Is this Anamorphic?

K

Kenneth Lau

Active member
After reading some post about anamorphic lens vs cropping in post, I STILL cannot tell the difference by looking at the picture.

How can you guys tell the picture if it is cropped in post or it was shot on anamorphic lens?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNoKguSdy4Y

Do you guys think this music video is shot anamorphic or it was cropped? And how can you tell?

Share your expertise with me if you don't mind.
 
I am not an expert on anamorphic lenses and processes but I think that that video was cropped in post. It looks way too narrow. Cinema anamorphic has an aspect ratio of 2.39:1 and that video does not look like that to me.
 
It looks to me that this was shot with 2x anamorphic lenses on a 16:9 or 2:1 frame sensor, as the aspect ratio looks to be around 4:1.
 
I'm going to guess, based on the amount of banding I see in the skies and flare characteristics that this was shot spherical on an HDSLR and 'anamorphic flares' were applied in post.

On a related topic, one of my favorite party-games is to play a couple of minutes of Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago and ask people to guess which was shot anamorphic (one of them is not).
 
This was shot on a 2x anamorphic lens. Due to the fact that these lenses were made years ago for use with a square piece of film, and are now being used on a 16x9 shaped sensor when you unsqueeze you get that extremely wide aspect ratio. Many people choose to crop and blow up the image to fit the normal 2:40 ratio.
 
Looks definitely like anamorphic lenses to me... I've shot a bit on Panavision and Hawk anamorphics and this screams of Hawk anamorphic from the texture of the background and the true 'tell' was the oval bokeh during interior close ups. It could be Panavision anamorphics, but almost all of my Panavision experience is vintage anamorphics and this does not look like those to me. The contrast holds too well when some practicals (especially the wall flouros) hit the lens.

There were also very subtle anamorphic lens/ filter reflections that were too accidental or small for typical post-added optical stuff, like the typical horizontal lens flares.

Plus they had the budget to shoot with anamorphic lenses if they wanted, so why wouldn't they? Most of the time, the cropped S35mm (or 2-perf), digital crop and other ways of spherical to 2.40 ratio (or wider in this case) is for the saving of money, film, or pristine picture quality. This was concerned with neither of those things.

Also, it is wise to shoot 2x anamorphic on a 16:9 chip if you want this aspect ratio. If this was cropped spherical, you'd be throwing away so much resolution!

Screen shot 2013-04-11 at 8.15.15 AM.jpg
 
Last edited:
2x on 16:9, which is 3.55:1

I found this behind the scenes video (and it is Hawk lenses, FTW) :)

Screen shot 2013-04-11 at 8.34.13 AM.jpg

Here is directors monitor from Alexa feed. Clearly the center box is for protecting the image for typical 2.40:1, while the outer image is the wider aspect and is 3.55:1.

Screen shot 2013-04-11 at 8.43.20 AM.jpg
 
Last edited:
Easy one, 100% anamorphic. As others have said, it's Ana on a 16:9 sensor, hence the extreme pillar box (as ana was designed for 4:3).

Give away is really the bokeh, you can't cheat that.

This look has become popular for pop promo work recently.
 
LyleGorch said:
I'm going to guess, based on the amount of banding I see in the skies and flare characteristics that this was shot spherical on an HDSLR and 'anamorphic flares' were applied in post.

On a related topic, one of my favorite party-games is to play a couple of minutes of Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago and ask people to guess which was shot anamorphic (one of them is not).
Click to expand...

I agree that the main lenses used seemed spherical, with 'anamorphic' flare added in post on some shots.

The cropping is extreme, and more like 1:3.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Plus they had the budget to shoot with anamorphic lenses if they wanted, so why wouldn't they? Most of the time, the cropped S35mm (or 2-perf), digital crop and other ways of spherical to 2.40 ratio (or wider in this case) is for the saving of money, film, or pristine picture quality. This was concerned with neither of those things.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they really fooled me with where all that budget went. I guess I was so repelled by the content I didn't look hard enough at the bokeh. Budget doesn't seem to play into the equation for some people who continue shooting spherical widescreen though.
 
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I agree that the main lenses used seemed spherical, with 'anamorphic' flare added in post on some shots.

The cropping is extreme, and more like 1:3.
Click to expand...

