Anamorphic or 16x9?

Eric Boellner

Eric Boellner

Well-known member
Rewriting a script a lot of which takes place in a car. Obviously, in order to steer clear of that annoying indie look (super tight framing because you have no room to shoot wide), I'll have to use a wider lens and try to position the cam at angles conducive to a deeper frame. One problem I have, though, is that I really want to start the film off with some classic-style anamorphic landscape shots of the Michigan countryside (like the old landscape montages you'd see in Westerns and such). But if I shoot the film in 2.35, that will make it considerably more difficult to do the already tight-fit interior car scenes without it going to s..t. On the other hand, without the anamorphic frame, the landscape montage will just look like something out of STONE or THAT EVENING SUN (both great movies, but not the look I want).

This isn't really a PROBLEM, I guess, just a creative decision I need to make, and one I was wondering if any of you pros have some thoughts on. Thanks in advance!

-EMB
 
First of all, modern day anamorphic is 2.39 by standards, not 2.35... that is a term that won't die and thus is incorrectly referred to and post masked.

Second, if I were the DP on this and you were the director, I'd likely recommend 2.39/2.40. I don't understand your conflict... you say you don't want that annoying indie look for super tight framing, but anamorphic offers a bit wider horizontal view, so I am lost.

I am a huge proponent of being able to get away with changes in aspect ratio, as long as you can do it smoothly in transition, however, in this case, I'd argue 2.39 across the board might not be that bad a choice.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
First of all, modern day anamorphic is 2.39 by standards, not 2.35... that is a term that won't die and thus is incorrectly referred to and post masked.
Click to expand...

Ah, wasn't aware of that. Did that change sometime in the last few years?

Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Second, if I were the DP on this and you were the director, I'd likely recommend 2.39/2.40. I don't understand your conflict... you say you don't want that annoying indie look for super tight framing, but anamorphic offers a bit wider horizontal view, so I am lost.
Click to expand...

Sorry, should've been more clear on that. I guess that's actually a question I'd ask: since DSLR's like my Rebel T4i aren't really designed for shooting 2.39, wouldn't even using an anamorphic lens like the Proskar cut down on your vertical space within the frame? Because there's no more room on the sensor to just "add space" on the horizontal edges of the frame, so you'd ultimately be reformatting the image by either stretching or reframing, wouldn't you? So if you're in a car, and you've got a 35mm lens, you've only got so much space vertically, and if you take so much off the top and bottom to refit it to a 2.39 ratio, you're going to have to back up even further or else you'll be looking at a face without a forehead.

I'm sorry, I'm not incredibly familiar with the way that anamorphic lenses work: so far, the ones I've seen that work with the DSLR's seem to be adapters more than lenses themselves. Am I wrong in assuming that they'll tighten your vertical space in-camera? (If I shoot 2.39, I'll probably just mark it off on the monitor and crop in post anyway, unless I found an inexpensive alternative that works with the myriad limitations of the DSLR's I have to work with).

Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
I am a huge proponent of being able to get away with changes in aspect ratio, as long as you can do it smoothly in transition, however, in this case, I'd argue 2.39 across the board might not be that bad a choice.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've seen this in a film or two before. I'm much more of a fan of things like the frame-within-a-frame from Phone Booth, or the split/multiple-screen effect in movies like 500 Days of Summer, 50/50, and Scott Pilgrim vs the World. I had thought about just changing the aspect ratio, but I'm nowhere near talented enough to pull that off smoothly.

Thanks for the help.

-EMB
 
To be clear, I haven't done enough tests with the camera and lens I have at my disposal. If I was back home, I'd just go out with the old suburban and get some interior shots, crop them in Sony Vegas and see how much room I have to work with. But I'm not going to be home for a few months at least, so I'm trying to figure this out here, whether I can shoot the film in the preferred 2.39, or if the tighter vertical space will force me to compromise my framing on the vehicle interiors.

-EMB
 
Eric Boellner said:
Ah, wasn't aware of that. Did that change sometime in the last few years?
Click to expand...

The standards committee changed anamorphic wide screen presentation around 1970/1971. Suffice to say, it's been over 40 years and for an almost unexplainable reason, the 2.35 number has infested itself far and wide and has really clung in there. IMDB still perverts the term as do many other sources. I assure you that modern anamorphic/widescreen aspect ratio is acquired at 2.39 (2.40 rounded.)


Eric Boellner said:
Sorry, should've been more clear on that. I guess that's actually a question I'd ask: since DSLR's like my Rebel T4i aren't really designed for shooting 2.39, wouldn't even using an anamorphic lens like the Proskar cut down on your vertical space within the frame? Because there's no more room on the sensor to just "add space" on the horizontal edges of the frame, so you'd ultimately be reformatting the image by either stretching or reframing, wouldn't you? So if you're in a car, and you've got a 35mm lens, you've only got so much space vertically, and if you take so much off the top and bottom to refit it to a 2.39 ratio, you're going to have to back up even further or else you'll be looking at a face without a forehead.
Click to expand...

An anamorphic lens squeezes 2x the horizontal FOV within an image to use all the resolution. For instance, on film or a video chip, when shooting 2.39:1 the top and bottom of the image (negative or pixels) will be 'chopped' off (masked) with letter boxing to get the aspect. Since there is only a finite amount of resolution, you are losing resolution by doing this. However, by using anamorphic optics, you can avoid this. The issue is that most older animorphic optics were made for older film cameras where the full academy aperture was closer to a square than the recent 16x9 digital sensors. So doubling the horizontal FOV will result in an image that is too wide. For instance, on a 16x9 camera, that will give you a 32:9 image, which is the same as 3.56:1. A far cry from 2.40:1 or in that neighborhood.

This is also why they invented 1.33x anamorphic lenses. A 16:9 sensor used with 1.33x lenses gives a 2.364:1 image which only needs a slight (very slight) letterboxing.

So to answer your question, if using a 1080HD 16x9 DSLR camera, if you use a 2x anamorphic lens, you will get a 3.56:1 image and need to pillar box. If you don't use an anamorphic lens, you'll have to letterbox. If you wanted a 2.39 image and wanted to use AS MUCH of the resolution your camera can offer, you'd want to rent 1.33x anamorphic lenses, which are rare and expensive. Very likely out of your range.

Real anamorphic lenses do not tighten your vertical. A 25mm anamorphic lens will give the same vertical image as a 25mm spherical (normal) lens. However, the horizontal field of view will be twice as wide on an anamorphic. So a 25mm anamorphic lens will give the same view as a 12mm spherical (normal) lens.

Does that help?


So to answer your question, if using a 35mm lens in a car, and you want to letterbox the spherical lens image, yes, you'll have to go wider on the lens or back up to get the same composition. However, if you use a true 35mm anamorphic lens, you will get the same vertical composition but will gain width on the sides.

Real anamorphic is typically most appropriate on sensors that are 4:3 or in that area... which is basically film and some ArriAlexas. If using 16:9 chips, you need the mentioned and rare 1.33x ana's.
 
That actually answers pretty much every question I had about anamorphic lenses, aspect ratios, and the OP. Thanks, Ryan!

-EMB

Looks like I'll just have to wait till I get home to see whether I can crop to a 2.39 and still keep it wide enough for an open frame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top