Anamorphic: super newbie question

[dsp_418]

Hi there,

just got a Kowa Prominar 16-a and, despite I don't have the clamp yet, I wanted to give it a try just handled in front of my Nikko4 50 f/1.4.
Now I've got my anamorphic lame test and want to see how it looks. So, I'm importing the quicktime in After Effects and then... I'm lost. How to proper view the quicktime without the obvious distortion due to the anamorphic nature? I can get close but only resizing the video so small (almost 4:3) that looks a stamp mark on my 1920 comp! How it comes I see anamorphic tests around with a good widescreen proportion? Sorry for the newbie question, hope to get some good hints

TIA!!!

 

[Egg Born Son]

You don't need to go into AE to unsqueeze it. You can do it within Premiere Pro when you import it. I'm not too good with Premiere and work with native P2 files so if it's different for quicktime clips I can't help you. But there is a setting to import as anamorphic and it displays correctly in the preview. Then there is another setting on export that you have to set to square pixels to get it to export correctly. I always forget and have to relearn it everytime so I'll need to get in front of my editing computer to be more specific. But that should get you started. Type 'PAR' (pixel aspect ratio) and 'anamorphic' into the Premiere Pro Help search engine and read all the pages that come up, all the info you need is buried within a couple of pages in there somewhere. If you can't find it or noone else can be more specific I'll be able to open a project and walk you through it in a few hours when I get home.

But the info you need is in the help files.

 

[dsp_418]

Thank you Egg Born Son,

I'll have a look at the Premiere help, hope to figure this out.

 

[dsp_418]

I guess you mean this page: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/premierepro/cs/using/WS03BF7479-8C7B-4522-8C75-210AD102524Ea.html
Kinda confusing
Btw, I've tried two anamorphic settings in Premiere, both of them are not working. Same settings available in After Effects, but no luck. HD Anamorphic 1080 (1.33) and Anamorphic 2.1 (2.0). Isn't the Kowa supposed to produce 2.35?

I've attached a crappy sample of the aspect ratio I'm getting straight out of my 7D. I'm expecting something like this, am I totally wrong? https://vimeo.com/36217887

And just to give a clue about the proportions, here's a similar shot with 50 only:

 

[Egg Born Son]

Still a couple of hours from home but I can answer a couple of points you raise above.

First, the final aspect ratio is dependent on a couple of things. The aspect ratio of your camera and the squeeze factor of the lens. The camera's aspect ratio looks like 4:3 from your sample image therefore the 2x anamorphic will create a final 8:3 image or 2.66:1 (50s cinemascope). Modern widescreen is 2.35:1 but you will only get this by cropping the edges in post. If you had a 16:9 sensor like my HVX then the final aspect ratio becomes a ridiculous 3.55:1. This is something that can't be avoided. The Kowa will not produce 2.35 (your vimeo example is not 2.35, it looks like 3 or 3.55 to me). The only way you are going to get 2.35:1 is to trim the edges off in post. The benefit of the anamorphic is you preserve vertical resolution (which your eyes are more sensitive to). The price is you get pixels that are 2:1 stretched and lose some horizontal resolution. On the other hand this softens the image some and makes it look less like video so it depends on what look you prefer. The other option is to film with a spherical lens (preferably a wide angle lens) and add black bars in post. This will preserve horizontal resolution and cost vertical resolution.

Second, pretty sure Anamorphic 2:1 is the correct import setting. You Kowa is 2x. It probably actually isn't exactly 2x, it might be closer to 1.9x. All anamorphics are handmade and each is a little different. When you export select square pixels. Would need to actually do it to confirm but try following the instructions under "Correct individual aspect ratio misinterpretations" heading from that help page. I use CS4, it has offline help files that look a little different but it sounds about right.

Third, if that last image is straight out of the camera...you're using your anamorphic totally wrong. It should squeeze the image horizontally (make everything skinny). You have rotated it 90 degrees off axis and are squeezing the image vertically (pancaking the image). The easiest way to align your lens correctly is to carry a small LED torch. Put the torch somewhere facing the camera and back off at least 6 feet. Point the camera at the light and you should get a blue flare from one side of the image to the other like this:

If the flare is perfectly horizontal as above then the anamorphic is correctly aligned. The way you have aligned the anamorphic for the sample image would show a vertical flare (wrong). If it is diagonal, even slightly, it needs to be corrected or strange distortions will be present when you unstretch it.

