Sony F35 and anamorphic Lens?

E

Edrafennas

Active member
Welcome 've looked online shotonwhat several films shot on Sony F35! it says that the movies : Friends with Benefits, The Darkest Hour, Mirror Mirror filmed on Panavision Primo Anamorphic Lenses !!! Will they cut the picture ? Sony F35 shooting 16:9! Panavision anamorphic x2?
 
You would definitely have to cut the sides off the frame if shooting anamorphic on the F35. I would double check those were actually anamorphic showss... "shot on what" isn't always a reliable resource.

The last I heard Primo Anamorphics were very rare, even by Hollywood standards.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but anamorphic lenses were intended for 4:3 ratio 4 perf 35mm film, which is the same width as Super35 3perf. Therefore, anamorphic lenses on the F35 should resolve to the edges of the sensor just fine, but since the sensor is 16:9 instead of 4:3, when you expand the anamorphic 2x in post, you'll be letterboxing in the 16:9 frame, with black bars top and bottom.

I just lost out on a job and an ultraprime rental this weekend because the producer got a steal of a deal on Kowa Anamorphics and a Red Dragon. I did explain the letterboxing to him, but I'm not confident he understood it. Ah, well.
 
James

Almost there. Shooting 4-perf 35mm, you only cut the tiniest sliver off the sides of the frame to achieve the desired (let's call it 2.4:1) aspect. Cutting 1.2:1 from a 1.33:1 frame is not so bad.

However, the 16:9 frame is need a lot more cutting from the sides to achieve the correct end aspect. Which really defeats the point of anamorphic as anamorphic was designed to make the most of film's resolution, and also by cropping you lose your wides (which anamorphic is best for).

People don't like hearing it, but the only reason to shoot anamorphic these days is artistic and I think most people doing it are doing it for self-gratification than any kind of thought-through conscious decision. Even ARRI will tell you there is not technical benefit to shooting anamorphic, and they make the only 4x3 digital camera right now.
 
JMtheDP said:
However, the 16:9 frame is need a lot more cutting from the sides to achieve the correct end aspect. Which really defeats the point of anamorphic as anamorphic was designed to make the most of film's resolution, and also by cropping you lose your wides (which anamorphic is best for).
Click to expand...

I think our quibble is mostly semantic. It comes down to "the correct end aspect" - which, I think people shooting anamorphics on RED and Super 35 digital cameras have mostly adopted a "let's just go with an extreme letter box" instead of conforming to the originally intended anamorphic aspect ratio.

But certainly - it comes down to a decision on either cropping the sides to get the originally intended aspect ratio, or accepting letterboxing, and not cropping the edges.

Either way, these aren't the ideal sensors for it.

Perhaps the RED with it's 6k sensor might do a better job recorded at 6k and letterboxed, but as I understand it, everything outside of 4k is over the 35mm image circle, so you could have vingetting and portholing.

Simply not designed for it.

The Arri D21 might be an interesting choice - it apparently has a 4:3 sensor.
 
D-21 does have a 4:3 sensor. The new DRAGON 8K should also be able to do proper anamorphic I believe.
 
Some people are going with really widescreen images. Before 2.39, CinemaScope was originally 2.66. Many people shooting anamorphic and extracting from a 4x3 image area use the 2.66 without further cropping. And then there are those that take the entire 16x9 image area and create a 3.56 frame with 2x anamorphics. Now that's W I D E ! A noted popular example of this was a Taylor Swift video from a few years back (I think it was "I Knew You Were Trouble").

The Odyssey7Q+ offers six different de-squeeze options depending on what squeeze factor of anamorphic lens is used and what finished aspect ratio is desired.
 
Yes there have been many, many widescreen variations. It doesn't help that 2.35 has effectively "returned" as a format because people never stopped calling it that even when it was replaced in the 70s. Nowadays I hear people using "2.35/2.37/2.39/2.40/anamorphic" almost interchangeably and often not knowing which they actually mean.

It used to be simpler with other aspects, but it has become tricky again as we now have 1.78:1 (16x9), 1.85:1 and 1.9:1 (2K/4K). I tend to shoot either 1.9:1 with 1.78 protection or 2.39:1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top