Red anamorphic filmout question

[Le Ja]

Hi,
We're preparing a feature planed to be shot this summer so I have a question about using anamorphic lenses on RED, about a film print to be precise. I know SS done it on CHE ONE, and as I've read on this forum, some guys that had chance to see it in cinemas say that it looks soft. I know that it's because of the combination of things - SS shooting with demo cameras, regularly shooting wide open with only available light which is not anamorphic's forte, being the first one to shoot anamorphic on red, blah, blah... But, since then, has any of you guys made any tests, film prints, anything that you had chance to see on a big screen? I've seen some really good anamorphic shots here made for videos, commercials... but not for the theater release. I'd be very interested to hear if anyone had some anamorphic film print experience?
Another question is about the resolution - I know the only way is to use 2,4K of the sensor. Do you think that it's enough for anamorphic? On film, as I understood, anamorphic uses 4 perf 4:3 frame, which is larger than super35 frame, and on RED it uses less resolution than super 35 (16x9). I don't even know what would be optimal film scan resolution for the later DI if shooting anamorphic. Paul Thomas Anderson didn't even want to go DI on There Will Be Blood, they did the whole thing with a contact-print.
All these questions are because we're still thinking whether to go 35mm or to shoot RED. RED would be more convenient, cheaper, and so on, but I wouldn't like to risk to make a film not looking it's best.
Of course, we'll do the tests ourselves, but just wondering if any of you already had this experience.

Thanks.

Oh yeah, by the way, I know we could shoot spherical and crop to 2,40:1 :biggrin: , it's not about the cinemascope, it's an artistic decision, anamorphic just looks right.

 

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

I want to clear up one thing...

When we shoot on film with anamorphic lenses the image on film is 21mm x 18.2mm at 4 perf so the lenses are desinged to project the image in an area that is much larger than the sensor of RED one which is 24.4mm x 13.7mm.

So lets say the horizontal is OK, but the vertical is a no go...

I can't understand how someone can shoot with anamorphic lenses and RED ONE...

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Soft?

Soft?

I know SS done it on CHE ONE, and as I've read on this forum, some guys that had chance to see it in cinemas say that it looks soft.

When I saw it the anamorphic stuf looked less soft than the flat stuf, it depends on the lens used in the theatre, and if it is in focus.

Scope lenses have two focus adjustments and they both need to be right to get a sharp image, most of the time the lens is not adjusted right. For camera lenses the backfocus needs to be right, and if the lenses are not matched for FFD when you change lenses one may be softer than another because the FFD is not right for all of them.

If you shoot anamorphic you should try to shoot between f/4 and f/8 all the time and not shoot larger than f/5.6 or smaller than f/11 unless there is no other way, if you want sharp results.

I was told by SS that the prints were made on a Cinevator which seems to be a 2K device, Part 1 on Kodak low cost print stock, and part 2 on Fuji print stock which seems to be higher contrast. Sometime people think higher contrast images are "sharper" so the Fuji stock might have made the non-scope part look sharper to some people.

http://www.cinevation.net/cinevatio...ion.net&page=p_product.jsp&cat=Cinevator&id=6

Anamorphic camera lenses require adjustment by people who know what they are doing to give sharp results, if you get some older lenses that have been worked on they may not give good results, and unless you have two or more to compare you will not know if it is the lens design or just an out of adjustment unit.

Also when you post at 2K if you un-squeeze the vertical resolution at 2K is lower than if you edit with squeezed frames, and when output the vertical does not need to be expanded.

When you use 'scope lenses on a crop of the sensor you get a longer lens than on 35mm, so you need more wide angle lenses, like use a 35mm for normal rather than a 50mm.

 

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

Dan,

The RED sensor is 13.7mm hight and anamorphic lenses project to film with a hight of 18.2mm...

The image doesn't fit... what I don't understand?

Am I wrong? when saying that RED ONE can't shoot with anamorphic lenses?

Do we do same kind of cropping within the RED ONE frame?

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Crop for Scope?

Crop for Scope?

Dan,
The RED sensor is 13.7mm hight and anamorphic lenses project to film with a hight of 18.2mm...
The image doesn't fit... what I don't understand?
Am I wrong? when saying that RED ONE can't shoot with anamorphic lenses?
Do we do same kind of cropping within the RED ONE frame?

The size of the sensor does not matter, using a smaller sensor just makes the image spot from the lens larger as a ratio to the image height, and makes the image more "telephoto".

You crop a part of the sensor that has the anamorphic aspect ratio when using 2:1 squeeze lenses, so you do not use the full width of the 16:9 sensor area.

If you use 1.33:1 squeeze ratio anamorphic lenses then you use the full 16:9 ratio width and height.

