anamorphic on east coast

[J. Bernard Vallon]

We're about to match a bollywood film in 35mm with 2nd unit work in the states using our RED. They shot in 2.35, so I'm thinking they used anamorphics. If so does anyone know of a good place to get a set?

also, what format should we shoot in? 16:9 or 2:1? Have to crop to 4:3 anyway...what did soderbourg do?

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Yes they shoot anamorphic.

You need to shoot 16:9 because anamorphics squeezes two images into one so when unsqueezed it's double as wide. After that you actually have to crop your 16:9 image because it's twice as wide (not exactly but kind of), so you have to cut off some left and right. So imagine what it would be like if you were shooting 2:1.

I try to shoot 4K 16:9 as much as possible, since I want to use as much of the sensor that's possible, but that's up to you.

Also, there's ana modes that shows you the framings (were it needs to be cropped).

regards


Fredrik

 

[J. Bernard Vallon]

Thanks Fredrik,
I'm still waiting on the final word from the other DP. Because their budget is tight they might have shot 2-perf, and gotten an 2.35 image that way. Much more convenient on my end.

 

[Jason Holly]

Shooting 16:9? We're shooting an entire feature in 2:1 because 16:9 is still way too buggy to use with various frame rates.

If you shoot anamorphic lenses with 2:1 you can use the 4:3 guides which are pretty spot on in terms of identifying your live and safe areas.

 

[J. Bernard Vallon]

Anyone know of a good place on the east coast to get anamorphics?

 

[amrrahmy]

if u calculate it, u get more quality by cropping from 2:1.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Shooting 16:9? We're shooting an entire feature in 2:1 because 16:9 is still way too buggy to use with various frame rates.

If you shoot anamorphic lenses with 2:1 you can use the 4:3 guides which are pretty spot on in terms of identifying your live and safe areas.

Only thing is that it becomes 4:1 and I don't know what the use of that is?????

(it's not exactly that but you get the draft)

Also you want the height of the sensor as much as possible since ana's are 4:3


fredrik

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

if u calculate it, u get more quality by cropping from 2:1.

....and how do you calculate then? Put a 4:3 frame on top of a 16:9 and a 2:1.

We have to assume were shooting with ana's


Fredrik

 

[J. Bernard Vallon]

This should be simple; which shooting format uses more vertical pixels?

 

[amrrahmy]

other than the fact, the image quality would be reduced by manipulation in post of the anamorphic image and the loss and distortion of the light. and other stuff like u want be able to see the image while shooting.

u get 85% of the sensor if u crop to 2.35(from 2:1)

u get about 65.5% when using anamorphic(that's with 4:3 to 2.35 ana, not 1.37 but the result is about the same).

cropping is the only option. s35 cameras where not build to use anamorphic, they were specifically build so u wont use an anamorphic lens.

 

[amrrahmy]

also depending on the lens that u'll mount the anamorphic lens on it, u might need to make a margin and crop all around the image so u would be using far less than 65% of the sensor(ur talking 2 to +5% in every direction), also older lens that support anamorphic are at least 2 or 3 gen older than the current lens, and u'll find allot of annoying elements to deal with.

 

[James T Mather]

cropping is the only option. s35 cameras where not build to use anamorphic, they were specifically build so u wont use an anamorphic lens.

It seems to be terribly important to you that everyone use spherical - nonetheless some people (like me) still want to use Anamorphics and have had great results with it (depite all the geek maths not working out to our apparent advantage). So live and let live, huh brother?

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

You basically crop off more or less 1/5 of the image (so 3.2K??). I've shot 4K 16:9 since it gives the most "pixels" when using anamorphics, since your using the full height of the sensor. That's how simple it is and yes it's a little more trouble some since RED still haven't figured out how to support it fully, which is somewhat annoying but hey c'est la vie.

Fredrik

 

[amrrahmy]

no man, i'm a big supporter of the anamorphic lens(not to be used through the entire movie - too many bugs.), but it's a nice option. and remember that u wont be able to see the image on the small lcd or the view finder, the image would be too squeezed to see anything(anything).shooting with a camera that has native 4:3 pixel to pixel would be a better choice, there are allot of cameras that would do 1440x1080 that u can mount a 35mm adapter and the anamorphic lens(and there are not expensive - they wont hurt ur wallet).(the image would be nicely squeezed and u would be able to work with it.)

or the arri d21

and i didn't want to put the numbers in the first post specifically, so u wont say geek.

 

[amrrahmy]

no they still say that 16:9 is not that good yet, i think they will wait for the final build 16 to test again.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

no man, i'm a big supporter of the anamorphic lens(not to be used through the entire movie - too many bugs.), but it's a nice option. and remember that u wont be able to see the image on the small lcd or the view finder, the image would be too squeezed to see anything(anything).shooting with a camera that has native 4:3 pixel to pixel would be a better choice, there are allot of cameras that would do 1440x1080 that u can mount a 35mm adapter and the anamorphic lens(and there are not expensive - they wont hurt ur wallet).(the image would be nicely squeezed and u would be able to work with it.)

or the arri d21

and i didn't wont to put the numbers in the first post specifically, so u wont say geek.

Of all the things that you've said the remark of D21 seems to be the only reasonable one.

I'm not getting the to many bugs remark??? You are aware of what anamorphic lenses are?

Fredrik

 

[amrrahmy]

nothing too massive, but u'll be constraint with some of the focal lens choices, the distance between the camera and the foreground, u cant have light in the direction of the camera, some artifacts from the anamorphic lens that would make u a bit limited in options, but nothing too serious. sometimes u wont have enough room to back the camera to the appropriate or best suited position, some times u wont be able to move the camera or tilt the camera in a specific direction or with a specific speed. but it's not big deals, u can mostly work around anything.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

nothing too massive, but u'll be constraint with some of the focal lens choices, the distance between the camera and the foreground, u cant have light in the direction of the camera, some artifacts from the anamorphic lens that would make u a bit limited in options, but nothing too serious. sometimes u wont have enough room to back the camera to the appropriate or best suited position, some times u wont be able to move the camera or tilt the camera in a specific direction or with a specific speed. but it's not big deals, u can mostly work around anything.

Hmmm all these "problems" is only because it's a different lens structure and there are work arounds, you just have to work with diopters, for CU work. As for mobility it's not that different to primes, especially if you use the light weight ones like for example Panavision C-series or the new G-series. I have a beautiful set of prototype lenses that I found, they're a hybrid from Mamiya lens maker Toyo that together with COOKE Taylor Hobson at some point made a set (don't ask me of any more info, don't have it). They're no bigger than standard Zeiss lenses, perfect for steadicam action.

As for lights in the direction of the camera??? What are you mumbling about :biggrin: that is the whole point of shooting these lenses, their flares are the most beautiful thing in the film industry.

Fredrik Callinggard

 

[James T Mather]

u cant have light in the direction of the camera,

Ridley Scotts Alien:

AVP:

From David Mullen:

Michael Bay:

The rest of the stuff you are mentioning sounds like nonsense to me.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Anyone know of a good place on the east coast to get anamorphics?

Yes.

Offhollywood will be offering PL anamorphics, working with a new strategic partner on the East Coast.

Working out details now, so I can't discuss yet. You can send me an email at mark (at) offhollywoodstudios.com

If you register your info on the "Sign up for Offhollywood News and Events" in my signature below - you will get the announcement in late July.