Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Zornik Videoclip shot on MX anamorpic

Hi Bjorn,

Visuals - nice (which lens' did you shoot with?)

Music - Didn't like it at first but it grew on me.

Theme - Interesting - particularly the ending (which I didn't see coming!)

Took a swing over to your website too - some really nice stuff on there - all shot on RED? Very nice anyway, and judging by the pictures you've had some fun along the way (what was that crazy boat rig?)
 
hey chris,

it was shot with elite anamorphic 2.2 (32-40-50-75-250)
and the MX sensor (filters (IR ND 6 , POLA , Diopter and GRAD SE .9))
all shot available light except the diner scene, (outsite was an HQI light of 400W. all the rest is available light with bounce boards)
shot on 2 (LOOOOOONG)days.

everything on the site is shot on RED, but i also work with 35 and 16mm

thanks for the feedback

Bjorn Charpentier




Chris Wetton said:
Hi Bjorn,

Visuals - nice (which lens' did you shoot with?)

Music - Didn't like it at first but it grew on me.

Theme - Interesting - particularly the ending (which I didn't see coming!)

Took a swing over to your website too - some really nice stuff on there - all shot on RED? Very nice anyway, and judging by the pictures you've had some fun along the way (what was that crazy boat rig?)
Click to expand...
 
Bjorn, who's the "we?" How big a crew did you have? I liked the whole thing, beginning to end. From a director's POV, I thought your talent matched the context of the story very well.

How difficult is it to edit anamorphic?
 
Never having worked with anamorphic lenses, what is the advantage to using them for projects that are going to HDTV or YouTube? How does the look differ from using, say, a wide-angle spherical lens and cropping for 2.35:1, and how significant is that difference?

My impression was that anamorphic lenses were really only an advantage when finishing for big screen projection, when every pixel (or grain of silver) was needed for image quality.
 
Last edited:
the anamorphic lenses are different in defocus (a lightball is not round but oval when defocused, and flairs very nice (horisontal lines)).
it has also a very nice softness overall.
the background will also be faster out of focus.

the crew was :
director : inti calfat
producer : TRS brussels (prod: frederik zaman and mike madelein)
DP (also operating) : myself
camera ass jolien de graeve
and one production ass stagair (overal ass.).
no gaffers of grips (because of budget reasons).

+ 2 talents
and the lead singer of course
 
Bjorn,

Thank you. There is a set of anamorphic lenses in town... maybe I should rent one for a day and shoot a side-by-side comparison to see just how distinctive the difference is.

re "the background will also be faster out of focus" - isn't that physics though? Won't the DOF for a given lens/stop/field-of-view always be the same?

Of course that raised a question with me, when I did shoot a very simple test with the anamorphics -- is the vertical field-of-view for a 50mm spherical lens (marked for 2.35:1) the same as that of a 50mm anamorphic. I know (or expect, anyway) that the horizontal field will be different... I guess I just need to see!

Your music video had a great feel to it, by the way. The 2.35:1 aspect ratio lent both spaciousness and loneliness.

Regards,
Nelson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top