Its like doing a slight optical zoom on the 35mm negative in an optical printer, you get a more closeup view.

 

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

So you get an image size of 18mm x 13,7mm which is much smaller than the Academy format... that means that the DoF, apart from the FoV, will be severly less than a typical 24mm x 18,2mm anamorphic shot... I don't thing that most of the DoP's will like that... the difference between the S16 frame and that weird anamorphic is very small...

I can't say that in an aesthetic point of view will be even close to a normal anamorphic shoot...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think it's that different -- you gain about 1-stop more depth of field because of the crop factor and having to use shorter focal lengths to compensate.

The RED sensor is about the size of the 3-perf 35mm frame, or 25% shorter than the 4-perf 35mm anamorphic frame. Therefore you have to switch to focal lengths that are 25% shorter, i.e. you'd use a 30mm anamorphic instead of a 40mm anamorphic if you wanted the same view (you'd probably use the nearest alternative, which would be a 32mm or 35mm anamorphic.)

The magnification factor is 1.3X for an 18mm wide image versus a 24mm wide image, so that's an effective 1.3-stop difference in depth of field once you change focal lengths to maintain field of view -- versus the 2-stop difference of 16mm compared to 35mm.

But considering that shooting with 2X anamorphic lenses in 35mm means that you have an effective 2-stop loss (more or less) in depth of field compared to cropping 35mm to 2.40, i.e. you'd use a 20mm lens in 35mm cropped to 2.40 compared to a 40mm anamorphic lens to get the same horizontal view (it's not quite double because Super-35 is 24mm wide and anamorphic is 22mm wide in terms of 35mm negative size.)

So the fact that you gain back 1.3-stops more depth of field could be seen as an advantage, not a disadvantage, of the smaller sensor area.

But it certainly falls into an area where simply adjusting your shooting stop could make-up for that difference in look for the viewer -- i.e. shooting a scene at f/2.8 instead of f/4 would probably be enough to match the look.

So practically, what does it really mean? It may mean that on a RED camera or on a 3-perf 35mm camera, you'd shoot a shot on a 40mm anamorphic lens at f/2.8 to get close to the same look, more or less, as shooting on a 50mm anamorphic lens at f/4 on a 4-perf camera, or it may mean shooting a close-up on a 60mm anamorphic instead of a 75mm anamorphic. I don't see this as a big deal.

The only problem I see is that you might want something shorter than a 35mm anamorphic, which tends to be the widest-angle anyone uses in anamorphic photography (the shorter lenses than that have a lot of barrel distortion and even the 35mm and 40mm aren't so great in terms of barrel distortion). So you'd be forced to carry a rarer 28mm or shorter anamorphic. On the other hand, because you'd be cropping the sides more, some of that barrel distortion will get cropped out.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

This is almost taboo in reduser to suggest this but have you ever thought about shooting with the Arri D21?

 

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

OK David I understand... its a matter of taste then...

Some people will like it, some they don't... Is a glass of water half full or half empty... Its a gain of DoF or its a loss of DoF...

At least to say that, it won't be exactly the same as a regular anamorphic, is the best description, plus the loss (or gain, it depends from which side you looking it) of 1.3 stops of DoF, is a good info.

So to be clear. with this type of cropped anamorphic we have to open the aperture by 1 1/3 stop more of what we had in the normal anamorphic, to have the same aesthetic.

Plus we going to lose 25% horizontal resolution because of cropping. So the result will be a regular 2K image which is 2048 x 1536 with the aspect of 1:2,35, for me this is more than enough to do a film out...

 

[Zack Birlew]

I think the point is being missed here on shooting anamorphic over spherical. I haven't seen the movie save for the trailers that were played in the RED booth at NAB one year (last year?). Maybe Steven simply wanted lens flares and the stretched bokeh of anamorphics over filming both chapters in cropped 2.40:1. Perhaps he just wanted to give the first half that sort of dream-like look to signify a golden age, only to have it all fall to ruin in the next chapter in a more realistic and gritty way. Again, I haven't seen the movies but knowing the history of Che Guevara, I assume things went way downhill at some point in the second half. Perhaps not only was it a personal goal to be the first to film with anamorphics on a RED One, but perhaps Steven was thinking creatively as well.

 

[Le Ja]

Of course it's a creative decision, that's what I said, and you're pretty right about the dreamy look and the golden age stuff, that is exactly the reason why we want to shoot anamorphic, we have a extremely realistic story with non-actors, but we want a completely opposite look. I just wanted to know if someone had a filmout experience with Red, since I had a chance to see Che: part one, but only as a DVD rip (god blessed the seeders) :biggrin: