Opinions Needed.(ana vs. non)

Staven

Staven

Well-known member
Hey guys. I know the virtues/drawbacks etc. of using the anamorphic adapter or not have been discussed all over this site ad nauseum, but I'm in a bind and would like some professional feedback if possible to help me come to a decision.

I'm about a month away from my next project. I aim to have this project be a serious festival piece. I aim to transfer it to film if it is warranted.(ie worth mine or someone else's cash to do a transfer).

I own the anamorphic adapter and used it on my first feature. Without the now common knowledge that it is somewhat difficult to achieve certain focus - we had a difficult time with it at points. After completing that project I've done numerous shorts without the adapter on. They went quite well, and i was never frustrated with the camera.

For my new project I pre decided I needed to go with the adapter back on to ensure I can do a successful transfer(mostly from reading dvfilm.com's transfer guidelines).

Then... i read the newest DP interview in which Lonesome Jim was shot without the adapter, and was transferred. That makes both November and Lonesome Jim non adapter dvx to film transfers.

My project is gonna be guerilla style, with at most a crew of 3 without field monitors or 16by9 converted monitors. I'll be composing shots and focusing using the lcd or eyepiece.

So i'm back on the fence on what way I should shoot it? Should i use the adapter to give myself a 16by9 frame and ensure easy film transfer? Or should i shoot 4x3/frame16x9 matte in post to facilitate smoother filming? What would you do?

(if I were to go 4x3 and frame... is it 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 framing?)
 
There's no doubt that using the ana noticeably improves the quality, but you're shooting guerilla style, so I'd keep things lean and mean. Anything that slows down your workflow is a hindrance and draws your attention away from the content of the film. It's up to you to decide how much the ana impedes your shooting. There are always tradeoffs and compromises and if films like November and Lonesome Jim managed to be successful without using the ana, then I doubt it's going to be a make or break factor.
 
Follow up question:

Is there a zoom/focal length that is always in focus from 0 to infinity?(or close to 0?)
 
For a given aperture and magnification (distance), the shorter the focal length, the greater the depth of field. DOF also increases with smaller apertures. So setting the lens to 4.5mm and stopping all the way down will always give you the most depth of field. There are DOF charts and calculators on the web that can also give you the hyperfocal distance, so you can maximize the DOF for your subjects.
 
Barry, thank you for replying.

Hypothetically speaking, could i constantly shoot with the lens at 4.5mm and the focus at 99 and always have everything in focus?

I do have the adapter guide, and read tons of threads, but sometimes I just don't get the info I think applies "exactly' to what i'm looking for, so thanks for the input.
 
I think ana vs. not depends on what you mean by "guerilla style" if it's run and gun then my guess would be you won't have time to set up the focusing. If it's just that you have a limited budget and staff, but still have time to set up shots for correct focusing, the ana would be worth the extra resolution.
 
Ana not the be-all and end-all

Ana not the be-all and end-all

Just shot a short in 16x9 mode, no anamorphic that was bumped to HD and screened along with two other shorts that were shot 16x9 WITH anamorphic, and the resolution difference was negligible. The DPs of these ansmorphic shorts complained about focus issues and flaring, difficulty using filters, you've heard that all before - they all can be overcome with not too much effort. I felt much more comfortable without it. We shot with two cameras and used a bunch of filtration and wouldn't have been able to do that with the anamorphic.

But knowing all that, if you own the darn thing, I say use it.

Hey, check out some stills from this short on my website: http://home.comcast.net/~simonproductions/
 
Stabb_Films said:
Hypothetically speaking, could i constantly shoot with the lens at 4.5mm and the focus at 99 and always have everything in focus?
Click to expand...
Well, no, not exactly. First, you never want to set the focus to 99, that's actually "past infinity". You would set the focus no further than infinity, and actually you'd probably want to set it a bit closer. If you were shooting at Z00 and F14, then yes, you could set it to MF95 and everything would be in focus. But not everything would be in focus if you were shooting at F2.

Shooting at Z00 pretty much guarantees that you won't have any "focusing issues"; regardless of what aperture you use, you'll be able to get proper focus (but you will have to focus at the appropriate distance).
 
