Anamorphic vs Spherical 'scope' in Digital exhibition and web

[Nchanta]

So i've been pondering on this for while, I understand the characteristics of anamorphic and the pros of it. I know a lot of indie shooters mask their monitors or use overlays and then render out a scope aspect ratio and upload to vimeo etc. I had an in-depth conversation with someone over this a few weeks ago and I don't really see the problem with using spherical lenses and using a 2.40:1/2.39:1 aspect ratio as your output if you shoot with it in mind. If the reason you are doing it, is for story reasons, as in making use, spatially of the frame—this is what mise-en-scene is all about.

There are a lot of film purists out there, I get that, but telling your story is more important.

Technically speaking for the web or Blu-ray it surely doesn't matter, with digital projection there is only one lens nowadays isn't there? There is just a macro that you change between flat and scope and the lens repositions itself.

In larger budget films are all the scope films shot on anamorophic still? I'd say about 7/10 films exhibited are in scope.

What is the industry consensus? What is the indie world's consensus?

 

[Grug]

There's tonnes (I imagine probably the majority) of scope films shot spherically and cropped in post.

 

[nosys70]

the difference is the behavior of light in the lenses.
It is obvious when you got flares due to bright lights. Anamorpic lenses show horizontal like streaks, particular color aberration and out of focus.
Some people find its an annoyance or at least an artifact you have to live with, while some others purists think that is the lens signature and
2.4 ratio cropped is just a heresy.
To each his own, you just need to decide on wich side you are.
historically speaking, anamorphic was invented to put more (wider) picture without touching camera or projector, and it was a bright idea.
Film is not resolution sensitive, so squeezing more in the frame had almost no consequence.
In the modern digital world, where sensor and screen have a fixed number of pixel, each time you move out of the standard, you get a loss, unless you
do it the good old way (meaning you need to shoot anamorphic AND project with anamorphic lens)

Since the second option is rarely available , you end up with both loss in the horizontal and vertical resolution.

The new 4K screens and projectors could change the deal, since you could shoot full HD anamorphic and expand picture to square pixel.
(1920 expand to approximately 3200 pixels)

 

[Nchanta]

Thanks Grug for your reply, I thought as much.

nosys70, thanks for your reply. Yeah I am aware of the the way anamorphic acts and reacts, it's purpose for being (traditionally) but your later points are interesting, and I understand the logic behind it.

So you are really nowadays with digital projection still using it for what it was intended but shooting digital there is likely to be visual compromises. Personally not a fan of the characteristics of scope, though the spatial anomalies in depth are interesting and increasing field of view can also be a plus. Aside from that flare and distortion are a by-product I can live without—especially since the overuse of digital lens flares and 'faking the anamorphic look'. I am however interested using a aspect ratio that suits my story, other than a choice between 16:9, flat or 2:1.