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 :)

Anamorphic a dying trend?

N

Nathan Appel

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I love Anamorphic films, but in the last 5 years it seems overdone, on the verge of becoming just a fad maybe. I'm probably just bitter, what are your thoughts on the future of anamorphic shows in the next 5-10 years? Thanks :)
Nate
 
Oh, btw I do want to shoot anamorphic, just concerned the public will be tired of the look.
Nate
 
Anamorphic was hugely important when you shot film, because of the shape of film, but that changed with HD and now digital(but because of the size of the Panasonic GH4, some guys are looking at it again)

from a shooter POV, Anamorphic lenses breath a lot and are very slow... which was okay, if you were getting more film real estate, which isn't a factor anymore.
 
Nathan Appel said:
I love Anamorphic films, but in the last 5 years it seems overdone, on the verge of becoming just a fad maybe. I'm probably just bitter, what are your thoughts on the future of anamorphic shows in the next 5-10 years? Thanks :)
Nate
Click to expand...
Phew...finally.
anamorphic makes no sense from the technical standpoint in widescreen sensor realm. Aesthetics are another story but you still get better results adding the artifacts in post IMO.
time to bury this one...
Next to traditional stereoscopy.. oh wait- it think stereoscopy has been buried a few times before...... and there is always Dr Frankenstein that resurrects it- for a short while haha...
 
Jacek, I'd love to see some examples of great results with 'artifacts' added in post. Do you have anything you can share?

Thanks!
 
You can't add the artifact of shooting on a larger format in post which is what is happening as far the optics are concerned. The over done in your face type of ananmorphic may be a fad, but there is a reason it is popular. It is one more step removed from reality which is useful for some stories. Others, not so much.

Nick
 
Not overdone at all, I like that not everything widescreen has the super 35 look, I don't hear anyone complaining that that was overdone. With Alexa it gives and new Anamorphic lenses available you have all sorts of options to create an aesthetic for your movie.
 
Nathan

Not dying just horribly misused. Absolutely no need to shoot scope for a cereal/toothpaste/insurance/hairspray/etc commercial but I see 4 out of 5 spots are currently anamorphic, people are so desperate for it they'll shoot squeezed regardless of whether most suitable for a given project.

For narrative work it's still the king of formats IMHO.
 
King of formats is 70mm or Imax that Anamorphic was meant to mimic on film. Digital took that away IMO.
 
Hi Jacek

Anamorphic wasn't meant to mimic 70mm or IMAX, but it was an attempt at cost cutting while maintaining similar image quality by optically squeezing a similar image size onto a smaller target.

See the wiki page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScope.

To my eye it's the king of formats for many reasons, not just tech specs but also the mood and feel it evokes especially referencing the classics shot in the anamorphic format. I saw more of them during my formative years than 70mm pictures.

I think Naim's point is a good one, it's virtually impossible to mimic true anamorphic artifacts in post, I mean the textural and qualitative differences / bokeh etc not just adding artificial flare.
 
Blade Runner (1982) was shot anamorphic and it is the best looking movie I have ever seen. So, I don't think
lens choices like anamorphic are going away any time soon and maybe never.
 
I was on something this past week, acting, and I look at the barrel between takes and noticed that they were shooting anamorphic. This was a pilot for a TV show! I was surprised to see them using them for that.
 
Just saying no matter how big sensor you have anamorphics x2 can double it in width... also the oval dof that anamorpics create is to many seen as a good way to seperate whats sharp and what is left out of focus.
Then onecan also argue that if you got the resolution in width then anas gives you x2 debayering results as you then sample vertical pixels 2 to 1.


The mistakes i see alot now is people shooting anas and do not calculate for the added dof / falloff so when the shot would look good on 5.6 or even soft at that stop they shoot2.2 or such that looks more like a 1.2 with sphericals on the same sensor.

So to me there is is quite a few cool things anas does that other lenses just can not mimic or get close to.

There are also a bit of a breaking point now when lens are digitized. Cooke is on a good way with their anas to get frame lens data for distortion. This will come strong and change everything breathing will not be a problem, pin cushin will be no problem, fishball look will be no problem etc. Basically that data can render perfect steady none breathing rectliniar imagery and the fisheye feel can be added to taste. When that is all common practice thrn those lenses can be built completely different as so mych stuff can be sorted in tge digital end.

As the cookes look now is far from perfect but with the lens data I would say they are second to no other anas.
 
Shane Daly DP said:
Not dying just horribly misused. Absolutely no need to shoot scope for a cereal/toothpaste/insurance/hairspray/etc commercial but I see 4 out of 5 spots are currently anamorphic, people are so desperate for it they'll shoot squeezed regardless of whether most suitable for a given project.

For narrative work it's still the king of formats IMHO.
Click to expand...

More or less my exact thoughts as well. I also don't really get TV shows shooting scope and then cropping to 16:9.

Love anamorphic for narrative film and music vids though.
 
Jake Blackstone and I had a big argument about this issue over on LiftGammaGain. I maintain that if you do an A/B camera test between something shot with anamorphic lenses and something shot on spherical lenses, the spherical images are sharper, fewer artifacts, and are technically superior. He maintained anamorphic lenses look better for a lot of artistic reasons.

Speaking purely from a post point of view, I think we can tweak depth of field to a point with defocus in color correction, we can add vignetting, and a lot of the other things that anamorphic lenses do. My preference for shooting spherical also has to do with the fact that at least with spherical, you have some top and bottom room to reframe if necessary. If you cut off the top of somebody's head in a final shot, it's not a problem to tilt up another 1/4" or something to save the shot. There is no room there in anamorphic. I also don't like the fact that anamorphic lenses are not as fast, require more light, are much heavier than primes, and also cost a lot more in daily rental. All of these are significant issues for indie films. (The vast majority of mega-budget features are shooting flat because of the massive amount of green screen VFX shots, which definitely require reframing in post.)

However: I'm seeing several TV shows that are shooting in anamorphic specifically for those characteristic flaws, particularly anamorphic flares, which look pretty fake if you try to simulate them. The recent hit TV series Fear the Walking Dead shot in anamorphic on Red Epic, and I was very surprised how sharp, "immediate," and beautiful a lot of the shots looked. And the anamorphic flares, light fall out, and shallow depth of field worked fine for that show. So I've been forced to kind of rethink this issue, and I recently apologized to Jake and told him I thought he made some good points. For certain projects, anamorphic glass is a totally valid choice in digital.

The bottom line is in the right hands, a great DP can get great images out of damn near anything. The only trick with anamorphic is that you have to be willing to commit to the framing during production and know that you won't be able to change it (much) in the final. The possible exception would be to shoot a much larger frame, like 6K or 8K, and I concede it might be possible to create a 2.39 frame inside a much larger frame and still provide some reframing room. And I'm 100% for giving DPs more choices.

So I don't think it's a dying trend at all. I think people can shoot with damn near whatever they want, as long as it looks good, tells the story, and doesn't exceed the available budget and schedule.
 
Anamorphic is a different photographic process. It is different physically and optically. It changes the way you shoot due to the limitations of the lenses. It is it's own animal. It's not going anywhere. You can't fake it in post, and it's a lot more than horizontal flares.

Nick
 
Also.... Anamorphic is not a "trend".
 
Anamorphic is (was) a brilliant idea to mimic large format on 35mm film stock.
you take squarish frame and apply optical 2:1 compression that will give you the 65mm stock width in projection: marvelous!!!! absolutely awesome idea.
But RED?!!!
why would anyone intentionally throw away half the resolution from 2:1 sensor just to optically stretch it back to roughly the sensor width w but with nearly HALF the resolution- Half the detail -is beyond me.
I can guarantee that a 2:1 6K image projected side to side with one shot with anamorphic lens will have the audience chose the FF RED. Every time. Simply because they can see better!!!
Lets not forget that initially the anamorphic "artifacts" (optical aberrations really) was a "necessary "evil" that production companies had to live with to save money. Over the years through the natural process of legacy they had become PERCEIVED as desirable "artifacts"
As far as telling the story? Shallow DOF and compressed perspective of large format can do that in much more elegant and classy way than flares and other internal lens reflections.
The new sensors give us the opportunity to do that- how can we reject that?
I love the "Blade Runner"- Just imagine it shot and projected in 65mm.....:thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top