We work on a lot of different anamorphic lenses . When I talk to the customers- mostly DPs - most of them are after the blue streak flares and the bokeh. All of them actually. Some like the mumps and breathing of the older anamorphics. But, from looking at so many anamorpohics I agree that the focus falloff is different than spherical lenses. To me the image completely falls apart when they are defocused. It's almost like it disintegrates...
Samyang Anamorphic lenses
- Thread starter KrocanX
- Start date
Jaime Valles
Veteran
David Mullen, ASC posted this on REDUSER:
To me, the anamorphic shot looks significantly more epic and fitting of sci-fi than the Super-35 shot. Granted, they're not the exact same lighting and framing, but the difference in look is staggering, to my eyes at least.
Anamorphic certainly has its place in the world of cinema. Not everything is about practicality. The audience's emotional response from viewing an image is a huge consideration in cinematography. I wouldn't use anamorphics to shoot run & gun fast paced EFP shots, but a serious indie dramatic thriller? With inexpensive anamorphics? Heck yeah!
Star Trek 6 / Super-35 (the only Trek movie not shot in anamorphic):
Star Trek 5 / anamorphic:
To me, the anamorphic shot looks significantly more epic and fitting of sci-fi than the Super-35 shot. Granted, they're not the exact same lighting and framing, but the difference in look is staggering, to my eyes at least.
Anamorphic certainly has its place in the world of cinema. Not everything is about practicality. The audience's emotional response from viewing an image is a huge consideration in cinematography. I wouldn't use anamorphics to shoot run & gun fast paced EFP shots, but a serious indie dramatic thriller? With inexpensive anamorphics? Heck yeah!
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
The dramatic difference in the Star Trek images is DOF, I wonder how the Ana shot would compare to a vista chip at open iris.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
This goes back to my point however of it doesn't matter for the end product. Star Trek 5 is considered one of the bad movies in the franchise while Star Trek 6 one of the fan favorites. Thats exactly the point I was making earlier. In the geek film world we swoon over anamorphic but the end user absolutely has no clue what we are talking about and it in no way shape or form reflects on a successful or unsuccessful film. In the example you provided it actually had the opposite effect. Of course the lens choices are not what makes a Star Trek movie good or bad and there are a ton of other factors. My point is the lens choice is just something the typical viewer never even begins to think about when they rate the Star Trek films.
If a DP selects an anamorphic lens its for their own personal taste and has absolutely nothing to do with the "film" look or making something more cinematic or any kind of indicator of the potential success level of the film. At the end of the day it really means squat outside of street cred and bragging rights. Plenty of movies shot spherical like Star Trek 6 in this example that are well loved by the fans. If one is creating films for themselves then go nuts but if one creates films for an audience I think its something that needs to be considered. If anamorphic was the end all solution then all movies would use it.
I'm not saying I don't like anamorphic and if the right lens came around I would use it. My point is we need to be careful not to obsesses over it like its some kind of sure thing. The gear chasers should be aware that its just a choice and likely will not have an impact on the viewers perception of the movie. "If I just had 24p I would be a success." "If I have HD the future looks bright." "We only need shallow DOF and then we are all set." "FF is the answer to our success."
Don't let anamorphic become that new chasing of the end of the rainbow while distracting from what is really important. Anamorphic just is not the holy grail I think some are hoping it will be.
Run&Gun
Veteran
And why would they? It's not their job. Just like most people don't give a hoot about what socket wrench or screwdriver their mechanic works on their vehicle with.
Run&Gun
Veteran
OK, I'm calling out the elephant in the room and playing a little devil's advocate too, and I'm probably going to get blasted for it, but here goes... Why, on forums that are dedicated mostly to the photographic/visual medium does everyone always say, "Worry about the story", "It's about the story" whenever something comes up about the (more technical) photographic side? F the story. Story and content is not my department. There are a lot of people paid a lot more than me who's job it is to come up with, create and craft a good story. As photographers, it's our jobs to help tell the story visually and if it is aided or enhanced by anamorphic lenses, then what is the problem?
Everyone knows you need a good story, good characters, etc. I'm tired of hearing, "It's about the story". It's like saying, "We need air to breath and stay alive".
Now, does every story need to be shot on anamporphics? Hell no. And I do agree that it can actually be a detriment in (a lot of)cases. I just don't get why on boards and forums dedicated to a visual medium, why so many people hate on the tools used to create the visual images.
And this isn't just about anamorphic and this forum. I've seen this over and over, over the years on different forums on different "things".
Everyone knows you need a good story, good characters, etc. I'm tired of hearing, "It's about the story". It's like saying, "We need air to breath and stay alive".
Now, does every story need to be shot on anamporphics? Hell no. And I do agree that it can actually be a detriment in (a lot of)cases. I just don't get why on boards and forums dedicated to a visual medium, why so many people hate on the tools used to create the visual images.
And this isn't just about anamorphic and this forum. I've seen this over and over, over the years on different forums on different "things".
