Mini 35 and Anamorphic Lenes?
- Thread starter mattsdp
- Start date
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Mini 35 and Anamorphic Lenes?
But remember that lenses which get a 2.39:1 ratio on film get a 2.66:1 ratio on video.
But remember that lenses which get a 2.39:1 ratio on film get a 2.66:1 ratio on video.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Mini 35 and Anamorphic Lenes?
35mm is either cropped from a 4:3 section of the negative to get a 1.85:1 image (similar to letterboxing the 4:3 image) or it's shot anamorphically. The anamorphic lenses have a 2x squeeze, and the negative space used when shooting anamorphic is about 1.2:1, so with a 2x squeeze you get about 2.4:1 (or 2.35:1).
Because we're recording onto a 4:3 CCD, the very same lens with the 2x squeeze is now compressing 2x the horizontal picture onto your 1.33:1 image, resulting in about 2.66:1.
35mm is either cropped from a 4:3 section of the negative to get a 1.85:1 image (similar to letterboxing the 4:3 image) or it's shot anamorphically. The anamorphic lenses have a 2x squeeze, and the negative space used when shooting anamorphic is about 1.2:1, so with a 2x squeeze you get about 2.4:1 (or 2.35:1).
Because we're recording onto a 4:3 CCD, the very same lens with the 2x squeeze is now compressing 2x the horizontal picture onto your 1.33:1 image, resulting in about 2.66:1.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Mini 35 and Anamorphic Lenes?
The problem comes from the fact that 35mm film has many different sections of the negative being used depending on which aspect ratio and format you're wanting.
For example, the whole image *is* there, but it's not presented to the aperture in 35mm when shooting in scope. The aperture is about a 1.2:1 area of space. Because of this, the resulting frame is about 2.4:1 (or 2.35).
If you were to expose the full area of the negative on 35mm, and use 2x anamorphic lenses, you *would* get a 2.66:1 ratio, it just so happens that they don't use the full space.
Reasons behind it started because after sound was introduced, it was printed on the side of the 35mm film, over top of where picture used to be. So what was a 4:3 ratio then became about a 1.2:1 ratio. When films were shot spherically, they would crop off of the side (because of the audio track) AND the bottom to get a 1.37:1 ratio (or the 'academy aperture'). 1.85 was achieved by cropping THAT small area of space to 1.85 (and still is today). When they were making scope movies, they figured they might as well use the extra space (and not crop it from the bottom) so they ended up using that 1.2:1 section for their anamoprhic negative area. And because of the 2x squeeze, they got about 2.4:1
This is why some films now shoot in Super35mm (which has disregarded the section of the frame used for audio, because they're recording onto a DAT anyways) and in this case the whole width of the negative is used, as was before sound was introduced. Remember though, when being projected, in the final distribution prints, they shrink the Super35 footage down to the way it was with a soundtrack present, because the release prints have sound!
It's very convoluted and I don't know if what I said was clear enough - but the bottom line is that if you use on your DVX lenses that get a 2.35 ratio on film, you'll have a 2.66:1 ratio.
The problem comes from the fact that 35mm film has many different sections of the negative being used depending on which aspect ratio and format you're wanting.
For example, the whole image *is* there, but it's not presented to the aperture in 35mm when shooting in scope. The aperture is about a 1.2:1 area of space. Because of this, the resulting frame is about 2.4:1 (or 2.35).
If you were to expose the full area of the negative on 35mm, and use 2x anamorphic lenses, you *would* get a 2.66:1 ratio, it just so happens that they don't use the full space.
Reasons behind it started because after sound was introduced, it was printed on the side of the 35mm film, over top of where picture used to be. So what was a 4:3 ratio then became about a 1.2:1 ratio. When films were shot spherically, they would crop off of the side (because of the audio track) AND the bottom to get a 1.37:1 ratio (or the 'academy aperture'). 1.85 was achieved by cropping THAT small area of space to 1.85 (and still is today). When they were making scope movies, they figured they might as well use the extra space (and not crop it from the bottom) so they ended up using that 1.2:1 section for their anamoprhic negative area. And because of the 2x squeeze, they got about 2.4:1
This is why some films now shoot in Super35mm (which has disregarded the section of the frame used for audio, because they're recording onto a DAT anyways) and in this case the whole width of the negative is used, as was before sound was introduced. Remember though, when being projected, in the final distribution prints, they shrink the Super35 footage down to the way it was with a soundtrack present, because the release prints have sound!
It's very convoluted and I don't know if what I said was clear enough - but the bottom line is that if you use on your DVX lenses that get a 2.35 ratio on film, you'll have a 2.66:1 ratio.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Mini 35 and Anamorphic Lenes?
;D
;D
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Mini 35 and Anamorphic Lenes?
So what do you think the image would look like if i used a anamorphic lenes on a mini35 connected to my dvx100?
Also possibly trying it with a xl2 too?
Matt
So what do you think the image would look like if i used a anamorphic lenes on a mini35 connected to my dvx100?Also possibly trying it with a xl2 too?
Matt
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Mini 35 and Anamorphic Lenes?
Well, like any anamorphic lens, it would squeeze the image, so you'd end up with everything being tall and thin, in a 1.33:1 image.
Because the anamorphic lenses for motion pictures have a 2x squeeze, you'd have a picture that if displayed properly (unsquished) would be in a 2.66:1 aspect ratio.
Well, like any anamorphic lens, it would squeeze the image, so you'd end up with everything being tall and thin, in a 1.33:1 image.
Because the anamorphic lenses for motion pictures have a 2x squeeze, you'd have a picture that if displayed properly (unsquished) would be in a 2.66:1 aspect ratio.