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 :)

4k ana mode : disappointing resolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly - no possibilities to get worse image by professional anamorph... - it could be not so sharp (usually is) but ALWAYS beauty
 
Andreas Mendritzki said:
At this point, shooting ana from 16:9 sensors vs. 4:3 has more to do with field-of-view than resolution if you ask me.
Click to expand...

This IMHO is (or rather was) the only real benefit of anamorphic glass - the ability to shoot super-wide. But with the latest generation of rectilinear ultra-wide spherical lenses (such us the "budget" Tokina 11-16, or the insanely expensive but ohh-so-gorgeous UP-8R) this is no longer an issue...

:sifone: Peter
 
Ana Crop:
3240 x 2700 = 8.7 MP
De-Squeezed:
6480 x 2700 = 17.5 MP "Effective Resolution"

So what you get is more "actual" resolution by cropping top and bottom on a spherical lens. However, you theoretically get a bigger image with more "effective" resolution vis-a-vis the anamorphic de-squeeze.

You can't get more pixels and more resolution by anamorphic de-squeeze. You are using a smaller area of the sensor, blowing it up more, so you get less resolution.
 
I tested out my new Epic with my anamorphic lens (panasonic la7200) last night and was also confused at how much resolution was lost. I see no reason why anyone would use this option in lieu of simply rolling in 5k and squeezing yourself in post. What am I missing?
 
James_Mills said:
I tested out my new Epic with my anamorphic lens (panasonic la7200) last night and was also confused at how much resolution was lost. I see no reason why anyone would use this option in lieu of simply rolling in 5k and squeezing yourself in post. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

When using the la7200 a 1.33 squeeze lens you should get close to no resolution loss because you shoot in 16:9 mode.

Topic number 5:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...t-anamorphics-on-the-mx-and-the-possibilities

Now I will also answer your question in a new topic in that thread "why anamorphics?"next week. I just need to shoot the material to illustrate the points.
 
James_Mills said:
I tested out my new Epic with my anamorphic lens (panasonic la7200) last night and was also confused at how much resolution was lost. I see no reason why anyone would use this option in lieu of simply rolling in 5k and squeezing yourself in post. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

It's the difference between spherical and anamorphic lens artifacts. In 4-perf 35mm, there is also a gain in resolution, as would happen if sensors were squarish, but if you have a widescreen sensor then the only reason to shoot anamorphic is for the anamorphic look, not for resolution. But I'm not sure what anamorphic lens is a "Panasonic la7200"... (oh, I found it, you're talking about a DV camera lens attachment with a 1.3X squeeze -- that's not really the same as a real 2X anamorphic prime lens in terms of quality or look.)
 
Totally agree with point of view with David. In matter of technical resolution spherical give optimal results, but... resolution is not a reason of use of anamorphic at all :).
But in artistical way, organic view - wide ocean of tastes.
Well - simple example - if you need total sharp lens Canon L series is quite enough. But why directors still looking for anamorph.for hi-budget prod? Nolan with Dark Knight, Inception and others bring answers

Anamorph professional lenses with factor 2X make difference in look, it is not only tech.spec - probably cheap Sigma have some of them better than Ultra Primes - wondering - matter of tests. Same like with music equipment - sound it is not only matter od maximal power (dB) or technical range in Hz....
 
I never meant to suggest that my anamorphic lens was of top quality, nor was I questioning the reasons why one would shoot anamorphic or not. I was simply asking why use the ANA 5K mode instead of simply shooting anamorphic in 5K and then squeezing it manually in post?

I've shot many projects with my anamorphic lens on the 5D that have come out satisfactory by my standards (even on my Scarlet too: http://vimeo.com/m/62218014 ), all of which were shot in a normal sensor mode and then squeezed in post. Why would I want to shoot with less resolution to work with and thus cropping my image? I'm just confused about this, I think I'm not understanding what the cropping achieves.
 
James_Mills said:
I never meant to suggest that my anamorphic lens was of top quality, nor was I questioning the reasons why one would shoot anamorphic or not. I was simply asking why use the ANA 5K mode instead of simply shooting anamorphic in 5K and then squeezing it manually in post?

I've shot many projects with my anamorphic lens on the 5D that have come out satisfactory by my standards (even on my Scarlet too: http://vimeo.com/m/62218014 ), all of which were shot in a normal sensor mode and then squeezed in post. Why would I want to shoot with less resolution to work with and thus cropping my image? I'm just confused about this, I think I'm not understanding what the cropping achieves.
Click to expand...

Your Panasonic adaptor has a 1.3X squeeze so you don't really have to do much cropping or any to achieve 2.40 if you record 16x9.

A standard 2X anamorphic lens will create a 3.56 : 1 image once stretched back out horizontally if you record 16x9 on the Epic, so cropping it is inevitable to get back to 2.40 -- the reason you crop it in camera using ANA mode is that the monitor outputs on set will be desqueezed and you are reducing the amount of data to record -- why not since you have to crop it anyway? You won't be gaining resolution by not cropping in camera if you have to crop it in post anyway to get back to 2.40.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Your Panasonic adaptor has a 1.3X squeeze so you don't really have to do much cropping or any to achieve 2.40 if you record 16x9.

A standard 2X anamorphic lens will create a 3.56 : 1 image once stretched back out horizontally if you record 16x9 on the Epic, so cropping it is inevitable to get back to 2.40 -- the reason you crop it in camera using ANA mode is that the monitor outputs on set will be desqueezed and you are reducing the amount of data to record -- why not since you have to crop it anyway? You won't be gaining resolution by not cropping in camera if you have to crop it in post anyway to get back to 2.40.
Click to expand...

But you do lose the option to reframe the footage by panning side to side and the ANA does not utilize the full height of the sensor... ;o)

Peter
 
I come from shooting anamorphic in 35mm where reframing isn't an option, so that doesn't bother me. In fact, even in my Super-35 and digital movies I've barely done any reframing. If I compose a shot, I generally don't want it recomposed in post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top