Mitch Gross
Veteran
Yeah, usually when I see someone bring up the "it's about story" argument, in my head I respond, "No ****, Sherlock." Photography is in service to the story, art direction is in service to the story, music, editing, animal wrangling, blah, blah, blah -- all in service to the story. That's a given. Moving on.
I really don't care if the audience notices that I was shooting in Scope or not -- in fact one could argue that there was a problem if they did notice. I also don't care if the audience notices that I used certain colors or key-to-fill ratios to evoke various responses. Most of this stuff just washes over them and certain bits work on them subconsciously. It's my job to pull their triggers, not their job to know their triggers are being pulled. Hell, most people watching movies think the actors are just making up the lines as they go.
None of this has anything to do with anamorphic lenses. They are useful for certain effects, just like a filter, a type of light or a color of a certain cloth is useful. If the effect creates even the most subtle bit of characterization that will lead an audience to subconsciously react the way I want then great.
BTW, anamorphic doesn't have to mean sweeping epics, oblong bokeh and blue streaks -- just look at Last Year at Marienbad or The Apartment. Just like "cinematic" doesn't have to mean shallow depth of field, as a little film called Citizen Kane might illustrate.
I really don't care if the audience notices that I was shooting in Scope or not -- in fact one could argue that there was a problem if they did notice. I also don't care if the audience notices that I used certain colors or key-to-fill ratios to evoke various responses. Most of this stuff just washes over them and certain bits work on them subconsciously. It's my job to pull their triggers, not their job to know their triggers are being pulled. Hell, most people watching movies think the actors are just making up the lines as they go.
None of this has anything to do with anamorphic lenses. They are useful for certain effects, just like a filter, a type of light or a color of a certain cloth is useful. If the effect creates even the most subtle bit of characterization that will lead an audience to subconsciously react the way I want then great.
BTW, anamorphic doesn't have to mean sweeping epics, oblong bokeh and blue streaks -- just look at Last Year at Marienbad or The Apartment. Just like "cinematic" doesn't have to mean shallow depth of field, as a little film called Citizen Kane might illustrate.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Huzzah and bully. Totally agree.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I think you just kind of made my point for me. These are just tools and nobody really cares. We all obsesses over the tools and thats fine. I don't call a carpenter and ask them if they use Craftsman brand tools. Heck if a plumber can fix my problem by banging his head on the pipe until it works then more power to him.
Again I'm not saying I don't like anamorphic. I do like it and part of what makes me love the Panasonic GH cameras so much is they are the only DSLR camera on the planet that actually provides a marketed true 4x3 anamorphic solution. We have the cameras and now we need the lenses. I always hoped Panasonic would make some anamorphic lenses to go with the GH4, GH5 and GH5s cameras. Its a niche market but if they marketed it right it could bring a lot of attention to the GH cameras.
Cary Knoop
Veteran
Let's not forget that making movies is more than a market, some people have fun making movies or and some use it to express something as a form of art.
It's not only for financial gain or public success.
To stay with anamorphic movies, "Le Mépris" by Godard juxtaposes the two very well.
With the irony of Lang saying about cinemascope: "..it wasn't meant for human beings. Just for snakes – and funerals.".
It's not only for financial gain or public success.
To stay with anamorphic movies, "Le Mépris" by Godard juxtaposes the two very well.
With the irony of Lang saying about cinemascope: "..it wasn't meant for human beings. Just for snakes – and funerals.".
Jaime Valles
Veteran
I respectfully disagree 100%.
Star Trek 5 is rightfully considered a bad movie because... the screenplay is terrible. Nothing can save a bad script. Nothing. Plenty of things can ruin a bad script (bad acting, directing, cinematography, sound, etc.) but a bad screenplay is beyond salvation. Star Trek 6 is one of the fan favorites because it has a kickass screenplay, and the rest of the movie elements all fell into place the right way.
As for 24p, HD, shallow depth of field... if the exact same Star Trek 6 had been shot on a 1/3" CCD Standard Definition camcorder at 60i... it still would have been a great film (because SCREENPLAY) but every single person in the audience would have been wondering the whole time "why does this movie look like crap?"
Just like they did during The Hobbit.
Anamorphic lenses deliver a different look than spherical, and that look elicits different responses in the viewer. It's my job as a cinematographer to pick the right lens for the story being told, and sometimes that means anamorphic, sometimes spherical. I don't know why this is confusing or controversial.
THANK YOU.
Jaime Valles
Veteran
Good question. Vista Vision wide open might have shallower DoF, but the shape of the bokeh and the barrel distortion would certainly be different than the anamorphic shot. Tests would have to be made to determine which fits the story best.
I think it also depends on the viewer. I found the new Blade Runner, and its derivative- Altered Carbon too blurry and muddy to watch. Really distracting from the story to the point that I gave up on them half way. I like the original BR but expected a step up on the visuals rather than a poorly attempted copy...Or maybe it was a poorly attempted copying of the story...
High1ander
Well-known member
True.
