Anamorphic Lenses

R

Ruairi Robinson

Member
Hey, I'm generally aware of the issues when using existing anamorphic lenses on the RED camera, in terms of wasted pixels, and a wider than 3:1 image... so my question is this:

Would it be plausible for Lens manufacturers to create NEW anamorphic lenses that have the look that people go for on C and E series Panavision Anamorphics - the distortion/vignetting/flares/Stretched Bokeh etc. And properly uses the 16x9 sensor size. And do you think anyone is likely to do this?

The look of anamorphic lenses, is for me the one major drawback in switching to shooting digitally on Red - I'm loathe to give this up. I wouldn't underestimate how popular this look is too. A large percentage of BIG movies are shot in scope (Just watched MI3) and this is mainly for that look, since everyone knows it's kind of a hassle to shoot this way...

Because, all things being equal, it's about the quality of image, and the look - not the price.

Cheers,
Ruairí Robinson

Red #862
 
Things are a little different though. Years ago shooting 'scope meant that you'd be getting a bigger picture, and when you went to the theater the previews would be shown in 1.85:1 and then for the main attraction they'd actually pull the curtains away from the sides and make the screen larger.

Nowadays all modern theaters I've gone to recently have instead kept the same width, and just moved in curtains from the top and bottom to make the screen smaller(!) So shooting 'scope is actually causing a smaller picture to be projected (like letterboxing). Which diminishes some of the value of wanting to shoot 'scope, and when the screen was getting bigger it kind of made the hassle more "worth it". Don't know if people will continue to feel that way if this smaller-screen trend continues.

You probably know this, but anamorphic cine lenses use a 2:1 squeeze factor, which is why the background and flares are so obviously distorted. An anamorphic lens for a 16:9 camera would be a 1.33:1 squeeze, so any anamorphic "look" benefit would be much less.

It seems like more and more of the big-budget films are just going with Super35 nowadays and using spherical lenses. Hard to predict whether anyone's going to produce a series of 1.33x anamorphics. Digital projectors do have 1.33x anamorphics so the glass probably wouldn't be that hard to source, but housing it in a cine-style lens body?

Well, if anyone were to do it, it'd probably be RED, who've already announced plans for at least two of their own lenses.
 
>>>>>>Things are a little different though. Years ago shooting 'scope meant that you'd be getting a bigger picture, and when you went to the theater the previews would be shown in 1.85:1 and then for the main attraction they'd actually pull the curtains away from the sides and make the screen larger.>>>>>

Sure, but in the BIG screens, the curtains still open wide for scope. The biggest screen in every multiplex *probably* operates this way...

>>>>>Nowadays all modern theaters I've gone to recently have instead kept the same width, and just moved in curtains from the top and bottom to make the screen smaller(!) So shooting 'scope is actually causing a smaller picture to be projected (like letterboxing). Which diminishes some of the value of wanting to shoot 'scope, and when the screen was getting bigger it kind of made the hassle more "worth it". Don't know if people will continue to feel that way if this smaller-screen trend continues.>>>>>

Doesn't really, because the format I think has become ingrained subconciously in peoples minds as "BIG MOVIE" even on a tv screen...

>>>>>You probably know this, but anamorphic cine lenses use a 2:1 squeeze factor, which is why the background and flares are so obviously distorted. An anamorphic lens for a 16:9 camera would be a 1.33:1 squeeze, so any anamorphic "look" benefit would be much less.>>>>

Yeah, I know that - what I'm asking is - Is it not possible to make a lens with a 2:1 squeeze onto a 16x9 area? so it keeps the 2:1 vertical bokeh stretch...?

>>>>>>It seems like more and more of the big-budget films are just going with Super35 nowadays and using spherical lenses. Hard to predict whether anyone's going to produce a series of 1.33x anamorphics. Digital projectors do have 1.33x anamorphics so the glass probably wouldn't be that hard to source, but housing it in a cine-style lens body?>>>>>>>>>>>

Plenty of really big movies are shot in scope, and will be in the future - it's not going anywhere any time soon. As I said, it's not for the filmmakers health they chose this route. It's a pain in the ass, for focus etc. But it's worth it for the look. That's why this incredibly clumsy technology survives.
 
Ruairi Robinson said:
It's a pain in the ass, for focus etc. But it's worth it for the look.
Click to expand...
For some. :) As far as the mishapened background and horizontal flares go, that's obviously a subjective preference - not something that's inherently "better."

As for the gain in resolution, if you're able to squeeze more information into your frame (all other things being equal), certainly that's nice - but in an age of 4K acquisition, is it crucially important? Cropping to 2.35 from 16:9 also has added benefits that anamorphic doesn't (most notably the ability to reposition in post), and remember that no one aspect ratio is truly wider than any other. "What's wider, a square or a rectangle?" Well that of course depends on the width of the square and the rectangle. :) Barry's post explains this phenomenon quite well; if the theater screen itself is shaped as 16:9, you aren't getting a "wider" picture when they letterbox it to 2.35. Of course it's exactly the opposite - you actually lose screen real estate as a result.

