anamorphic
- Thread starter mikkel
- Start date
MovieSwede
Well-known member
What i understand, Lucas (Or his co-workers) tested to use an anamorpic adaptor. But find out they got better result with croping.
And apperently the picture quality was enough. Episode 3 had excellent pictures. Remember that the 35mm copy that ends up in a regular cinema only has about 800 lines of resolution. 1080P croped has the same.
And apperently the picture quality was enough. Episode 3 had excellent pictures. Remember that the 35mm copy that ends up in a regular cinema only has about 800 lines of resolution. 1080P croped has the same.
Hmm, i saw the film in Coloseum in Oslo (the worlds biggest THX cinema), and unfortunatly the images did not look good on the big screen. Especially the rolling titles had an obvious videolook to them. It was quite ugly.
(I later saw the film in a much smaller theater, it looked a lot better, but not great.)
(I later saw the film in a much smaller theater, it looked a lot better, but not great.)
evinsky
Well-known member
Anamorphics are ingherently less sharp, and introduce many abberations that can be really problematic for the HD imagers. It's much beter to crop in this situation. The DVX anamorphic is only better than the squeeze mode because it doesn't eliminate any pixels, but it is noticeable less sharp than the 4:3 image.
Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
evinski,
I dont see that the anamorphic adaptor is noticeable less sharp than 4:3 image here...
It looks very sharp.
...yes, so much limitations with zoom/aperture/focus, but very sharp.
I dont see that the anamorphic adaptor is noticeable less sharp than 4:3 image here...
It looks very sharp.
...yes, so much limitations with zoom/aperture/focus, but very sharp.
MovieSwede
Well-known member
Gordon JL
Film have much more res than HD. But film has some disadvantage to. Like they loose quality for every generation of copy. were a digital copy can keep the quality much better.
So several test has pointed to that a filmcopy that reach an avarage theater has only 700-800 lines of res.
Film have much more res than HD. But film has some disadvantage to. Like they loose quality for every generation of copy. were a digital copy can keep the quality much better.
So several test has pointed to that a filmcopy that reach an avarage theater has only 700-800 lines of res.
Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
i'm not a good tech, but your evaluation, 700 to 800 lines of res. makes sense to me.
Igor Bineli
Member
Antoine_Fabi 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
Ryan_W
Active member
Hmm, i saw the film in Coloseum in Oslo (the worlds biggest THX cinema), and unfortunatly the images did not look good on the big screen. Especially the rolling titles had an obvious videolook to them. It was quite ugly.
(I later saw the film in a much smaller theater, it looked a lot better, but not great.)
I think it's much more likely that the first theater had an earlier (worse) model projector. Or was projecting it over too large a space for the type of projector it is. Personally, I've seen it projected very large and it looks lovely.
(I later saw the film in a much smaller theater, it looked a lot better, but not great.)
I think it's much more likely that the first theater had an earlier (worse) model projector. Or was projecting it over too large a space for the type of projector it is. Personally, I've seen it projected very large and it looks lovely.
evinsky said:
hmmm....
Accoring to pages 124, 125, and 126 of Barry's DVX book letterbox, either stretched letterbox or squeeze mode, and anamorphic adaptor yield approx 380, 350, and 54o lines of resolution respectively.
Check out:
http://www.deadkidzfilms.com
click on Field Theory.
This is a short by a DVXuser (forgot his user name) He shoots exclusively with the Anamorphic and it's rediculously sharp.
Also look at:
http://www.pinelakefilms.com/birdcage.html
shot buy platinum member disjecta. He uses the adaptor and then crops to cinescope.