So when threads come up about "there is no difference, why waste money", etc. on different kinds of tools/techniques I tend to see people just saying "I don't see the difference therefore it doesn't exist" or "I don't think the difference is worth paying 2000$ extra a day for and people that do are fools", mostly the people with those sentiments simply put don't understand that others can actually tell and see a difference, and others might just have a bigger budget that allows for luxury-items that Ana's are. Rarely if ever do I think this stuff is just "placebo" and people are just paying for snake oil. But of course, there are for most of us other things that we can spend money on getting a better bang for the buck, but just because that is true doesn't make it false that other more expensive options can improve IQ...
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Have any proof of that? I mean any actual studies of viewers that elicits a different response. I'm talking cold hard emotional studies of this sort of thing. Not just the opinion of film makers but the actual study of real viewers.
fboonzaier
Well-known member
+1 on all of this. Choices are subjective in so many ways, as is usually the case with art of any form. Personally if I can "feel" the camera or the acting or any aspect of the making of the film, the film is lost to me, but nowhere is it more distracting for me than constant camera movement...which perhaps has to do with my not liking gimbals....a good steady cam operator can impart the sense of urgency because it feels as if the audience is moving along with the subject....a gimbal feels robotic...of course, on water this may just be the thing. And so it goes for all choices made in film....through years of working on too many TV commercials to count, or feature films or TV series, I have never once heard either the word filmic or cinematic, though the latter would actually make more sense. Personally, I love the way films look shot on anamorphic lenses, and given a budget to accomodate their use, would not hesitate...having said that, Deakins opted to shoot spherical on the 2nd Blade Runner film....still looks lovely....never felt it was missing something as I was watching it, and that in a way is the point IMO....saw the Post recently and the wigs Spielberg OK'ed on the actors, drove me to distraction...so camera choices...lenses....wardrobe...it all has to gel, or IMO it fails.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
There is a massive difference when comparing anamorphic/spherical vs 24p HD/ 60i standard definition in the eyes of the viewer. It is a lot easier for a user to see those kind of differences so yeah of course they would notice it looks like crap. The difference between anamorphic and spherical however is not so cut and dry and not every viewer notices it or pays much attention to it. You are now talking quality vs aesthetic choices which are very different things altogether. We should always strive for industry acceptable quality in what we do but the choice of using anamorphic or not is not a quality choice but strictly an aesthetic choice.
You also kind of missed my entire point which was not that Star Trek 6 was great because it was spherical but that it didn't matter. The quality didn't suffer and neither did any aspect of the film because of that choice. Even in professional circles I rarely see anybody criticize Star Trek 6 because it was shot spherical. Before you posted those examples I honestly never even thought about it. Its just a silly example because in the end it means squat to just about everybody. Shooting 480i 60i 4x3 however would matter to just about everybody.
Of course I don't have a problem with anamorphic at all. What I have a problem with is those that somehow feel it is superior. It is not superior. It is an equal aesthetic difference.
stoneinapond
Veteran
Where did that bit of insecurity come from?
Surely if you come across such an opinion (and there is nothing even remotely close to that in this thread), it's easy to dismiss. Why make it a problem?
Mitch Gross
Veteran
What is the point of this thread anymore? What are we all talking about?
To the person who asked if the reported Samyang anamorphics (I say reported as I do not believe the company ever confirmed anything) would be inexpensive, I would note that all of their product has been up until now so it's a likely bet. I would also point you to the Atlas anamorphic that were just released at very low price, at least by anamorphic standards.
For those that state that the differences visible with anamorphics are hardly noticeable and not worth the bother, i would state that you could say the same thing about any one brand or type of lens v another. Most people would not be able to tell the difference so you might as well use the cheapest Coke bottle you can get because it doesn't really matter to the Great Unwashed, right? When I practice my craft I do so to the best of my abilities because I want it to be the best I can deliver appropriate to the content and ideas we are trying to get across.
To paraphrase a great line by Aaron Sorkin, if you really can't tell the difference and believe that you're delivering what is best for the project then I respect that, but if you are just being cheap or lazy or just can't be bothered, well, God, then I don't even want to know you.
To the person who asked if the reported Samyang anamorphics (I say reported as I do not believe the company ever confirmed anything) would be inexpensive, I would note that all of their product has been up until now so it's a likely bet. I would also point you to the Atlas anamorphic that were just released at very low price, at least by anamorphic standards.
For those that state that the differences visible with anamorphics are hardly noticeable and not worth the bother, i would state that you could say the same thing about any one brand or type of lens v another. Most people would not be able to tell the difference so you might as well use the cheapest Coke bottle you can get because it doesn't really matter to the Great Unwashed, right? When I practice my craft I do so to the best of my abilities because I want it to be the best I can deliver appropriate to the content and ideas we are trying to get across.
To paraphrase a great line by Aaron Sorkin, if you really can't tell the difference and believe that you're delivering what is best for the project then I respect that, but if you are just being cheap or lazy or just can't be bothered, well, God, then I don't even want to know you.