In your viewfinder it should look like this (had to zoom in to make it fit):

 

[Egg Born Son]

Just to add, the sequence should be 4:3 is that is what your sensor is, the pixel aspect ratio should be anamorphic 2:1. That way the project will take a 4:3 frame and stretch it by a factor of 2. This is the opposite of what your anamorphic is doing (squeezing 2x the image into a 4:3). Think of it as compression.

 

[dsp_418]

Great, thank you for all the informations!
First thing I rotated the lens 90 degrees, then I interpreted the footage as 1:33 and that worked out.

Thank you Egg Born Son.

 

[Egg Born Son]

Cool. Just got home. The other thing you can do is set up your sequence as normal and then 'Interpret Footage' and conform the PAR to 2:1. The when you export set it to square pixels. Now you know all the places to look you can experiment to find your preferred workflow.

 

[dsp_418]

Still a couple of hours from home but I can answer a couple of points you raise above.

[...] On the other hand this softens the image some and makes it look less like video so it depends on what look you prefer. The other option is to film with a spherical lens (preferably a wide angle lens) and add black bars in post. This will preserve horizontal resolution and cost vertical resolution.

About the wide angle solutions it seems is not gonna work as the vignetting is over exaggerated.
I've tried a 24mm that on the APS-C crop sensor and btw is not even so crazy wide. I guess I can hardly go lower than 35mm with the anamorphic.

 

[Egg Born Son]

No, I meant as an alternative to using an anamorphic lens. If you are going to mask regular footage to create a widescreen aspect ratio then it looks better with a wider lens. If you are using the anamorphic lens with a full frame sensor you'll be lucky to get away with wider than a 50mm taking lens (that's the widest I can go) with minimal vignetting. 85mm is completely vignetting free for me. I use a lens adapter on a HVX200 and can use a taking lens as wide as 35mm by zooming in and effectively turning it into the equivalent of a s35 or 16mm sensor camera. If I zoom all the way in I can just use a 28mm lens if I frame to hide the vignetting, but any stray light shows up as reflections of the inside of the barrel. So in practice my 50mm Nikkor and 58mm Helios are the practical limit.

 

[jax_rox]

To clarify, 2.35 is 50's projection scope frame size, these days it's 2.39 (often rounded to 2.40 in discussion). Most film cameras have ground glass frames for 2.35 still, as the decision was made in the 70's to project at 2.39 for cleaner frame lines etc. Anamorphic Blu-Rays are also 2.39. I'm not really sure why most see 2.35 as the 'standard', as that's not what has been projected, or actually seen for quite some time.

Also, general suggestions with anamorphic lenses are to stop down to ~4 or 5.6 (or at least not use them wide open), and not use too long a lens on it.
Of course, if using standard sphericals you can basically do what you want, and then crop in post. This tends to work pretty well, especially if using high end digital, or 2-perf 35mm.

 

[Egg Born Son]

2.66 is cinemascope. Modern widescreen 2.35, 2.39 and 2.40 are the same thing. Pick your nomenclature. The difference is 17 pixels at 1080p.

 

[jax_rox]

Scope projection was supposed to be full aperture (2.66 : 1, twice horizontal of 1.33 : 1) with sound run in interlock using a 35mm fullcoat roll. But before the first CinemaScope movie was released, it was decided to put tiny mag stripes on each side of the 35mm print instead, and use smaller perfs (CS perfs) to make room for that. This shaved the width down to 2.55 : 1 once expanded by 2X during projection.

Keep in mind that the projection always has a 2X expansion horizontally with scope.

Then it was decided in the late 1950's to also have normal 35mm prints with an optical track on the left side, as with Academy/1.85, and normal perfs. This created a 2.35 : 1 image that was shifted to the right, not centered on the print stock.

Then it was decided to reduce the height of the projector aperture to hide frameline splices better, changing the projection mask to .838" x .700", from 2.35 to 2.3942856 : 1. This was around 1972.

Then it was decided to standardize the width of all sound projection apertures to .825", so the anamorphic aperture was changed to .825" x .690" (2.3913042 : 1).

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/cinemascope_oar.htm

It's nitpicking, sure, but projection aperture is 2.39:1, rather than 2.35:1, if you want to be exact (and I like to nitpick )