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 :)

What Anamorphic Lens?

J

JohnF

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
291
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm asking around myself but I'm wondering what or if any RED fans are thinking about shooting anamorphic and if anyone has some thoughts on what would be the most appropriate lens(s)?

I'm looking for true 2.35to1 type panoramic wide shots @4k for landscapes and cloud/skyscapes...

Any thoughts?

JohnF
 
Er.... Wouldn't you just use some really wide glass. Like the rectilinear Arri Ultra Prime 8R and then crop the top and bottom of your image in post to get the 2.35:1 aspect?

Does anyone actually make a 35mm PL mount "Anamorphic" lens that does horizontal compression? And if they did, what would be the purpose when shooting 4K. You wouldn't gain anything horizontally, but would rather be required to scale the image down vertically before cropping. ...I suppose you could stand to gain extra vertical resolution for film out to 65mm or IMAX formats by scaling the 4K image horizontally beyond 4K. Wow. Hmmm..
 
Better mark up the aspect ratio in post, staying with spherical glass means more lens options, cheaper, faster and more depth of field... remember anamorphic is double the focal length of 35mm to achieve the same angle of field of any given focal length.
 
Hi,

No suitable lenses exist at this moment as the Red sensor is a different shape to a 35mm film frame. The standard stretch for film anamorphic lenses is 2:1.

The reason people shoot anamorphic is to use the full negative gaining resoloution and smaller grain. Cropping an image reduces the resoloution, so that's not an ideal solution.

Stephen
 
They crop the image all the time, in film, to get 2:35. Of course there's the old Technoscope (where they cropped a standard 35mm frame)- think Spaghetti Westerns and THX-1138 up to The Lord of the Rings - shot in Super35 and cropped and then there are the two latest Star Wars films - cropped high def.

Yes, you lose resolution, but then, you lose resolution with anamorphics, (compared to spherical.)

Note: Canon does have an anamorphic adapter for high def cams - so you can use the full height of your CCDs. I'm pretty sure it's in a B4 mount so you'd end up with a cropped CMOS sensor if you used it on the Red, anyway.
 
I guess the way I'm looking at it is this... If you shoot with anamorphic glass on RED, to 4K at 4096x2305, you then have two possible options to get to 2.35:1 aspect while retaining as much quality as possible:

1> Up-scale the horizontal resolution, preserving the 2305 vertical res. You would be working in greater than 4K.

2> Keep the 4096 frame width, but scale down the vertical resolution to get the proper pixel aspect. You won't be gaining any resolution, but there may be some added detail that transfers through the vertical scaling.

Both options seem a little curious given the available formats to shoot in and that most 2.35:1 features are cropped as it is. If we were dealing with a 4:3 3K * 2K sensor and we wanted to get a full 4K * 2K out of it (16:9) the best option would be be to shoot with anamorphic glass and scale horizontally to 4K. Preserving the vertical resolution... Without anamorphic glass, you would have to crop to 16:9 and lose a lot of detail.

Since we're already shooting 4K 16:9 on RED, I would really like to know what the perceived benefits of shooting anamorphically would be. I can see applications for film outs and post processes at greater than 4K res or larger than 35mm transfers. Since we're already working in 16:9, I would think an anamorphic lens that compresses the image vertically would be more applicable. Then the 4K horizontal resolution would be preserved, but the vertical would be condensed and then could be scaled up to make a 4:3 type aspect for film out to larger formats like IMAX as that would be better than cropping the sides of our 16:9 footage to fit or letterboxing 16:9 onto the 4:3 IMAX frame.

So yeah, I'm just wondering what the perceived application and advantage of anamorphic glass for the RED would be? ...I can think of a few things that may be nifty for FX shots though.
 
