to consider: does the quality added by the anamorphic justify itself when you consider the other issues that the lens brings to the table???? I don't think so.

NOW, if anyone would like to point out where I might be wrong, I'd love to hear the input. This board is really, really helpful when it comes to advice! I wanted to contribute what I could! Just for the record; I've used the anamorphic on, ballpark, about 10 different shoots now. I've seen these issues throughout all of them....NONE of these issues are present in the camera's squeeze mode!
 
thanks Northstar! I pretty much decided to shoot in squeeze myself and this really confirms my decision. Nothing like learning from other's experiences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top