To anamorph or not to anamorph...

Z

zenbarai

Active member
Howdy folks,

I finally took the plunge and got a DVX, plus Century's .7x wide angle adapter! I know the HVX is coming, but I have a financial opportunity now, and the DVX was the best choice.

I could really use the advice of all you "been there done that" DVX users.

I want to shoot true 16X9, and I was hoping I could get by with squeeze mode, but I've found there's a bit too much noise and resolution loss compared to letterbox or normal modes. I'm matching footage shot previously with another DVX in letterbox mode, and the previous footage looks a lot sharper than my sqeeze mode tests. But I'd like to shoot 16x9 because I'll be doing some greenscreen work (thanks to Ultra!) and I'd like to not deal with black bars in my frame.

I shied away from the anamorphic adapter because of all the focusing horror stories I read about here. Yesterday I read Barry's anamorphic adapter guide, and I can see it will take some practice to get things in focus, but it seems more doable than I thought, although perhaps at the cost of having some shallow DOF.

If I use the anamorphic adapter, my new footage will be sharper than the previous letterbox footage, but I am still interested in improving resolution where I can. But not if it slows down the shoot or causes problems.

So here are my questions:
1. Any general advice from y'all?
2. I'll be using a Hollywood Lite vest-style steadicam for a number of shots. Is the anamorphic adapter going to be utterly impossible? Or should it work if I set it to infinity focus?

I could just stick with the letterbox mode and even shoot the greenscreen stuff full frame so there's more to work with for later composites, but if I can get this thing to look better, I'd like to. I could probably exchange my wide angle adapter for the anamorphic. Given my situation, is it worth it to bother with the anamorphic adapter?

Thanks for your help,
Ben
 
I'm matching footage shot previously with another DVX in letterbox mode, and the previous footage looks a lot sharper than my sqeeze mode tests.
Click to expand...

I think matted/letterbox 16:9 DVX footage looks excellent. Just mark off frame lines on your camera LCD or set monitor and letterbox in post. There's hardly any reason to do it on camera.

When viewing on a 4:3 monitor, there is no difference in quality vs. anamorphic.
Think about it.
 
Thanks, I may just go that route.

We will be showing the footage on 16:9 monitors however, so if there's a resolution increase, that would be good.

But maybe all things considered, it would be better to keep away from the anamorphic adapter.

Ben
 
If you're trying to match letterbox footage, shoot letterbox.

The anamorphic adapter can give a substantial resolution boost, but it takes work, and you sacrifice the ability to get shallow-DOF shots (not that they're that easy to get anyway, but still...)

The anamorphic works well for landscapes and wide shots, but you really have to take care with it when you start zooming in. Many people here have it and swear by it, but you do have to take responsibility and it will slow you down some.
 
another thing to consider with the anamoprphic is that it gives you a 33% wider field of view. which is great for exterior panoramic shots when you need wider shots in tight spaces.
 
I always use the adapter. Its not that hard to use, so if you want the extra res. Go for it.

p.s.

Barry my experience is that the adapter helps make the DOF shallow.
 
I find that the AG-LA7200 (anamorphic adapter) is nearly a mandatory item if you want to do any film out projects. I have been using it for some 2:35 work and the results are excellent. It is somewhat harder to use, but if you have the time budget and have expended the effort to gain the necessary skills, the results are certainly worth the small outlay.
 
Are you saying that you've done 2.35 work that has gone to film with the anamorphic adapter? I'd love to know how that looked on the big screen.
 
Speaking of.. Could someone with the anamorphic lens and the DVX100a post some grabs with the anamorphic lens AND squeeze mode turned on? Destretch to 1280x480, Upfuzz to HD, and you should have 2.66:1, I believe. I've never seen this combination before and don't have an anamorphic lens to try it out..

Anyone?
 
The anamorphic lens in conjunction with squeeze mode would give you approximately a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. An anamorphic lens with a 2:1 squeeze (like those used for 35mm 2.35 photography) would give you a 2.66:1 aspect ratio on the DVX. But the 16:9 anamorphic adaptor has a 1.33x squeeze, and then shooting in squeeze mode effectively has a 1.33x squeeze.

1.33x1.33x1.33:1 = 2.35:1
 
In response to Shaw, yes, I have shot footage that has been been blown up to film that was shot with the anamorphic adapter. The look on a big screen is somewhat dependent upon where in the theater you are sitting. Too close and the resolution is too low to go unnoticed, in the middle or further back in the theater, it looked very good. I would rate it better than shooting 16 and blowing up to 35 (in most, but not ever way).

As for the idea of mixing the anamorphic adapter with squeeze/stretch, I doubt that this would have as good of results as just masking to the final aspect ratio from the anamorphic footage. Haven't tried it though, so I won't make any firm statements. Perhaps some day I'll give it a try and see first hand. My impressions so far of all the "up res" software is that it is a marginal improvement at best.
 
My experience: I use the anamorphic adapter and use front ND filters with matt-box ( I do not recommend to use internal ND Filter that increase more zebra pattern ) to open the full aperture. ( need substantial light source) I'll get enough DOF. I get the best result, I also use Century optics 16:9 eyepiece and Chamois Eye-cushion. I get incredible focusing results.
 
Frustrated Anamorpher Seeks Counsel

Frustrated Anamorpher Seeks Counsel

Q1:
Who is focusing by eye at all and how -- what hardware are you using?

Choseifunahara -- sounds like you are focusing by eye withe the century eyepiece adaptor?

