Epic is the Ultimate "Film Slayer".... IF

[Häakon]

The main reason for shooting Anamorphic is more to do with image quality and less to do with bokeh and vertical flaring.

The use of ALL Film and Digital's celluloid or sensor real estate without cropping is the order of the day here.

Hi Mezmo,

Without question, using all of a sensor's real estate without cropping yields the most resolution - no disagreement there. But, say for example, you are aiming for a 2.40:1 release - you are best served shooting on a camera with a 2.40:1 shaped sensor (for maximum resolution). Making a 4:3 sensor of the same height and then squishing the image into it with anamorphic lenses won't net you more resolution - it nets you less. What you're really talking about is a sensor which has a narrower aspect ratio than the finishing ratio you are shooting for. It is only in this case where anamorphic lenses will net you more resolution.

What all this means is that the problem here is merely the ratio of the sensor itself; ie, if the aspect of the sensor is not wide enough for your project, then you will gain more resolution by shooting anamorphically than by letterboxxing the image in post. The solution, then, is not anamorphic lenses - it's a wider sensor. The catch of course is that not every project wants to shoot with the same aspect, so inevitably something has to give to make the best "all-around" sensor size to meet the most needs. I believe a 1.85:1 shaped sensor (this is very close to 16:9) is probably the best choice - and fortunately, it's essentially what we've got!

I also maintain that as cameras get higher and higher in resolution, the need for squeezing every little bit out of the sensor becomes less and less important; you already have all the resolution you need. More advantageous is the option to reframe in post if desired. Let's not forget: 5K is right around the corner... I am sure 6 7 8K will be here before we know it. The real change will actually be when we move away from the s35mm format and start producing sensors which are larger in size. (Think "medium format" as it relates to the still world). This will probably require a whole new set of lenses and infrastructure to be developed (which is why many will resist such a move), but clearly it's the way to break the quality barrier. Just because we've done things one way for a hundred years doesn't mean we can't ever move beyond it (and I'm confident we will). Note that you're already having to use a completely different set of lenses to shoot anamorphically as it is - so you've already made this adjustment!

So, yes, I believe the only reason that users will want to shoot anamorphically with all the resolution we have these days is because it provides a different look. And as an artist, I see nothing wrong with that!

 

[mezmo]

Hi Haakon,
I suppose what David was talking about above was getting the most out of
the 16X9 and 4X3 sensors available to us at the moment. The D20/1 with it's 4X3 sensor in Data mode will shoot Anamorphic in 3K now using pretty
much all sensor real estate as I understand it. For RED with it's 16X9
style sensor, Anamorphics would be preferable to cropping a 2.40:1 aspect
ratio from a 16x9 frame. Hence the interest.
My own view is (and this is a personal preference) that a well shot 4 perf
Anamorphic film is a joy forever as a theatre going experience. Yes it's expensive but it's still the reason an audience will go to the movies rather
than wait for the DVD in many situations. It can put bums on seats by word of mouth.

In Digital land we are missing out here, this side of the business is under developed with the lack of a high quality 2.40:1 DIGITAL IMAGING DEVICE. that can match the look of
4 perf Anamorphic film. Most Digital stuff I see looks soft when it's stretched out to 2.40:1 from the current crop of D cameras. Maybe RED can do somthing here with EPIC and some tricky SUPER WIDE sensor design.

I might point out the the Aaton Penelope will be able to shoot a real 2.40:1
Aspect Ratio in 2 perf film mode. I've done some 2 perf tests with converted Arri's and the results are stunning, used some of the newer Kodak filmstocks and a few DI tricks.

Love to see something similar or better happen in Digital Land, if it turns out to be lens design or sensor design, only time will tell. So Lets just keep all our options open.
Cheers Mezmo

 

[David Mullen ASC]

But there really isn't a difference between cropping to get 2.40 and using a shorter film gate like 2-perf to get it, it would be like RED making a shorter sensor that was naturally 2.40, compared to cropping a taller recording to get it.

With anamorphic lenses, you have other optical characteristics that are unique. back in the 1950's, we had 1.5X anamorphic for Technirama and 1.25X anamorphics for Ultra Panavision, so why not 1.34X anamorphics for today's world of 3-perf film Super-16 cameras and digital cameras with 16x9 sensors?

I think you'd get plenty of anamorphic bokeh (you can see artifacts in those old Technirama and Ultra Panavision movies).