Don't know why you say that. I think it looks the complete opposite. Remember, all the day light stuff is probably shot at a nice stop so you won't get the "anamorphic funk" as much as you may think. An anamorphic lens, especially Hawk at T/4 or smaller is pretty great performer.

The only shot that was probably non-anamorphic was the body brace shot at the rave and perhaps the car camera crane stuff if there was a technical decision to not do anamorphic on that (this day and age it was probably anamorphic too.) Otherwise, I have no reason to doubt any of it wasn't anamorphic.

Regarding banding and etc, I think you guys have been pixel peeping a bit too hard lately and also have to remember you are watching this video on YouTube at 720p, at most.

LyleGorch said:
Yeah, they really fooled me with where all that budget went. I guess I was so repelled by the content I didn't look hard enough at the bokeh. Budget doesn't seem to play into the equation for some people who continue shooting spherical widescreen though.
Click to expand...

I'm not here to defend the concept, but there was plenty of production value there to see were the budget went. Union job with location shooting, big HMI's to shoot magic hour at high stop/ framerate, same for interiors. Set decoration, multicam Alexa shoot with Hawks. Technocranes, pursuit vehicles, process trailer, makeup, wardrobe, etc, etc.... You may not have liked the story, but it wasn't a bad looking video and was clearly professional. I don't know who shot it, but it had a style which made me think of Chris Probst's videos. I'll have to go look it up now. EDIT: David Devlin was the DP.

Regarding story, I agree it wasn't all that and a bag of potato chips, but it was a parellel story to the story of the song, so that was perhaps why it was so limited in concept. The 'boy' they cast was almost as feminine as she is, so I was unable to connect with the narrative because the man is not relatable. He is way too effeminate to be a 'bad boy' type, at least for me to get into the narrative.
 
Last edited:
I agree, although it's not a crop in this case, I did wonder why 3.55:1 was the way to go in this video. Seems nothing but an occasional wide really benefited. It wasn't a bad video, but why not 2.39:1? They protected for it, it appears, so perhaps it was a decision left until later and this prevailed?
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
I'm not here to defend the concept, but there was plenty of production value there to see were the budget went. Union job with location shooting, big HMI's to shoot magic hour at high stop/ framerate, same for interiors. Set decoration, multicam Alexa shoot with Hawks. Technocranes, pursuit vehicles, process trailer, makeup, wardrobe, etc, etc.... You may not have liked the story, but it wasn't a bad looking video and was clearly professional. I don't know who shot it, but it had a style which made me think of Chris Probst's videos. I'll have to go look it up now. EDIT: David Devlin was the DP.

Regarding story, I agree it wasn't all that and a bag of potato chips, but it was a parellel story to the story of the song, so that was perhaps why it was so limited in concept. The 'boy' they cast was almost as feminine as she is, so I was unable to connect with the narrative because the man is not relatable. He is way too effeminate to be a 'bad boy' type, at least for me to get into the narrative.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that is a top dollar music video. An pop star of Talylor Swift's stature would require it. I agree about the casting of the "Bad Boy". I can not see him having the testicular fortitude to take a girl like that into a dive bar like where he got his butt kicked. Thinking about it, I can't see a girl like that letting a guy like that take her into a bar like that!

I re-watched the video, and I really have to say that I found that frame to be way too narrow and distracting, even watching it on my 30" Cinema Display. Great for the big screen, not so much for a 16X9 YouTube video.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Don't know why you say that. I think it looks the complete opposite. Remember, all the day light stuff is probably shot at a nice stop so you won't get the "anamorphic funk" as much as you may think. An anamorphic lens, especially Hawk at T/4 or smaller is pretty great performer.
Click to expand...

I suppose it was the lack of markers, that gave me the impression of spherical with anamorphic FX. At which point, other than the wider image, which doesn't seem to be used to any great degree... why use anamorphic?

Truth be told I don't particularly care for 'extra wide', and sometimes I think even for major motion pictures, the wider than 1.85 seems to be 'just because it can be done'...
 
It seems like alot of pop videos, and car commercials have been going for the 3:55 ratio. I'm sure that during camera tests the DP was like, "and then we will crop the image" while the producer chimes in "WHY, I LOVE it just how it is!". Works for me in those forms, I don't think I could watch a feature in that ratio. Unless it was all snakes and landscapes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top