I went with the century LCD magnifier which also converts to an unstretched 16X9. I can get an acceptable soft film focus that way, but not the super crisp images I see people posting here and there.

I’m leaning towards returning my anamorphic adaptor and century LCD magnifier even though I’ve been really inspired by the extra resolution and crispness people are achieving with the Anamorphic.

(Check out DVX user Jesse Coane’s Field Theory at http:deadkidz.com for example).

These anamorphic adaptor shot films are super sharp. People talk a lot about shallow depth of field giving a film look and forget that infinite depth of field is also a film look.
Both tools that clearly direct the eye of the viewer.

(Again, love the roof shoots in Field Theory and the long shot down the ally showing the bully and one of "the guys". The detail in the images Jesse is getting is amazing.)

I've had my camera about 2 weeks and my anamorphic adaptor about a week, and I am having trouble getting anywhere near trhe crisp results others are getting with the anamorphic.

Jesse uses an on camera monitor. I opted for the century LCD hood that magnifies the stock LCD and converts it to 16X9 aspect for viewing (about $250). I went this route because it seemed simpler (no extra batteries) and I didn't think I could afford an on camera monitor with resolution higher than the hooded and magnified stock LCD. I also like using my Fig Rig so the LCD is better for thet and as I understand it it is higher resoltion than th eyepiece.

So here are some more questions. I’d be interested in hearing from anyone else that is high working with the anamorphic

Q2:
Do you use and on camera monitor? If so does it have enough resolution to use it for focusing? (if such an LCD exists)

Perhaps I should be a little more patient with my learning curve but as I am not a "real" photographer, attempting to use the anamorphic is really slowing me down and giving me mixed results.

Q3:
What was your learning curve like and how easy / hard is it for you to use the anamorphic now? Any tips to make it easier or more surefire?

I can tell a difference clips that use the anamorphic adaptor even online and I would love to get that extra resolution, but if you can never actually use your eye to aid in focusing and have to rely on conversion charts and measuring, and then calculate for f-stop - which is completely intimidating to me- then it seems like it may not be worth it for me. Especially when I consider that the cinematographer for November, which I'm sure you know won the cinematography award at Sundance, sacrificed the 500 lines of resolution for the 330 - 350 lines of shooting in 4:3 then cropping to 16X9, because she didn't want to put another piece of glass in front of the Leica and deal with all the limitations of the anamorphic.

Obviously her SD 350 lines of resolution was quite acceptable. I wish I still lived in NY so I could see that film on the big screen in its limited release this month.

At this point I'm really leaning towards 4:3 shooting and blowing up in photozoom pro so that my 16X9 will automatically play in the correct aspect ratio on DVD.

Would love to hear your thoughts. Have to return lens and LCD adaptor this week if I'm going to do so

Q4: I know this is the standard technique recommended by video shooters for shooting landscapes / cityscapes is to use a standard (non anamorphic) wide angle lens in an attempt to “fool the eye” into thinking its seeing more detail than video allows. Would such a lens also give me that “Coane Crisp look” for added detail in city / landscapes (at least on smaller screens), while allowing my novice ass to use the “push” auto focus? If I return my 16X9 lens and LCD adaptors I could easily afford a wide angle lens.

Thanks to all in advance for helping a new guy out.
 
Hey, So where to start. As for monitoring. When i run and gun (which seems to be all the time) I focus with the viewfinder and use my external 16x9 panny LCD for composition. Focusing gets tricky when you try to use the dvx's long lense. At full zoom it can be impossible. But it has never stopped me from getting my CUs.

Also for focusing. I assume everyone does this but one thing that helps is to. zoom in to focus and then zoom back out.

One thing I have been wanting to experiment with is shooting anamorphic on thin mode. Wonder if that would compensate in any way for extra glass.

I have always been shooting on thick.

I have also done 4x3 matted. If its a client job and they dont need anamorphic. I wouldn't use the anamorphic unless im displaying on a 16x9 setup.

heres a link to a music video i did in 4x3 matted to widescreen

http://deadkidz.com/5ves.html

i got to get back to work ill try to answer more later

essentially though the adapter works. keep shooting with it. use the nd filters. youll get it what drives me nuts the most is not being able to put a UV to protect it on.



jesse
 
i forgot one thing i shoot most of my stuff at 1/60th shutter speed. But i also have gotten great results at 1/48th

jesse
 
>jdanstan
My real title is motion picture producer and I was a shooter until 1986. Then, I only shoot hi8, consumer DV's for location scouting and etc., I own old Arri 16SR, 16S, Canon Scoopic, and CP16's. But, once I became a producer, I only rent those 35mm camera and I've used sony high def. (interlace) camera for full length in 2000.
Then 900 came out and I've leased entire system but that's old days, After DVX came out, I can afford to own it and play with it, I feel like going back to film school days, I enjoyed and I bought all accessories, like: Chrosziel follow forcus and Chrosziel 411-53P mattebox and century's manual focus gear (this is the killer that you must have this item). I had a big problem for focusing my DVXa, it fells like a cheap consumer camera, it not professional focus gear, but Century did incredible job.

Anyway, I almost never use side LCD on board monitor, only occasionally to check my 1:78 eyepiece (view finder) to match or not, and I mentioned that I use Chamois Eye-cushion (most ASC member use it and if you start using the eye-cushion, you can use it all day). I think you need a little bit patience and try to buy or rent those follow focus gears. you'll be very happy.

Check my set up:
http://homepage.mac.com/antennantenna/blogwavestudio/LH20041031112657/LHA20050701113731/index.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top