 

[Finner]

...back in the 1950's, we had 1.5X anamorphic for Technirama and 1.25X anamorphics for Ultra Panavision,

What did you shoot in the 1950's with that gear David?

 

[Häakon]

Hi Haakon,
I suppose what David was talking about above was getting the most out of
the 16X9 and 4X3 sensors available to us at the moment.

In that case, yeah, you'd need 1.34X anamorphic lenses to get the most bang for your resolution buck out of the RED ONE sensor (assuming you're shooting for a 2.4:1 ratio). I was looking at it more toward future cameras - specifically the Epic (which this topic/forum is about) - which some have suggested have a 4:3 sensor from the get go. And I personally think that approach is an very inefficient way to get the most resolution possible out of your camera.

For RED with it's 16X9 style sensor, Anamorphics would be preferable to cropping a 2.40:1 aspect ratio from a 16x9 frame. Hence the interest.

Essentially that's the same thing as above, but yes I agree.

My own view is (and this is a personal preference) that a well shot 4 perf Anamorphic film is a joy forever as a theatre going experience. Yes it's expensive but it's still the reason an audience will go to the movies rather than wait for the DVD in many situations.

Because a movie is shot anamorphically, that's the reason an audience will go see it in a theater? I would love for you to expand on this, because other than very particular filmmakers, I would reckon that most people don't even know what 4 perf anamorphic is/means, letalone that they're aware of any quality differences that may exist. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there isn't a difference - just that I don't think this is the reason people are still going to the theaters to see films. If anything, I think it's simply because a 50ft. screen is larger than a 50" plasma.

In Digital land we are missing out here, this side of the business is under developed with the lack of a high quality 2.40:1 DIGITAL IMAGING DEVICE. that can match the look of 4 perf Anamorphic film. Most Digital stuff I see looks soft when it's stretched out to 2.40:1...

It sounds like what you feel is "missing," however, is a perceived amount of resolution - correct? That the quality you don't feel you can attain with the current crop of digital offerings (compared to 4-perf anamorphic) is an inherent sharpness? Again, all that means is that the camera manufacturers need to keep investing in sensor research to develop larger area and higher density sensors... but that has nothing to do with shooting anamorphically. Perhaps a 6K or 8K camera will be what it takes for you to feel that the resolution is finally "there" or "on par" with film. But I believe that technology is inevitable. Two years ago, the best we had was 2K. Now we have 4K in the RED ONE, and in a year, 5K with Epic. Do you think it will stop there?

But there really isn't a difference between cropping to get 2.40 and using a shorter film gate like 2-perf to get it, it would be like RED making a shorter sensor that was naturally 2.40, compared to cropping a taller recording to get it.

Absolutely correct. That's precisely why the point is we need a WIDER sensor (of the same height). This will resolve more than a 4:3 crop of that sensor with anamorphic lenses at that same height, but doesn't require a specialized set of lenses or unstretching work in post for commercial distribution.

With anamorphic lenses, you have other optical characteristics that are unique. back in the 1950's, we had 1.5X anamorphic for Technirama and 1.25X anamorphics for Ultra Panavision, so why not 1.34X anamorphics for today's world of 3-perf film Super-16 cameras and digital cameras with 16x9 sensors?

No reason really, other than I just don't think there's a point. Sure, one could make a specialized set of lenses to squeeze a little more resolution out of the chip, but then why not just buy the Epic which has more resolution to begin with and be done with it? If the problem is getting more resolution from the chip, then it seems to me the easiest solution is to shoot with a chip of higher resolution. The most obvious reason for this is that your spherical lenses will work for everything and you don't need two sets.

The reason those different kinds of anamorphic lenses existed in the first place was because film had a set physical frame size (and "resolution") that you had to work with. In order to be compatible with each camera body, 35mm film has to have specific dimensions and be consistent from camera to camera. Since that wasn't changable, people came up with creative ways to get the most out of that film negative so they weren't wasting "resolution" by cropping. Anamorphic lenses weren't created because someone wanted to see strange distorted bokeh and funky lens flares. All of that was merely a side effect of shooting with the non-standard lenses, which some artists still see as a nice aesthetic tool for telling their stories. But the point is, as far as resolution is concerned, there isn't a reason to shoot that way anymore. Make a wider sensor and shoot it natively (unstretched), and you will get the most resolution from it possible.