We have all made assumptions on JohnF's end user requirements. My suggestion of doing the top and bottom crop in post was based on an assumption of him wanting a simple widescreen look for general distribution and being able to use the full sensor width to do that with a racking ability and black top and bottom.
Jeff K has raised the bar with possible options for a projected widescreen. All involve compromise.
My anamorphic operating has been 2.25:1 framing but even dating from "Willow" in the 80s we allowed safety outside this for video.
Lord of the Rings was the same we used combi ground glasses and key framed for 2.25 even though we shot spherical.
My point being it is all a compromise. As a DOP I had to do a shoot for a specially constructed wide screen theatre, the best option was to shoot S35 and blow up the print to Cinemascope.
It almost seems that every situation is different and this will hold true to the Red fraternity.
What awes me is the technical knowledge some of you have and the fact that we can all submit and get an opinion.. this is what I like about Red. Makes a change from DPs giving each other the "hairy eyeball" across the bar !
 
Kenn Christenson said:
They crop the image all the time, in film, to get 2:35.
Click to expand...

Hi Ken,

Yes it's done & it looks nothing like anamorphic. Do you want the anamorphic look or just a letterbox?

An anamorphic film with a conventional finish will far out resolve the best 4K ever done.

Stephen

Edit:- The Technicolor process is no longer available, shooting 2 perf today does not look as good as it did 30 years ago. It does look better than 16mm blown up,but that's all.
 
2.35:1 will look very good on the extracted from Red 4K but SW is right, it won't look anamorphic. Highlights, flare and Bokeh have a very distinct look in Ana. Even whhen I was shooting a horror film and used a DVX100 with the Panasonic Anamorphic adapter it had a certain feel that was just more cinematic. There is a set of filters out there that are supposed to replicate the look on spherical lenses, kind of like streak filters but more specific to the anamorphic feel. Either way a nice comprimise would be a 1.85:1 anamorphic lens set like the DVX but high quality of course. This gives you right about 2.35:1 from the 16:9 sensor.
 
An interesting set of responses, thanks folks!

LOL Turnover "Makes a change from DPs giving each other the "hairy eyeball" across the bar !"

I'm interested in anamorphic for landscape type shots to maximise the resolution of small objects at infinity on the chip, therefore image, so as to not miss a trick or rather capture as much detail as possible.

Yes, I can do this with a more traditional aspect ratio but, and here's the subjective part, I love the anamorphic look I think cinema has gone backward in dropping the use of technicolour and anamorphic. For instance I totally agree with Stephen Williams point about "shooting 2 perf today does not look as good as it did 30 years ago."

My approximate thinking around shooting 2.35:1 with RED @4k was that by simply telling whatever edit software I was using that the pixel aspect ratio was 2.35:1 (rather than square or 16:9) that this would not effect data rates . Though it might well throw up other workflow issues!

What do people think of Evin Grant's suggestion of an anamorphic adapter on the front?

As a note of further discussion I've also seen old Russian (Soviet era) anamorphic lenses on the market for a few hundred dollars...


JohnF
 
JohnF said:
What do people think of Evin Grant's suggestion of an anamorphic adapter on the front?

As a note of further discussion I've also seen old Russian (Soviet era) anamorphic lenses on the market for a few hundred dollars...
Click to expand...

Evin brought up a few good points. Image properties like bokeh being effected for example, I hadn't thought of that...

An anamorphic adapter on the front could make sense. I used an anamorphic adapter with my DVX100 to get proper 16:9 out of 720x480 and it worked very well, but it did have some distortion at the wide end. You will lose about 1 stop by adding the extra glass, shouldn't be an issue if you plan accordingly and do some tests. A lot will depend on what lens you would be putting the anamorphic adapter in front of and how you would attach it.

If you can pick up one of those Russian lenses for a couple hundred $$ and they have a usable mount, they may be worth playing with, even for stylistic purposes.
 
Digressing slightly.. In the 80s I shot an anamorphic tourism promo and we used the Technovison ( ?) system from the UK. Main lens was a Cooke 5-1 with anamorphic rear element. Projected dailies were terrific. Alas the end use was VHS tapes in travel agent offices and on planes. As an aside are Technovision still in business ?
 
