ACTUAL DESQUEEZE RESOLUTION IN ANAMORPHIC?

[Björn Benckert]

Another take on large format vs resolution. This little HD camera beats the Alexa XL in sensors size but not resolution. Quite nice looking imagery if you ask me.

https://vimeo.com/136554487

http://www.richardgaleoptics.uk/forbes70-large-format/

 

[David Mullen ASC]

As a follow up to what I mentioned about shooting an efx element with a normal lens but the subject already having a built-in squeeze... I was just re-reading the old Cinefex issue on "Dune" and they mentioned that shooting a backlit star field artwork with anamorphic lenses produced some artifacts, some chromatic aberrations too, so they had a computer draw a bunch of stars that were vertical ovals, twice as tall as wide, then printed that out as black ovals on paper and then made a negative kodalith of that, so they had oval stars that could be shot with a spherical lens for all of their background plates that needed stars in them. They said the stars were a lot more crisp and sharped-edged that way.

 

[PatrickFaith]

As a follow up to what I mentioned about shooting an efx element with a normal lens but the subject already having a built-in squeeze... I was just re-reading the old Cinefex issue on "Dune" and they mentioned that shooting a backlit star field artwork with anamorphic lenses produced some artifacts, some chromatic aberrations too, so they had a computer draw a bunch of stars that were vertical ovals, twice as tall as wide, then printed that out as black ovals on paper and then made a negative kodalith of that, so they had oval stars that could be shot with a spherical lens for all of their background plates that needed stars in them. They said the stars were a lot more crisp and sharped-edged that way.

Thanks so much David. I was just having some vfx problems with water drop caustics composited to anamorphic r3d, I just might want to apply this trick. I btw really love the David Lynch films, so much creative stuff in them.

 

[Julien Jarry]

So I have a 1.3 anamorphic adapter and want to use the 6k HD format on my Dragon. Menu>Settings>Project>Format doesn't seem to give me the desqueezed preview I'm looking for. Is this possible without the use of a third party monitor? Thanks.

 

[Tom Dowler]

Dredging up this thread from the dead since I'm running into a related Resolve issue.

I'm bringing a (Helium) 6K 6:5 2x anamorphic clip into Resolve. Resolve recognizes its size as 3888 x 3240.

But I'm working in a timeline set to DCI 4K scope - 4096 x 1716 w. square pixels.

If I set the clip attributes for my clip to "Cinemascope", then it halves the vertical resolution and leaves the horizontal resolution alone. So now it thinks my clip is only 3888 x 1620. So now my clip is *smaller* than the resolution of the timeline and now I need to scale it up again to match.

Whereas, if it let me use the option Phil describes as "Stretch", my horizontal resolution would still be technically under 4K, but - critically- I would have a bunch of vertical resolution to play with for reframing.

The bigger question is: does Resolve apply that pixel aspect ratio first, and then go to the "zoom" property, or is the zoom property looking at all the available pixels, not just the ones left after the PAR input scaling? I've noticed in Premiere that if you do a "scale to frame size" and also scale above 100%, it's not using all your original resolution, it's doing the scale to frame size first, and then scaling up *that* resolution.

Any Resolve experts know?