Increasing the size of the sensor will probably mean new sets of lenses are required to cover the larger area of that bigger sensor, but this is nothing new - medium and large format cameras in the still world are working examples of this. You're also talking about using a totally different set of expensive lenses just to shoot anamorphically - why not instead use a totally different set of expensive lenses to shoot better spherical pictures to begin with?

I realize that this industry is deeply rooted in their ways and seems remarkably resistant to change, but great technological leaps are going to take some change to happen... that's just the reality of it. Cramming more and more pixels into a sensor won't ever match the quality of equivalent pixel density on a larger sensor. The future will be larger physical sensors with extremely high native resolution, not the same smaller sensors we have today with anamorphic lenses trying to squeeze out every last pixel we possibly can.

Unless, of course, the goal *is* strange distorted bokeh and funky lens flares.

Just my .02.

 

[mezmo]

But there really isn't a difference between cropping to get 2.40 and using a shorter film gate like 2-perf to get it, it would be like RED making a shorter sensor that was naturally 2.40, compared to cropping a taller recording to get it.

With anamorphic lenses, you have other optical characteristics that are unique. back in the 1950's, we had 1.5X anamorphic for Technirama and 1.25X anamorphics for Ultra Panavision, so why not 1.34X anamorphics for today's world of 3-perf film Super-16 cameras and digital cameras with 16x9 sensors?

I think you'd get plenty of anamorphic bokeh (you can see artifacts in those old Technirama and Ultra Panavision movies).

Hi David,
I meant in my post that I'd love to see a purpose built Digital 2.40:1 option,
whatever the sensor size or the optics envolved, similar to the 2 perf film option. and yes 1.34X Anamophics on a RED ONE would be a good place to
start.
Mezmo

 

[mezmo]

Hi Haakon,
There are thousands of films shot using Anamorphic glass that people have
flocked to a cinema to see. They have no idea how the film was shot but
"the photography was amazing" is the usual comment. High quality
cinematography has a HUGE effect on how an audience percieve a story and a film. I"ve noticed when test screening an ungraded film to a test
audience well over 50% will pick up on the fact that the film is unfinished
and is a bit "rough around the edges".
People know good quality cinematography when they see it and they don't have to know the technicial detail behind it. It's also the reason (not the only reason) but a good reason
why people bother at all to seek out the theatricial experience in this day and age.

On sensors, if your talking about adapting medium format stills glass to a wider sensor,
that's an interesting idea too, but I don't see a lot of discusssion about it here and on other forums. I suppose the fisrt question would be, is this possible?

Mezmo

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The Phantom 65 has a 4K sensor that is twice as wide as 35mm, so it uses medium-format lenses / 65mm lenses.

It's the need for larger lenses that's the main problem with 65mm cameras, plus getting two stops less depth of field compared to 35mm.

 

[Häakon]

On sensors, if your talking about adapting medium format stills glass to a wider sensor,
that's an interesting idea too, but I don't see a lot of discusssion about it here and on other forums. I suppose the fisrt question would be, is this possible?

David beat me to it. But yeah, why wouldn't it be possible? The big hurdle I see is the glass... lenses would obviously be more rare and expensive than 35mm versions, though if such cameras were to become more standardized, there would be a demand for those lenses (and you'd see manufacturers take a good look at producing them). In my opinion, it's when the sensor breaks away from the legacy 35mm size that the revolution will truly begin. There is no doubt in my mind that this will happen, but it's unlikely that it will happen soon. Too many people have been shooting one way for too long to embrace such a huge change overnight. Digital photography still has to take a larger foothold in Hollywood cinema first as it is.

Of course, with that kind of resolution, again, anamorphics become completely moot. As I originally stated, it then becomes completely a choice of style to shoot with such lenses. I agree that good cinematography has a big impact on the way a film is received, but I don't believe that the difference between using anamorphic lenses or not is like the difference between watching a finished and ungraded version of a film. But I respect your opinion nonetheless.

