Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

When to shoot in anamorphic widescreen?

V

Vladimir Cassel

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
North Hollywood, California
I know there are no hard rules on this, but there's probably an unspoken convention which affects the language of film as it's interpreted by an audience. My first instinct is that it's an action movie thing because Die Hard was the first movie I saw that really drew my attention to it at a young age, but that can't be because there are plenty of dramatic films shot anamorphically. So when do you consider shooting in anamorphic widescreen and why?
 
Always. Though it seems to get shot down quite a bit, that's always my first choice. I don't think any genre really calls for it...I just like the frame and the artifacts. It looks like a movie to me.

I'm a little annoyed by Ridley Scott's quote in the recent British Cinematographer. He said, "I don't do anamorphic." Except something like eight of his films are photographed with anamorphic lenses, and his best films (not to mention best-looking films) are scope. I think his recent super35 work looks really lazy compared to the other half of his career. But even "Matchstick Men" was scope.
 
Andrew Ceperley said:
Always. Though it seems to get shot down quite a bit, that's always my first choice. I don't think any genre really calls for it...I just like the frame and the artifacts. It looks like a movie to me.

I'm a little annoyed by Ridley Scott's quote in the recent British Cinematographer. He said, "I don't do anamorphic." Except something like eight of his films are photographed with anamorphic lenses, and his best films (not to mention best-looking films) are scope. I think his recent super35 work looks really lazy compared to the other half of his career. But even "Matchstick Men" was scope.
Click to expand...

What do think about using anamorphic to shoot ensemble films or films that regularly require more than a couple people in the shot as opposed to character pieces or films about 2 people? I'd think it would work well with epics that have lots of set pieces and wide establishing shots of battles and what not, but maybe not historical epics because the artifacts seem too indicative of a modern look to me.
 
Well, it is more a personal thing. Anamorphic has this kind of subjective "warmth" (nothing to do with colour temperature, just a feeling) in the image. Of course, it has the unique optical artifacts/lens flares which can be either a narrative device or a distraction, from person to person. Technically speaking, anamorphic allows greater resolution - about 60% more than Super 35, by using the full frame image.

However, Super 35 is probably the more convenient option. It allows more options and choice for lenses. Anamorphic lenses are in general bulkier, and based on where you stay, they could be more expensive to rent. You will notice that most action films are done on Super 35. I think it was Top Gun that pioneered Super 35 by filming inside the cockpits - something that would be impossible without the bulkier anamorphic lenses. In recent times, the only exception of action films shot on anamorphic I can think of is Nolan's Batman and Star Trek.

In the end, it has to be a personal choice. Many still swear by anamorphic, while others haven't looked back since Super 35 was introduced.

With the introduction of FF35 sensors, and 645, surely anamorphic would be embraced on RED. These sensors are more tall than wide, and surely, cropping off half the image to get a 2.39:1 image is not as desirable as using more of the frame through anamorphic lenses. Especially the 645, which is rather similar to the Academy aspect ratio.
 
Anamorphic is used to maximize the picture quality and as far as I know the modern anamorphic widescreen format has an aspect ratio of 2.39 to 1, meaning the picture width is 2.39 times its height. Sci-fi films for decades, and many other Hollywood productions, the anamorphic lens gathers a wider image horizontally and squashes it into the existing frame.
 
rayoncena said:
Anamorphic is used to maximize the picture quality and as far as I know the modern anamorphic widescreen format has an aspect ratio of 2.39 to 1, meaning the picture width is 2.39 times its height. Sci-fi films for decades, and many other Hollywood productions, the anamorphic lens gathers a wider image horizontally and squashes it into the existing frame.
Click to expand...

Not what is; when to. As in "what motivates you to use it?"
 
Its not helpful when you want a close-up of an actor or actress, or when you want to build intimacy with the audience. When the setting of the film is unique or is a character itself, scope works well. But if every movie were shot 2:35, it would no longer be special.

Use 2:35 when the story deserves it.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
Its not helpful when you want a close-up of an actor or actress, or when you want to build intimacy with the audience. When the setting of the film is unique or is a character itself, scope works well. But if every movie were shot 2:35, it would no longer be special.