Yes, Technovision are still in business, but they're not a British company - they're based in Rome, Italy. They may have had a UK office, but not one I'm aware of that's still in existence.

As for using anamorphics on Red for the true 'scope look, the best bet would probably be to shoot with standard 2:1 optics and centre-crop the frame to 1.17:1 to get the correct image size, then print for anamorphic distribution (assuming a 35mm distribution). If you want a 2.35:1 ratio, barring new 1.5:1 optics of a good quality, then you need to crop the image somehow - either vertically using sphericals or horizontally using anamorphics, and with 4K resolution you'll get a perfectly good print out of either method, it just depends on the look you want (and if you don't mind the extra hassle of shooting with anamorphic glass).

There are, as someone mentioned, filters for emulating the look of anamorphic glass (or at least the blue horizontal flares, I doubt the bokeh differences can be emulated satisfactorily), but I haven't tried them so I don't know how effective they are. I'm shooting an HD movie which will be cropped to 2.35:1 soon, so I may test them for that - I'll let you know what I think if I do...
 
If you're really married to the "anamorphic look" at the expense of losing resolution by cropping, then I guess you could do it (use 2:1 optics.) Bearing in mind that in order to get the equivalent sharpness of sherical glass you're going to have to shoot around f4. Not to mention all the "fun" you're going to have in post. Check out Steve Wright's book about Digital Compositing to see the added complications anamorphic adds to FX work.

Also, read the reply by David Mullin in this thread: http://www.cinematography.net/Pages GB/[cml] Anamorphic or Super 35.htm

Note: I'm not against the "idea" of shooting anamorphic, I'm just wary of the reality - having shot an anamorphic short in 16mm, I know the difference between what sounds cool in prepro and what turns out to be a royal pain in the backside during production.
 
Well, as I said, if you want the 2.35:1 ratio (and I for one far prefer the compositional possibilities it presents over 16:9, but that's a whole different argument - the point is people do want it, whatever their reasons), then with a 16:9 sensor you're going to need to crop and lose resolution either way - vertically with sphericals or horizontally with anamorphics - there's just no other option at present.

Everyone knows that anamorphic is more time consuming to work with as a format, but that's no different with digital than with 35mm - i.e. it's a long way from impossible. Ultimately it's a choice that each production needs to make based on look vs cost, and each project will have to have it's director, producer and DP choose wisely to get the best out of the budget, as ever it was!

I don't think you need to be "married" to a format to decide that it's right for a given project, and to be honest the difficulty in shooting anamorphic is a little over-egged sometimes, imho - it's not *that* much of a challenge! I don't tend to do stuff with a lot of VFX work in it, so I wouldn't want to comment there, but for general narrative work I don't find it that much of an additional strain on shooting schedules...

At the end of the day it's different strokes for different folks, isn't it?! If you're not comfortable with or not fussed about shooting anamorphically, don't. If you are and you are, then do!! It'll be nice to have a camera that can easily handle both situations and give cinematographers the same tools in the digital realm that are enjoyed in the film world.

That's my 0.02, at least...
 
So its possible to put an adaptor on the front end of, lets say a Red lens? An adaptor that does not exist of course but I like the idea. Worked well back in the DVX days so I can only imagine an Ultra HD anamorphic adaptor will be produced for the 4k users of tomorrow.
 
Front 1.33X anamorphic adaptors have been used by DV cameras, but the optical quality has never been high enough for 35mm photography, plus it would be a HUGE adaptor to cover a 35mm cine lens front anyway, less huge if you are talking about an SLR lens, but again, optical resolution loss negates the whole point of trying to avoid cropping pixels.
 
The blue flare filter from Vantage is only for creating that blue anamorphic lens flare artifact. No, I haven't used it.

The Dalsa anamorphic lenses will only have a 1.22X squeeze because the Dalsa sensor is 1.96 : 1, not 1.78 : 1 (16x9).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top