Not another anamorphic post!

[evolvnyc]

Yes, but this is a specific clarification I think people will find interesting: What has your experience been, (no theories please), with shooting close-ups of people (ie: sitdowns and man on the street) with the anamorphic close up, as opposed to without it and letterboxing or squeeze. I read a post from Barry himself that it is generally better for wide shots from afar ie: landscapes and beauty shots, but that close up it is actually worse. So, my question is this: Have you tested (maybe even on a film transfer) a nice and lit sit down close up with and without the adapter, and what did you find?

 

[Kuock]

I've shot close ups with the adapter and they look good but I need plenty of light because of the need of using small apertures.

How could we achieve dark atmospheres (horror films) with this handicap?

Regards

 

[scharky]

Personally I have to go with Barry on this one, as I have stated myself, Anamorphic+wide shots are great, while I prefere to use letterbox (uprezzed) for tight shots, especially when a wide aperature is required, either for shallow DoF or for lighting issues. This way of shooting mixes very well together, and keeps the workflow going smoothly.

 

[Barry_Green]

You can see examples of the anamorphic transferred to film if you arrange to screen a copy of DVFilm.com's demo reel.