 

[mezmo]

Hi David and Haakon,
Not aware of the Phantom 65, will google and check it out, yes, large format does bring with it slow glass, larger camera size and the extended data processing woes. I'm still interested in Anamorphics that could work on 16x9 style sensors or three perf film formats. Even while newer solutions
for digital wide screen formats are in the development stage. The use of such glass on 3 perf film production would warrent the cost alone. The use on a camera like RED ONE/EPIC or the Aaton Penelope would be a bonus.
Digital and Spherical just seem soft to me, with all the cropping that has to go on for a 2.40:1 result on the present crop of 16x9/4x3 cameras. Anamorphics may give a better result here as sensors become higher Rez but remain mostly 16x9/4x3 in format size for some time to come.
It's worth the discussion Haakon, don't dismiss Anamorphics as simply old tech, a 1.34x
Anna on a 5K EPIC or a 6K Aaton maybe just the thing to get Digital looking sexy on the
big screen.
Cheers Mezmo

 

[Tom Lowe]

I have always thought that a 65mm-size sensor (or even a 35mm still size sensor, which is roughly the same as Vista Vision) would be fantastic for a digital cinema camera. The resolution could easily skyrocket into the 6K and 8K realm within a year or two. Plus you have reduced noise and larger real estate in general.

The problem, of course, as David mentions, is finding ACs who can pull focus on that badboy.

 

[Mark K.]

I have always thought that a 65mm-size sensor (or even a 35mm still size sensor, which is roughly the same as Vista Vision) would be fantastic for a digital cinema camera. The resolution could easily skyrocket into the 6K and 8K realm within a year or two. Plus you have reduced noise and larger real estate in general.

The problem, of course, as David mentions, is finding ACs who can pull focus on that badboy.

Just shoot your own little Lawrence of Arabia with it - the desert will give you plenty of light, so you can stop down considerably for a comfortable DOF to work with!

 

[Tom Lowe]

Just shoot your own little Lawrence of Arabia with it - the desert will give you plenty of light, so you can stop down considerably for a comfortable DOF to work with!

what about sunset and magic hour shots? you will need a jedi focus puller.

 

[Mark K.]

Ah... that's when you have your subjects wandering over the horizon - so you can focus at infinity whilst wide-open!

 

[Charles Angus]

Somebody was saying that the legacy 35mm format is holding back digital image quality, and that larger sensors will be better.

Even anamorphic movies have trouble with focus - bigger formats will be even worse. People lean, don't hit their marks, etc.

Sensor resolution is useless if you're resolving blurriness...

Example:
25mm lens, 2.8, hyperfocal is 28' - this would be a middling lens on S16mm
50mm, 2.8, hyperfocal 115', similar lens on 35mm
100mm, 2.8, hyperfocal 461' similar horizontal FOV on anamorphic 35

Not real precise on the relationships of lenses to formats and whatnot, but demonstrating the (effectively) drastically reduced DOF as imager size increases.

35mm lenses and DOF are familiar to filmmakers and (subconsciously) to audiences. Anamorphic (with its inherent characteristics) is also.

I don't see any reason to muck around with something that's working - 35mm sensor size is the way to go.

About anamorphic, I think its more than just the weird bokeh and flares. The feel of the lenses is very different between anamorphic 2.40 and spherical S35 2.40. I'm sorry I can't describe it better, maybe someone else can.

I just know that when I watch Alien (anamorphic) the look is very different than American Beauty (S35 2.40), and its not just the lighting and art direction.

 

[Häakon]

Hi Angus,

Great post! Just a couple of thoughts...

Sensor resolution is useless if you're resolving blurriness...

That's for sure! But then, focus pulling is an art and craft as special and technical as any other job on the set. The best films demand the best talent, but also the best picture quality. Clearly the 35mm format isn't going to disappear anytime soon, but I don't see any reason that we should hold back the progress of technology because we're scared that we won't be able to pull focus properly. Much larger sensors will likely offer much better native sensitivity and this would allow DPs to close down a couple of stops and have equivalent DOF as 35mm at a wider aperture with the same amount of light. It's definitely something that would need to be addressed, but I believe it can.

About anamorphic, I think its more than just the weird bokeh and flares. The feel of the lenses is very different between anamorphic 2.40 and spherical S35 2.40. I'm sorry I can't describe it better, maybe someone else can.

I agree with this, but the point remains it's an aesthetic difference. The reason that the format was developed was to squeeze (no pun intended!) the most resolution out of the negative as possible. But the unique picture qualities (side effects) that result from shooting anamorphically are what make "Alien" feel different than "American Beauty," not because it's a sharper picture. By the time you shrink those films down to DVD, any resolution benefit that the former film had would be completely nullified and yet those unique image properties remain.

