Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

E

emosia

Active member
Hey all... I am new so please be gentle.. I am trrying to cut my teeth with all this.. So It's safe to say, I will not be shooting anything that will be transferred to film.. (Hopefully someday). So do I need one of these.. Right now my plans are strictly to be viewed on an NTSC monitor.. Any thoughts..

Matt Senatore
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

You definitely don't need it. It can make for better, higher-resolution widescreen footage, but the results only become really apparent the larger you project the image. If you're sticking to an NTSC monitor, you certainly wouldn't need the anamorphic adapter.
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

Thanks for the response Barry. Do People use the adapter in my situation or is it a big pain the butt.. I mean.. I definitely want it to look the best it can be and having more screen real estate doesnt hurt.. Am I way off base here?
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

One other question.. DO I just use the letterbox feature on the camera.. I like the look of that better than the full screen.. Sorry for all the dumb questions, I just wanna gather as much info as I can before I start jumping in..
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

I agree with letterbox looking better... but me I add the bars in post, and just mark my display with tape. That way if I frame some one with a little too much head room, I can bump up or down the frame a little.

For the best quality, the Anamorphic adapter is the way to go. It would be nice if the new dvx squeeze mode oversamples the CCD's, as some sony consumer cameras over sample to get the 16x9.

Also, it would be nice if you could set the viewfinder to automatically unsqueeze the image so you can get a more accurate composition without resorting to an external monitor with a 16x9 switch.
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

Letterbox is fine, or masking in post is fine, whichever you prefer.

It would be nice if the new dvx squeeze mode oversamples the CCD's, as some sony consumer cameras over sample to get the 16x9.
Click to expand...

No such luck. First of all, there's no more CCD to oversample, the CCD's are basically the same pixel count as the frame. Secondly, Adam Wilt posted some resolution charts shot on the "A" in regular & squeeze mode, and it looks like squeeze mode clocks in at about 360 lines, just about what you'd expect for a regular crop & stretch implementation. (which is, of course, still dramatically higher resolution than any interlaced camera can deliver in 16:9, and as high as the best of the "oversampling" cameras!)

Also, it would be nice if you could set the viewfinder to automatically unsqueeze the image so you can get a more accurate composition without resorting to an external monitor with a 16x9 switch.
Click to expand...

Again, out of luck. You see a squeezed version in the viewfinder. Century makes a viewfinder de-anamorphosizer, an accessory lens that attaches to your viewfinder. It, however, is about $395 retail.
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

barry,

i was interested in getting the anamorphic lens because of the higher resolution. most of my stuff will stay on video for ntsc viewing, but i figured the anamorphic lens would make my widescreen stuff that much better. i know that ntsc doesn´t have great resolution, but watching film footage in ntsc the quality difference over video is huge. so, basically, are you saying that the resolution difference between the anamorphic lens and the regular lens, when viewed on an ntsc monitor or just a television, is barely visible? if this is true, i probably won´t buy the lens.
thanks
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

...reg tv dosent make much of a difference.. on an hd tv it starts to become an actuall issue .. so even if your projects are for ntsc distribution/showings, the longevity of the quality is at question. with all tv preposed to be switching to hd in 2005 (last i checked they switched that to 2008 i think) but you get the idea anyway.
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

So the overall consensus is (for me at least) Stay away fromt eh lens for now, correct?


Matt Senatore
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

Barry.. you didnt need to explain, I was stating it would be nice if it could.

The DVX100 has almost 10% more effective pixels than needed for an NTSC frame.... so it is possible... well a little bit at least... half squeeze lol.

and emosia.. I would unless you are planning to goto film. IMHO, the anamorphic build quality is not worth the price.. in fact the thing is plastic (we already have cracked one) and has a honkey mount.
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

Thanks all of you for clearing that up for me.. I am gonna stay away from it for the time being..

And just to add... I don know where I would be without this list. You guys are really awesome.. I really appreciate you guys being here..

thanks

matt senatore
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

[quote author=lobot link=board=news;num=1073030805;start=0#6 date=01/02/04 at 11:34:25]barry,

i was interested in getting the anamorphic lens because of the higher resolution.  most of my stuff will stay on video for ntsc viewing, but i figured the anamorphic lens would make my widescreen stuff that much better.  [/quote]

Only if you're putting it on a widescreen TV. If you're planning on releasing it on a 4:3 television (which something like 96% of all NTSC tv's are) then you'll have to letterbox your footage, which will involve resizing it, and thus giving back all the resolution you gained by shooting anamorphic.

If you're planning on making DVD's, most DVD's nowadays are released in 16:9 anamorphic (even though there are practically no 16:9 TV's in this country!) So if you want to make anamorphic DVD's, the anamorphic adapter will give you the best results. But again, that's only really true if you stay widescreen throughout. If you go back to 4:3 (by letterboxing, for VHS for example) then you give back all the gains you had made.