I think this really just comes down to two things: what aspect ratio is right for the story you want to tell, and do you like the artifacts that anamorphic lenses present? Aspect ratio used to be dictated by the physical dimensions of film frames and camera hardware. Now you can create a picture with any aspect you want at the click of a mouse button. With resolution getting greater and greater every year, it is my outlook that anamorphic will begin to lose relevance over time. That is, unless you just have to have those ovals. :-P
 
Ruairi,

Can't offer you oblong Circles of confusion but this filter might be of interest if you go spherical (although it costs 500 euros a day to rent)

http://www.vantagefilm.com/en/news/news_2005-09_01_i.shtml

Apart from that why not just use the regular 35mm area and dump a C series on the front (crop in post to 2.35/2.40)?

at 4k I would be doubtful that there would be an enormous difference.

Plus academy 35mm neg is roughly 4k - it's been good enough so far.
 
Well, there's the brilliant solution. Who says you have to use the full frame? Just extract and resize as necessary... you could certainly use cinema anamorphics with their 2:1 squeeze, and extract that full-frame image and unsqueeze it for post work, or leave it squeezed for an anamorphic print...
 
jamestmather said:
Ruairi,

Can't offer you oblong Circles of confusion but this filter might be of interest if you go spherical (although it costs 500 euros a day to rent)

http://www.vantagefilm.com/en/news/news_2005-09_01_i.shtml

Apart from that why not just use the regular 35mm area and dump a C series on the front (crop in post to 2.35/2.40)?

at 4k I would be doubtful that there would be an enormous difference.

Plus academy 35mm neg is roughly 4k - it's been good enough so far.
Click to expand...


Hey James - heard of that filter, didn't know it was so expensive though. Yeesh.

I guess the whole point of me ordering this camera is to bypass the need to rely on as many people for as many things. It just takes an almighty amount of organising just to get a couple of simple pickups if you are working on film.

I've been spending the last year or two shutting down ways in which people can say no to me, (I'm sure you'll understand why!) and this to me is one major hurdle - currently I can go from edit to final output at HD with no loss of quality, and no need to ask for any favours, (sans music) and if this camera is all it's cracked up to me, I'll be able to skip the whole issue of processing costs, and telecine, and go straight from the camera all the way up to making a finished film print without having to leave my bedroom. In other words, it's not just a gimmick. I don't even need 4k rez - 1080p is fine (but maybe the extra rez is useful for headroom for stabilizing/rescaling etc.)

I can't claim to be any kind of an expert at lighting etc, but I could use the thing for certain types of shots that normally would take a whole lot more hassle to get... (for which I'm hoping SLR lenses will be adequate, but at least the camera can scale up to whatever uses I can find for it) So renting a filter for 500 bucks a day is outside my remit - unless I'm working on something with an actual budget of course.

About the 35mm/c series thing -

A) if you use a C series lens, (I believe there's no adaptor planned for panavision lenses anyway) would it produce an image of 3:1 aspect ratio withing the 16x9 sensor area, (and have to crop the excess on the sides - and the top and bottom)

or

B) can you have it use the full 4:3 squeezed scope area within the 35mm area?

obviously B is preferable... (but then, there's probably enough resolution that A is still plenty good resolution for my target 1080p frame)

btw James you are more than welcome to put the thing through it's paces when I get it, if you are interested.
 
It gives you a 3 to one as far as I'm aware - if super 16 is any indication (whch I've stuck anamorphic lenses on) - and it's returned a 3:1 image (whch embarrasingly they forgot to crop in the edit and it went out on TV super widescreen - I guess the agency didn't complain/notice)

Don't know what squeezing options red has and this would be the deciding factor.

back to Knoll lens flare pro (ps check the Zodiac trailer - looks like mr fincher is fond of the Knoll plug in too)
 
jamestmather said:
It gives you a 3 to one as far as I'm aware - if super 16 is any indication (whch I've stuck anamorphic lenses on) - and it's returned a 3:1 image (whch embarrasingly they forgot to crop in the edit and it went out on TV super widescreen - I guess the agency didn't complain/notice)

Don't know what squeezing options red has and this would be the deciding factor.

back to Knoll lens flare pro (ps check the Zodiac trailer - looks like mr fincher is fond of the Knoll plug in too)
Click to expand...



Yeah I've seen the Zodiac trailer. Looks kinda good-ish, but there's one thing that kind of bugs me a little about it - the colours seem to overly desaturated in low light areas compared to the rest of the image - and I'm not sure this is entirely the result of a deliberate look, so much as a struggle with a lack of colour information... you know what I mean? the same areas are the most noisy....

Noticed the dropped in flares - they look reasonably ok actually. Certainly better than the ones in Panic Room. I'm sure you've seen the Heinekin ad he directed too...?

Knoll... Man is that plugin ever crap. You just can't do any of the really complex intereractions in the secondary elements. I'm surprised nobody has come out with a better solution by now. Grrr. I aim to massively extend my library of flare elements whenever I can. You can never have enough real smoke/dust hits/explosions/flares/flame elements. They always look so much better...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top