Cinematic Bokeh

armisiano

armisiano

Veteran
Simple question, which will probably receive a very simple answer:

I've been paying more attention to the bokeh in films I watch lately, and I notice that in many/most (possibly all I don't know) of them, the bokeh is NOT circular, as we see with our lens adapters, but rather Oval shaped, stretched out vertically. Why is this? Is it the use of anamorphic lenses?
 
probably. But they dont project a "regular" squeeze ratio. its a very compressed image. you may wind up with a strange SUPER widescreen. You reallywouldnt gain anything by using it.... other than oval bokeh.
 
There really isnt a point, unless you are going film out afterwards.

Digital is only 4x3 or 16x9, there is no native 2.35:1, so you need to shoot 16x9 and then crop to achieve the anamorphic look.
 
Animorphic lenses are so you can use 35mm film to capture widescreen footage. The animorphic lens effectivly squeezes the frame from a widescreen image to a standard 35mm frame. When it is projected, another animorphic lens is attached to the front of the projector to stretch the image back out to widescreen again.

I knew a projectionist that worked in a fairly small cinema that used two projectors (rather than a platter system) to change reels mid-film. Unfortunatly they only had one animorphic lens so they had to stop the film every 20mins to change the animorphic lens onto the other projector :-D

Since your HVX records in widescreen anyway, an animorphic lens wont really work... You would end up with a sqashed widescreen image but over the whole projection screen most likely with pretty bad vignetting around the corners... (I think that is correct?)
 
it would stretch out to like 1:3.5 or so. the S35 image is closer to 4:3 than 16:9 so stretching it will produce weird imagery.

However putting a DVX100 anamorphic adapter on a HVX can produce 2.35:1 anamorphic 16:9 footage. I heard of someone doing it with an HVX, and using the FCP 2:35:1 anamorphic 1080P setting.
 
Hey actually, if you want an example of this PM IanD.

He has LOMO Anamorphic glass, HVX200 and Letus Extreme and I think he's still trying to figure it out.

=B Let's all pester him to move faster. I bet it looks KILLEr.
 
But (it is my understanding) isn't there more then just a "more resolution" argument to using anamorphic lenses.

It is a whole different look. A 50mm spherical lens does not look the same as a 50mm anamorphic lens. If you are talking pure aesthetics this should play into your decision.

Of course practically I don't think it would be possible. Along with the reasons stated above, anamorphic lenses require more light then their spherical counterparts, they are much larger, and most (only?) available in PL mount.
 
OCT-19 mount available.

They're expensive as all get out, though. Also, has anyone figured out what happens when you stretch the footage? Aren't you stretching pixels? And doesn't that mean the footage looks kinda muddy?
 
leave ANa alone....

its a whole mess thats not worth it. you need an AC thats a genius, and 10 billion watts of light to shoot at the F8 you need to keep two seperate planes of focus together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top