BTW, I am an ardent fan of the adapter, I just don't know if it's right for you right now. But it is definitely a good thing -- a DVX100 with the adapter gives you a native 16:9/24P camera for under $4000 -- unheard of!
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

[quote author=iamloser link=board=news;num=1073030805;start=0#7 date=01/02/04 at 11:56:44]...with all tv preposed to be switching to hd in 2005 (last i checked they switched that to 2008 i think) but you get the idea anyway. [/quote]

NOPE. This is a common fallacy. Nobody has proposed a switch to HD!!! They have only mandated switching to digital television broadcasts (i.e., DTV). Broadcasters will be in complete compliance if they broadcast standard-resolution signals, digitally. HDTV is a small subset of the DTV standard.

HD may or may not ever catch on in America. But just be clear, the government certainly hasn't mandated that we switch to HD!
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

[quote author=Jarred Land link=board=news;num=1073030805;start=0#9 date=01/02/04 at 15:13:44]Barry.. you didnt need to explain, I was stating it would be nice if it could.
[/quote]

Hey Jarred, man, you know that I know you know all that, right?

(how's that for eloquence?)

I just put it there because not only will others come asking questions like that (how come everything in my viewfinder's all squished, how do I un-squish the viewfinder, etc).  Just trying to shortcut the inevitable q/a process.

I had asked Steve for the viewfinder de-anamorphosizing effect, plus a few other things: underscan, plus magnified view for focus, etc. That was in October or so -- never had a CLUE they were going to release an update! Now I wish I had started bugging him for features like that back in July or so -- maybe they would have made it in!
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

ha ha.. I knew you knew that I knew that you always are one step ahead :P
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

hey barry, thanks for clearing that up !! i just assumed high definition was part of the dtv package. good to hear that its not. but even as so , i still make the assumption that about 4-5 years from now hd will be prominent enough to make sd seem sort of substandard. its a way of thinking that more or less keeps me prepared, rather than expectant though. :)
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

Hey IA(n)L,

Don't mean to be picky, but so many people are confusing the issue (DTV being not equal to HDTV) that I just like to point it out now 'n' then.

The whole DTV thing bugs me, it seems like a massive transfer of wealth from the consumers to the manufacturers. People are, by and large, quite content with their existing television. Heck, they're happy with VHS quality! On LONG PLAY mode! I'd bet if you did a survey, of people who actually know how to program a VCR, I'd bet 95% of them use it in LP mode exclusively. These people are not exactly clamoring for a higher-quality video signal, and I bet (I BET) that when people start to REALLY UNDERSTAND that the government is saying that in a couple of years you'll have to throw away all your television sets and buy new ones (or, hey, you can buy this nifty $400 receiver for each and every one of your TV's)... man, there's gonna be a revolution. Not an HDTV revolution, a storming-the-streets, throwing-TV's-through-windows-style revolution. I just don't see how they really expect it to happen. The average family in America has, what, 3 TV's? Four? And in a couple of years they're all supposed to just stop working one day... good luck, FCC, you're gonna need it.

HDTV may or may not ever become a standard (Europe seems particularly disinterested) but this whole government-mandated switchover is something to keep your eyes on.
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

Barry,

I think the move to HD is due in part to the fact that in the past 20 years, TVs keep getting bigger while the signal stays the same. So what I'm getting on my 19" TV is basically the same as my parents get on their 32" TV. Theirs looks "blurry" up close, but fine from a distance in their big family room. Thus my theory: bigger TVs (i.e., the home theater) look crummy up close, so HD makes for a more pleasing view. I suspect that from 20 feet away, people can't tell standard from HD on the same sized set. But from 6-8 feet away in a small living room, the difference may be huge.

Anyway, that's my "perceptual" theory of the push for HD. My Ph.D. is in psychology, so naturally that would be my angle. Thanks, by the way, for clarifying that a digital signal, not an HD signal is what was mandated. I need to "untell" about a dozen people about that one!

Now Barry, my question for you, Jared, and any others: Please tell me exactly how this anamorphic lens actually works. How does a lens squeese more data on the chip? Are the chips in the DVXs 16:9? I don't get it, and I feel like an idiot reading this sight not knowing the details about how this adapter words (I'm an advanced hobbiest, not a pro).

Thanks for sharing your expertise on this site, guys. I've been reading this site for about a month, and just registered tonight.

Dave Kilpatrick
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

The adapter doesnt actually squeeze more info onto the camera, what is basically does is gives you a 16x9 image without throwing away data that would be covered with bars on the in camera mode. The adapter basically takes a horizontally wider angle image and squeezes it into a 4:3 frame that the camera then picks up.. so you see a squished image in the viewfinder and LCD.. your NLE then unsqueeze's the image to make it back to 16:9.
 
Re: Do I really Need The Anamorphic lens?

Jared,

Thanks! That makes sense. But let me see if I understand what you are saying. In the past (when VCRs first came out), you'd see a movie "squished" to fit our TV, now you get a message saying "this has been formatted to fit your TV." Is this basically the same thing - like when they tried to fit a 16:9 movie on a 4:3 TV screen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top