Use 2:35 when the story deserves it.
Click to expand...

Great points.
 
Are we discussing the 2.39:1 aspect ratio or the anamorphic process vs. Super 35? I assumed the latter. If the former, Jeff is spot on. Like Fritz Lang said in Godard's Contempt, "Cinemascope is for snakes and funerals". While an ironic quote, there's truth in that. However, it doesn't mean you can't develop intimacy with 2.39. There are several techniques, but my favourite has to be the windowing (the screen folds in) used by Max Ophuls in Lola Montes. Apparently producers don't allow it these days.
 
Subhadip Sen said:
Are we discussing the 2.39:1 aspect ratio or the anamorphic process vs. Super 35? I assumed the latter. If the former, Jeff is spot on. Like Fritz Lang said in Godard's Contempt, "Cinemascope is for snakes and funerals". While an ironic quote, there's truth in that. However, it doesn't mean you can't develop intimacy with 2.39. There are several techniques, but my favourite has to be the windowing (the screen folds in) used by Max Ophuls in Lola Montes. Apparently producers don't allow it these days.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine there are also tons of ways to create interior framing. Combined with a shallow DOF and I don't see much problem.
 
Andrew Ceperley said:
I'm a little annoyed by Ridley Scott's quote in the recent British Cinematographer. He said, "I don't do anamorphic." Except something like eight of his films are photographed with anamorphic lenses, and his best films (not to mention best-looking films) are scope. I think his recent super35 work looks really lazy compared to the other half of his career. But even "Matchstick Men" was scope.
Click to expand...

Agreed!! And if your wondering why it looks lazy it's actually because he just rolls an average of 10 cameras on every other scene, minimum of 4 cameras on every scene. Just shoots coverage now and that never makes for good films.

Anamorphic has only recently become my first choice as I've just now started shooting films that can afford to rent full Anamorphic lens kits for long periods of time! Always used to put a 2.40 matte on most films, even when I was messing around making films as a kid. That scope frame just meant "REAL MOVIE!!" to me even as a child.

I have a dream of one day shooting the worlds first reality tv series on Anamorphics. I try an avoid reality but that would make it so worthwhile.
 
wait, why do you need anamorphics? can't you just shoot 4.5k WS to get the 2.40 aspect? what would the anamorphic lenses do to the image if you were already at that aspect ratio?
 
Ian Laurie said:
wait, why do you need anamorphics? can't you just shoot 4.5k WS to get the 2.40 aspect? what would the anamorphic lenses do to the image if you were already at that aspect ratio?
Click to expand...

Well, you do get the unique look - including the lens flares. Apart from that, yes, because M and M-X are 1.78:1 or 2:1 sensors, the crop isn't substantial. However, how about the FF35 or 645? Let's consider the 645, it is 9344x7000. That is 65 MP. To get 2.39:1, you have to crop to 9344x3900. That is 36 MP. So, you are practically throwing away nearly half your resolution. The solution is to use an anamorphic lens - squeeze the 2.39:1 image to use more of the sensor, and record a higher resolution.
 
Subhadip Sen said:
However, how about the FF35 or 645? Let's consider the 645, it is 9344x7000. That is 65 MP. To get 2.39:1, you have to crop to 9344x3900. That is 36 MP. So, you are practically throwing away nearly half your resolution. The solution is to use an anamorphic lens - squeeze the 2.39:1 image to use more of the sensor, and record a higher resolution.
Click to expand...

Assuming you find an anamorphic lens that covers the whole height of the larger sensor...
 
I say leave the lens game to the people who have been at it for decades and focus on the camera technology which is what the Red team are good at.

I'm impressed with the new sensor's and where the cameras are headed, I'm unimpressed with the Red lenses so far and wouldn't consider them for any job and I doubt I'll ever take Red lenses over Hawks, Zeiss or Cook. You get what you pay for.
 
Red has announced they will make anamorphic lenses and in the Q&A a few days ago Jim was asked about the anamorphic's status and he stated
coming along... Next year. They will be very cool.

Jim
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top