My perspective is that a larger sensor would render the resolution advantage of shooting anamorphically on a 4:3 sensor moot. The reason to shoot that way, then, would be strictly as an intentional stylistic choice. And that's fine. But to champion for a 4:3 sensor simply for the benefit of the resolution gain seems silly to me - if you design a 2.40:1 sensor (or whatever aspect you prefer), you'll get the maximum resolution from the camera without having to shoot with anamorphic lenses. Keep in mind, again, that this would be a 2.40 sensor the same height of a comparable 4:3 one. The reason that anamorphic lenses net more resolution on the cameras we have now is because we have to crop our sensors to get the ratio we want - thus throwing away a part of the usable image. If the sensor itself was wider, this wouldn't be an issue.

The problem that exists with creating a wider sensor is that traditional 35mm lenses wouldn't cover one that is wider than the standard 35mm frame. Thus, a push for a "medium format" digital cinema camera is the next logical step.

I don't see any reason to muck around with something that's working - 35mm sensor size is the way to go.

I fully respect your opinion but graciously disagree. After seeing the full 4K screenings that RED has presented over the last couple of years, it's painfully obvious how low-res most prints in the public cinema are - especially after multiple generations of duplication and viewing. Digital projection will help this, no question, but there's a limit to how much resolution exists in a 35mm film frame. Perhaps that is enough resolution for your personal taste - heck, some can't even see the difference between DVD and Blu-ray (or it's not a big enough deal to warrant spending the money to upgrade their collection). For me, though, it is a big deal, and as someone who has chosen to spend his life creating motion picture, I want the best available canvas with which to work with as technology will allow. To be blunt, 35mm resolution just doesn't cut it in 2008. Keep in mind as well that oversampling has a huge impact on the quality of an image - so even if 4K is the next "frontier" for digital cinema, we're going to want 6, 7, or even 8K acquisition devices to reach that optimal point and net the best 4K frame possible. Do we really want to cram 8K worth of pixels in a sensor the size of a s35mm frame? At some point, the laws of efficiency are going to kick in and we're going to hit a usable limit. The obvious remedy, then, is to increase the size of the sensor. Give us some bigger pixels, more resolution, higher dynamic range, and better sensitivity - the goal of all digital sensor progression for as long as it has been around. The RED ONE, to me, provides the first really acceptable digital alternative to shooting film, but it's just the beginning - not a means to an end.

All of this is just thinking aloud, of course - I'm not a sensor engineer and I don't have all of the answers - but I do think it's a discussion worth having!

 

[Tom Lowe]

I think the APS-size or chemical still 35mm-size sensor might make the most sense. It is roughly the same size as Vista Vision, I think. And who wouldn't want to shoot Vista Vision!?!

Shooting on APS-C "cropped" sensor cameras (like RED) makes you realize how much better "full frame" is. If that is true for stills, why not for motion pictures?

Does it all come down to pulling focus? If so, keep in mind that you could potentially have your 1st AC pulling focus off a large 2K HD montior. That would help!

 

[Charles Angus]

Lighting bright has its own problems - my favourite example is in The Pianist. Adrian Brody is playing the piano by moonlight, but clearly the "moonlight" is a 12k or some very large fixture, and the light is illuminating his nose like some kind of party trick!

All problems can't be solved by adding light and stopping down, is all I'm saying.

It would be nice to see parallel systems, maybe, like when people still shot 65mm. We could have our large format sensors for the big shows where it matters (epic vistas and whatnot) and ordinary 35mm size sensors for the mere mortals.

I think, for the moment at least, S35mm is the best choice for EPIC. It's the norm and everybody is used to it.

 

[Häakon]

All problems can't be solved by adding light and stopping down, is all I'm saying.

Hi Angus,

I never suggested anyone "light brighter." I simply said that a larger sensor would likely be more sensitive, requiring less light for a given scenario. One can then stop down to acheive the same brightness as the camera with the smaller sensor, and this brings the DOF much closer together. One doesn't have to light any differently. It just means that DPs will know to get the same shallow look that they are used to at higher f/stop numbers, which actually yields another benefit: you don't need ultra fast (expensive) glass to get the traditional shallow DOF that many find desirable.

Tom's suggestion of a standard 35mm size sensor might be a good compromise - it would certainly allow for better resolution at equivalent pixel density. Given that the RED ONE already works with 35mm still lenses, it makes me think... do the standard motion picture/PL-mount lenses cover that same area? And if so, why didn't we make a standard 35mm sized sensor to begin with?

 

[Tom Lowe]

Is Epic at the point of development right now where they can still consider some of these suggestions?

As long as you're making a "full frame" 35mm sensor, you might as well up the resolution to 6K.

Then your 4K downsamples would be flat-out stunning.