anamorphic

Absolutly. DO NOT USE IT TO SHOOT WEDDINGS. You will end up with out of focus and very ugly footage. Shooting with the adapter requires measuring focus distance and stopping down the iris, for every shot. Personally, and I have said this before, the advantages of the ana-adpater are seen mostly in wide angle shots, with lots of detail. So the only time that I would use the adapter is for wide shots, while shooting normal 4:3 and cropping in post for head shots, closeups and any shot with shallow DoF.
 
Scharky,

That's exactly how I used it. Three DVX100a's in squeeze for medium/close-ups and a DVX100+PanaAna in the balcony for a master wide shot. Lots to choose from in post.

The PanaAna is technically better resolution-wise, but in the real world its limitations are formidable. Squeeze, on the other hand, makes everything much, much easier with very little image sacrifice. For straight indie filmmaking (set shots, ample set up, careful focus pulling) the PanaAna totally rules, but in run 'n' gun situations it is useless.
 
Woops

Woops

disjecta said:
Thanks for posting my link but I do not use an adaptor...I don't even own one. Check out the top thread in the Technical section about uprezzing to find out my method.

Thanks...
Click to expand...

Sorry about that. Also, learned recently that Broken was filmed with a wide angle converter rather than the anamorphic adaptor.
 
Igor Bineli said:
please, enlighten me
based on what do you say so?
afaik (and it's short) , it's supposed to be around 4k of res
Click to expand...


i went off on this huge tangent about this in another thread, but basically you can scan film in at whatever you want. i can scan a one pixel image in at 4k but that doesnt mean it has 4k worth of pixel info in it.. its still just an image of one pixel.
film is only scanned at 4k when they scan the entire 4:3 frame.. once you crop out the center portion to make a 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 image.. youve only got about 2k of that scan left to support the image.. awfully close to HD res.. despite what you may have heard.. anamorphic shooting is fizzling out everywhere.. either HD or film.. because theres plenty enough resolution there to crop and not need to use anamorphics. now the only question left is does that 2k portion of pixels acually have 2k worth of percievable detial in it.. or 1000 distinctly detailed "lines of resolution" vertically ? probably not.. it would pend filmstock and lenses used and the prints made and all but by the time it reaches the screen i wouldnt argue that it probably only has the optical equivelent of 800 lines of res vertically as being exaggereated.

does the anamorhic have the ability to be as sharp as non anamorphic.. IMHO yes. ive owned and used one for quite a while, and especially on the wide shots it can be incredibly sharper by the time you consider having to blow up the cropped inamge to anamorphic 16:9. but as stated before it all depends on if your using it right or not. barrys guide would be a great way to be sure your getting themost out of it.. in sloppy hands the image will suffer. in carefull hands, it will shine.
 
I agree,

I always use the anamorphic adaptor for 16:9, even for R&G, and never had a single problem.
I just have to remember some key numbers for aperture/max zoom and that it !

The real limitation, it is really difficult to have a narrow DOF because the wider the aperture limits proportionnally the ability to zoom in.

But overall, it alwways looks A TON sharper than the sueeze mode, even on a small monitor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top