"Experience shooting anamorphic"

[Eric Coughlin]

I've had clients say things like they want someone who has "experience shooting anamorphic." Am I missing something or does shooting anamorphic require very little extra skillset to do so such that "experience shooting anamorphic" is just something ill-informed people say? As far as I'm aware the only things you need to be aware of are how the focal lengths/frame of view are effected as well as how to set the camera's menu system to shoot anamorphic. Or are there actual skills needed to do so that shooting spherical does not need?

I had one client who wanted to use Atlas anamorphic lenses on an EF mount Canon C300 Mark II. I explained anamorphic does not work with the C300 Mark II, they went with someone else, apparently the shoot turned out terrible (maybe they tried shooting anamorphic on a PL C300 Mark II and got a squeezed image) so for the second day they contacted a guy I know to try to get his Alexa Mini with Atlas Anamorphics but didn't have the budget for that, so I'm not sure what they ended up doing.

For myself, I mostly work with my own equipment so since I don't own anamorphic lenses I don't "have experience" shooting anamorphic. And I'm generally not really interested in jobs wanting equipment that I don't have, but it still makes me wonder wonder why clients say things like they want "experience shooting anamorphic."

 

[ahalpert]

I couldn't answer this specific question, but my experience is that the people who hire me want to see that I've done the exact same thing in the past so that I can essentially repeat it with their talent/brand/location/whatever.

On some level, that may be wise, since they don't know what they don't know but they know I can repeat myself. On the other hand, it's very foolish because the range of work I've done should clearly illustrate my capacity to learn, adapt, and innovate.

Shooting anamorphic - I think you need to have desqueeze monitoring available (in-camera or externally). It would help to have a sense of how the focal lengths behave and which you need. It would be good to have the right diopters if you need them. It might help to have experience working in that aspect ratio (but only a little + you can have experience shooting 2.35 spherically). But I don't think that using and focusing anamorphic lenses is fundamentally different from spherical.

 

[NorBro]

As far as clients, whomever says that is talking about the visual experience in the final product.

They don't care about the technical aptitude or execution and are only mindful of characteristics like a wider look with more DOF, oval bokeh and/or flares, and mastering a deliverable in an anamorphic format, which might look good on paper depending on their career path(s).

 

[Guest]

I've had clients say things like they want someone who has "experience shooting anamorphic." Am I missing something or does shooting anamorphic require very little extra skillset to do so such that "experience shooting anamorphic" is just something ill-informed people say? As far as I'm aware the only things you need to be aware of are how the focal lengths/frame of view are effected as well as how to set the camera's menu system to shoot anamorphic. Or are there actual skills needed to do so that shooting spherical does not need?

I had one client who wanted to use Atlas anamorphic lenses on an EF mount Canon C300 Mark II. I explained anamorphic does not work with the C300 Mark II, they went with someone else, apparently the shoot turned out terrible (maybe they tried shooting anamorphic on a PL C300 Mark II and got a squeezed image) so for the second day they contacted a guy I know to try to get his Alexa Mini with Atlas Anamorphics but didn't have the budget for that, so I'm not sure what they ended up doing.

For myself, I mostly work with my own equipment so since I don't own anamorphic lenses I don't "have experience" shooting anamorphic. And I'm generally not really interested in jobs wanting equipment that I don't have, but it still makes me wonder wonder why clients say things like they want "experience shooting anamorphic."

I've heard of people getting burned with anamorphic shoots, because someone didn't understand the basics.

They rented an Alexa that didn't have the anamorphic license. ...yeah

Other things, like not getting diopters and never being able to get those ultra close ups and detail shots

trying to do a oner on an anamorphic that started in a close up, but didn't get the right lens that would allow for close focus.

Used anamorphic on a miniLF thinking they could just crop in.

Not being able to navigate the red menu (which is a little over complicated) to get the correct aspect ratio.

Renting a camera that doesn't have anamorphic desqueeze.

Renting lenses that are too big and heavy.

Renting lenses that are not taken care of and the focus ring being too stiff.

...and the worst I have actually seen, is someone mounted an anamorphic lens rotated 90 degrees and the stretch was vertical

I'm sure there are other issues I have heard about, but those are the ones that come to mind.

 

[Greg_E]

Seems like a screw on 1.33x and 2.0x adapter might be useful to work out the issues of the de-squeeze in software and client monitor, then rent the correct lenses and diopters for the budget provided. I've got a cheaper 1.33x adapter and some decent diopters that I've piece-mealed together, but that's a far cry away from taking a job as someone who has "experience working with anamorphic" workflows. Did this because I wanted to "play" with some ideas, my stuff is good enough for this and the spherical lenses I own.

If you can shoot 4:3 on a c300II, then you can get a 2.0x to work, you'll just be monitoring in a funny way. Most newer external monitors have a de-squeeze for 1.33 and 2.0 so that should fix some of the issues with working on a camera that doesn't support the internal de-squeeze.