Anamorphic a dying trend?

[Bob Gundu]

I'm with David Fincher on not liking barrel distortion. When watching any of his films I never feel it's missing something. I love the anamorphic bokeh however.

 

[Björn Benckert]

To me anas add that tad extra sensor size and the then it comes with some quirqks I which I don't mind. I worked on this film that was shot on the cooke´s anas to me it would not be half as nice if it was done on spherical lenses with the "look trough a window" kind of look they have... this looks filmic to me, got some odd blur radius making the top and outer edges blurry in ways that spherical just does not do epecialy not in the 2.40:1 format then sphericals are all clean on the top and bottom of the frame.

https://vimeo.com/146227598

then the odd fishall and strange warping of the cookies I don't mind for their looks, I´m fine with that but for VFX it´s a bit tricky but when they manage to get their lens data right then it´s a completely different game to play.

 

[Shane Daly DP]

Jacek

This one wouldn't

 

[Shane Daly DP]

Craig

Correct, the VFX work was 65mm so that the resolution would be similar after a generational loss to 35mm - you can spot the 65mm elements as the flare is circular, it's a quirk of the film I have always loved.

 

[Shane Daly DP]

Marc

"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."

That is one of the BEST aspects of the format - re-sizing in post is WAY too prevalent and un-policed... The composition is set by the Director and DP - that's the end of the conversation, unless discussing over-sized plates and/or elements for VFX work. If the shot was not framed correctly on set then make another take - if there is no time get it right first time or employ a practitioner who can deliver every time. It's really as simple as that!

"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.)"

We live in an age of the widest lens options and choices ever available - there are fantastic anamorphic lenses which open to T2, weight less than 4lb and are as small as your fist!! Then there are some absolute beasts = horses for courses.

 

[Marc Wielage]

That is one of the BEST aspects of the format - re-sizing in post is WAY too prevalent and un-policed... The composition is set by the Director and DP - that's the end of the conversation, unless discussing over-sized plates and/or elements for VFX work. If the shot was not framed correctly on set then make another take - if there is no time get it right first time or employ a practitioner who can deliver every time. It's really as simple as that!

The problem is much more complicated than that. I would just argue, make sure the DP is in the room and gets to approve the D.I. and/or video transfer. Put it in your contract.

Note that every Harry Potter film, the majority of the Marvel films, and most (but not all) massive VFX action films are shot in spherical specifically so they can reframe because of green screen. I think it's perfectly legitimate, particularly when you need to give the actor another 1/2" of headroom to avoid getting cut off. I always, always would request that the DP is consulted for reframing. But sometimes, it's a question of the director's intent; the reframing involved in Fincher's movies (as another example) is fairly enormous and probably takes 4-5 months to do.

We live in an age of the widest lens options and choices ever available - there are fantastic anamorphic lenses which open to T2, weight less than 4lb and are as small as your fist!! Then there are some absolute beasts = horses for courses.

Not the ones I see. Comparing apples to apples, the equivalent focal length in spherical and anamorphic is going to be heavier, more costly, and slower, plus the minimum focusing distance will be affected. Period. It doesn't make it worse, and I acknowledge that lens technology has never been better than it is right now. And I said early on that anamorphics are a perfectly good creative choice if you can commit to it.

The trick is being able to hold on to that commitment, particularly if you've got a limited number of takes and the best take for performance is the one with the worst framing problems. If those problems could have been fixed in spherical, you'll wish you had shot that way. I would also argue that many (but not all) of anamorphic lens' characteristics can be done in post. But you can't remove them once they're embedded in the original photography.

BTW, note that all home video projects of which I'm aware routinely demand a 16x9 full-frame (no letterbox) version of most feature films in addition to the theatrical letterbox version. If you shoot in anamorphic, this now requires a pan/scan that's going to lose 25% of the image left and right. If you shoot in spherical, all this does is open up the bottom portion of the frame, which I would argue is less of a compromise a lot of the time.

A lot of these decisions boil down to "which compromises are most important" for each situation. I can see pros and cons for each, but neither is 100% pro.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

The "Anamorphic" look has now been socially imprinted into billions of peoples brains and is therefore sometimes wanted and loved.

I disagree. This could just another logical fallacy, IMO. I would call it, 'the appeal to familiarity'. Like many here, I grew up in the '80s and experienced interlaced NTSC and PAL on a daily basis. I also experienced knee-high tube socks, velcro sneakers and short shorts. I like none of those things.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Note that every Harry Potter film,... shot in spherical

And so they were. I just assumed anamorphic - but no! I'm once again reminded of how good movie film is. For that negative size the image really holds together well (2-perf is not that much taller than 16mm). And the first film was all 500T (5279), according to IMDB.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Making anamorphic lenses that are perfect with almost no distortion is pointless. Anamorphic for digital cinematography has no actual benefit at all compared to 35mm. It's a choice for a look, a lens character that is much more notable than any differences between different spherical lenses. If you want character to your shots, use older anamorphic lenses. But shooting on the master anamorphic lenses on digital makes little sense to me compared to a set of Master Primes, Leicas or Cookes.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Making anamorphic lenses that are perfect with almost no distortion is pointless. Anamorphic for digital cinematography has no actual benefit at all compared to 35mm. It's a choice for a look, a lens character that is much more notable than any differences between different spherical lenses. If you want character to your shots, use older anamorphic lenses. But shooting on the master anamorphic lenses on digital makes little sense to me compared to a set of Master Primes, Leicas or Cookes.

That's not actually true, when you shoot with Alexa you get an increased FOV and increased vertical resolution over what you would get had you shot spherical and cropped not to mention the Zeiss anamorphic seem to produce some really nice images.

Just look at the difference you'd get theoretically from equivalent focal length lenses between anamorphic and the equivalent spherical lens using my simulated image.

 

[Anton Shavlik]

6k 6:5 is 3792 pixels wide, x2 anamorphic makes that 'feel like' 7584 pixels. Not in terms of resolution, in terms of negative size. 6k WS shot spherically is 6144 pixels. So, the 2x squeeze gives about 24% wider FOV for a given focal length. (7584/6144 is ~1.24)

6k 6:5 has 75% as many pixels as 6k WS.

Considering that the widest anamorphic lenses are 35mm, maybe 25mm, and It's not a problem to go to 20mm or 18mm shooting spherical, it's actually 6k WS that is in practice a wider field of view. Anamorphic lenses do, after stretching, create bokeh that's twice as tall but since sphericals are typically usable a stop faster (or more) than anamorphics if you're looking for depth of field it's kinda a toss up. Since depth of field, field of view and resolution are the big advantages of a bigger format it seems that 6k WS is the 'bigger format' even if its horizontal pixel count is smaller.

To me anamorphics have a desirable asthetic that comes with their flair, stretched bokeh, and the lens defects (sharpness, barrel distortion) fall off radially in an ellipse instead of a circle. Practically they don't really confer any advantage.

 

[Ignas Astauskas]

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.