Lenses used in Blade Runner, et al.

[Rubbersquare]

I'm looking for a lens that will create a look like Blade Runner (and many other films, but that's the one that pops into mind). I think it's an anamorphic lens, but not sure why the out of focus backgrounds are compressed horizontally and lens flares are expanded horizontally. If this makes sense and you can help, it's much appreciated. (This doesn't apply to the effects shots).

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

You need to shoot with an anamorphic lens, or produce the horizontal lens flares in post.

Lens flares can only happen inside of a multi optic lens. Because of the unique shape of anamorphic lenses, the lens flares do not shape into contained circles but flare out in horizontal streaks.

I'm not sure what you mean by compression of the background horizontally. All I can tell you is that anamorphic lens focal lengths are rated not like spherical lenses. This is because the horizontal focal length is really cut in half.

Meaning if you had a 100mm anamorphic lens, its vertical focal length would be that of 100mm but it's horizontal focal length would more resemble if you had a 50mm lens on. You should also know that these lenses need to be shot with deeper depth of field because anamorphic lenses have slight bent depth of field planes. This might be some reasons to what you meant by the compressed horizontal background, although I did not understand what you were exactly asking.

Wish I could help more.

 

[Rubbersquare]

I'm not sure what you mean by compression of the background horizontally.

I worded it horribly. I understand how the lens flare works in anamorphic lenses (and hate fincher's fake ones). The "compressed background" that i was trying to explain is how specular lights, blurred lights in the distance, which would be circles in a non-anamorphic lens, become ovals that are taller than wide. I thought they would stretch horizontally like a lens flare. I'm going to try to grab a screen shot as an example (didn't find one on Google).

Edit: here's a screen cap. see how the (what i thought was rain in the window) sparkly dangly things have a slightly horizontally compressed look. watching the film (for the millionth time) i kept getting that feeling that the short depth of field shots had this horizontal squeezing in the background, even while the lens flares were stretched).

EDIT #2: OR i had another thought. MAYBE if those lights in the background are actually thinner than that, the anamorphic lens is stretching it like it does the lens flare. what made me think this is another image from the same scene (tho not necessarily same lns, but has the same look) where it could be all the highlights hitting the camera are getting a bit stretched by the lens.

Is that what i'm seeing? a hairline light source/reflection/highlight being stretched wider rather than being squeezed? you can really see how the depth of field is affected from the highlight on her face, to the jacket collar and then back to the window.

here's an obvious lens flare being stretched from the same shot:

just wondering. can someone clear it up?

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Very interesting. Thanks for the caps. I look forward to hearing others opinions on the matter. I personally do not exactly see what you mean.



As for my guess...

Anamorphic lenses should not distort the shape of objects. For instance circular objects in frame remain circular. Even circular objects which emit light should remain in accurate shape.

The only element which should suffer from anamorphic lenses (besides slightly curved planes of focus) are light flares which are only produced from glares within the lens itself. Meaning all shapes the lens sees should be accurately represented and the only reason lens flares are odd, is because this happens within the lens itself.

Highlights will not be stretched, only flares.

Looking at those stills, I would have to say those lights are not being compressed. Anamorphic lenses stretch lens FLARES. For instance those lights you see on camera are not flares. They are just very bright lights. None of them are directly striking the camera lens. Instead they are bright in value and are out of focus.

Looking at your still images, I would venture to say the first screen cap is indeed some kind of water or likewise texture that is smearing the light. As far as the second two caps, the first one looks much like narrow fluorescent tubes, but looking more carefully I see many circles of confusion from the out of focus light source telling me this may just be a narrow bank of many smaller lamps.

Just my thoughts


Great posts btw, I hope it spurs some great anamorphic talk.