Also super sharp with the anamorphic:
http://www.whatisbroken.com/broken_trailer_enter.html
And see if you can find the Sex Machine trailer too (too lazy to look it up).
evinsky
Well-known member
I don't want to quibble about this. I've shot two feature films with the Anamorphic lens and seen both on an HD blow up. The anamprhic lens is capable of producing a very sharp image. However you simply can't compare a straight 4:3 Image with that of the Anamorphic. You do lose somewhere around 50 lines of resolution depending on zoom and focus position. If you know your going to 16:9 by all means the Anamorphic is the right choice. Just understand it's limitations. Also understand that the denser the imaging device the more suceptible it is to Chromatic abberations. HD cameras need very highly corrected lenses to achieve thier full potential. Anamorphics make this even harder to achieve. Film has a wonderfull way of shruging off lens imperfections but HD is not so forgiving.
Bart_Boge
Well-known member
I just shot an event last weekend with 4 DVX's--my "old skool" DVX100 with the PanaAna16x9, and three rented DVX100a's shooting in squeeze mode. Theoretically, my DVX100 w/adapter should give me more resolution, but I doubt anyone will be able to tell the difference in the end.
Using squeeze with the 100a's means you get full use of the lens throughout the zoom range and, most importantly for event work, auto focus works, even in 24p (albeit slowly--"focus assist"). The 100 w/ PanaAna takes a bit more skill to use. I set up the 100 as the wide-shot B-roll camera from the balcony and used the 100a's for close-up work (house left, right, and a reverse angle from the front). Worked great. BTW, I crop everything to 2.35:1 in post as well.
If someone was shooting an indie film, one DVX100a w/PanaAna would be perfect. In the hands of a competent DP (or at least someone who read Barry's book) the PanaAna would consistently deliver a sharper image. But in scenes with extreme close-ups or other such scenarios that give the PanaAna trouble, squeeze can be a reasonable alternative.
Of course, when the HVX200 comes out, buying a DVX100a + PanaAna would make little sense. True 16x9 imagers trounce anamorphics every time. An indie filmmaker could shoot 1080p, crop in post, and get an image that in certain contexts would actually rival a CineAlta or VariCam, at least resolution-wise. No brainer. The net price difference between a HVX200 and a DVX100a + PanaAna would be less than $1500 and oh so worth the difference.
1/3 CCDs will make those rich shallow DOF shots very difficult compared to bigger imaging chips. But just think like Orson Wells and Stanley Kubrick--those guys LOVED a wide DOF with every detail sharply rendered. Camera movement, blocking, color and overall framing composition (especially for 2.35:1 aspect) do as much for conveying an artful cinematic experience as shallow DOF does.
Using squeeze with the 100a's means you get full use of the lens throughout the zoom range and, most importantly for event work, auto focus works, even in 24p (albeit slowly--"focus assist"). The 100 w/ PanaAna takes a bit more skill to use. I set up the 100 as the wide-shot B-roll camera from the balcony and used the 100a's for close-up work (house left, right, and a reverse angle from the front). Worked great. BTW, I crop everything to 2.35:1 in post as well.
If someone was shooting an indie film, one DVX100a w/PanaAna would be perfect. In the hands of a competent DP (or at least someone who read Barry's book) the PanaAna would consistently deliver a sharper image. But in scenes with extreme close-ups or other such scenarios that give the PanaAna trouble, squeeze can be a reasonable alternative.
Of course, when the HVX200 comes out, buying a DVX100a + PanaAna would make little sense. True 16x9 imagers trounce anamorphics every time. An indie filmmaker could shoot 1080p, crop in post, and get an image that in certain contexts would actually rival a CineAlta or VariCam, at least resolution-wise. No brainer. The net price difference between a HVX200 and a DVX100a + PanaAna would be less than $1500 and oh so worth the difference.
1/3 CCDs will make those rich shallow DOF shots very difficult compared to bigger imaging chips. But just think like Orson Wells and Stanley Kubrick--those guys LOVED a wide DOF with every detail sharply rendered. Camera movement, blocking, color and overall framing composition (especially for 2.35:1 aspect) do as much for conveying an artful cinematic experience as shallow DOF does.