We shot our last short with the anamorhpic and I 'd be buggered if I could tell the difference when we projected to a screen that was 4m wide. YOU know resolution isnt everything. Color, composition, movement, music etc.
The fact that you have to measure the distances to get the focus meant you were always in focus. Now being out of focus is something you can never fix. But it was still a pain in the ass and the front of my dvx broke with the extra weight of the anamorphic adaptor. Go without it and focus on the other stuff that really matter to make your shot look good.
I
 
What about using the anamorphic adapter when you have the time/effort to setup, and not using it when you don't -
I personally bought one to use as a tool when I felt I had the time to take advantage of the extra resolution - I am positive many of my shots I will want the ability to do some improve "dancing" with my actress/actors - and by all means I will manually focus without the adapter - and some I will feel can be done with choreography and plan to do those with the adapter -
Is there a reason this should be avoided that I am missing?
 
bilgami said:
Is the Ana lense good for shooting weddings?
Click to expand...
No, that's probably the most unsuitable circumstance for using it. You need time, the ability to measure distance to your shot, consult the aperture table, plus have enough light that you have deep apertures, in order to use the anamorphic effectively. In other words, the exact opposite of wedding conditions.
 
When measuring for the anamorphic, what do you use as the "gate"? On film cameras, there is often a mark like this "Ф" along with a place to affix your tape anchor. This mark represents the focal plane - is the imager surface where people measure from on the DVX when using the adaptor?

How accurate is the % - " chart?

e
 
The DVX focus charts were all developed using the back of the camera shoe (where you'd mount an on-camera light) as the point to measure from.
 
I understand that when you say you shot a short in 16:9 without the ana you mean you did it in letterbox mode isn't it?

The feature film "Land of plenty" thas was shot on two DVXs has a scope screen format and I think it wasn't shot using the ana do you know how this may be? I don't suppose they used letterbox or squeeze mode... did they achieve the scope format by special treatment in post?

Thanks
 
Barry_Green said:
You need time, the ability to measure distance to your shot, consult the aperture table, plus have enough light that you have deep apertures, in order to use the anamorphic effectively.
Click to expand...
That may be the sentence that seals the fate of my decision. For a big chunk of my shoot I'll be out in a forest without any monitors other than the eye piece and lcd attempting to get off like 60-75 setups a day. It's soo tough to actually see what you are looking at when the sun is beating down on you, I could just imagine shooting an entire day only to find out later that over half my footage is soft.

So Barry, I'm asking you directly(others feel free to answer too): What ratio am I to matte my 4x3 to, to emulate the correct 16x9 ratio? 1.85 to 1 or 1.78 to 1?

thanks for all the feedback guys.
 
16:9 is 1.77777:1 (16 divided by 9).

You can use squeeze mode for a pretty good 16:9 (as long as you're shooting progressive/thin). If you want 4:3 video with the look of 16:9, you can always just use letterbox mode...
 
Barry_Green said:
16:9 is 1.77777:1 (16 divided by 9).

You can use squeeze mode for a pretty good 16:9 (as long as you're shooting progressive/thin). If you want 4:3 video with the look of 16:9, you can always just use letterbox mode...
Click to expand...

How is squeeze mode and letterbox compared to shooting 4:3 and cropping in post?
 
squeeze gets you a bit more resolution, letterbox in camera will be the same as cropping in post, however cropping in post gives you a little safety cause you can move the headroom around a little. The later is how i usually shoot.
 
Jarred Land said:
squeeze gets you a bit more resolution, letterbox in camera will be the same as cropping in post, however cropping in post gives you a little safety cause you can move the headroom around a little. The later is how i usually shoot.
Click to expand...

So, are you matting it 1.78:1? If I was to go to a transfer house, would they be happy I framed/matted it 1:78:1 for transfer? Did November&Lonesome Jim frame this dimension?

(I only ask this redundant question cuz I don't want to find out after the fact I shoulda'coulda done it a better way - sorry to keep bothering you guys).

(My non understanding of this stems from the fact on most widescreen dvd's at the video store, the aspect ratio is either 1.85:1 or scope 2.35:1 on the vitals for the dvd... why isn't it 1.78:1 if that's what anamorphic is?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top