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 lenses take 2

Ruairi Robinson

Ruairi Robinson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
398
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
48
Website
www.ruairirobinson.com
Hey, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love to be able to use anamorphic lenses with the red camera (particularly panavision C and E series if the camera gets panavised some day!)

I know it's been talked about before, but I'd love to hear a more detailed explanation for exactly why using anamorphic lenses produces a 3.3:1 ratio image (approx) on a 16x9 sensor area (or on a super16mm camera)

And is would it not be possible to somehow build a mount that either maps the image to fit the full 16x9 sensor, or a 4x3 area of the sensor... or some other more *useful* use of the available screen space...

I hate the idea of having a 3.3:1 image, and having to crop a load off the sides AS WELL as the black bars top and bottom to get a 2.35:1 ratio. Such a waste of resolution...

Is it possible to build a mount with a corrective lens in between or something? that RE/DE-anamorphizes the image? Would you lose clarity/stops etc... Is it a waste of time? Does what I'm asking even make sense? Apologies if I'm talking gibberish here - I'm a director, not a DOP!

The thing is - myself, and I believe a LOT of other people, really really LOVE the look of anamorphic lenses. That particular bokeh stretch, etc. etc. etc. I'd hate to lose that look. I know anamorphics have shoddy focusing, need more light, are heavy, unwieldy, all the rest of it - I don't care. They look fucking great, artifacts and all. That's why they are still so widely used.

If there's any way to make these kind of lenses *useful* on the red camera, I wanna know about it.

Look forward to hearing peoples thoughts.

R.
 
Hmmm... Well....

The idea of 1.5:1 anamorphics to suit 16:9 chip systems is nice, and would preserve full resolution, etc, etc, but they won't give you the exact same look as 2:1 optics. To my knowledge there simply aren't any 1.5:1 lenses around, so how much they would differ is a matter of speculation. I for one would love to have a chance to try some out, however.

That said there's a few points I'd like to pick up on in Ruairi's post though, so I'll try to get this into some kind of meaningful order (but I'll probably fail!):

Yes, it probably would be possible (assuming there's room between the rear lens element and the imager, or you don't mind doing the conversion at the front of the lens) to build an adapter that "corrects" the 2:1 optical image for 16:9. You would certainly lose some resolution, and probably some light, and you'd have the issue of perhaps not having such an anamorphic look to the final images as mentioned above. All in all, forget it, would be my advice.

That said, you say you hate the idea of cropping down the sides and having the "black bars" top and bottom. What is your delivery format??

If you're going to theatrical distribution (film or digital) you don't have "black bars" at the top and bottom, you fill the screen vertically and optically stretch the image to fit the wider horizontal ratio. So you just lose the horizontal rez of the crop. Not so bad.

If you're going to DVD/TV/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray/Any other non-theatrical distribution route (internet?!), then you've got way more resolution than you need to fill the screen, so it doesn't matter that you've got to crop and letterbox - you're still getting as much resolution as you possibly can from the delivery format, regardless of what you shot it on - that's where the bottleneck is.

I'm not saying people should rush out and shoot anamorphic, btw, just that if you're cropping to a 'scope ratio, a horizontal crop with anamorphics doesn't lose you much more than a vertical crop with sphericals (a little, but not enough to make that much odds)...
 
The idea of 1.5:1 anamorphics to suit 16:9 chip systems is nice, and would preserve full resolution, etc, etc, but they won't give you the exact same look as 2:1 optics. To my knowledge there simply aren't any 1.5:1 lenses around, so how much they would differ is a matter of speculation. I for one would love to have a chance to try some out, however.
Click to expand...

Preserving full resolution is not SUCH a big deal if we have a 4k imager to start with. Anything 3k and over is going to look pretty good on a cinema screen. (2k, and in particular HD always looked a little soft to me in the cinema)

And as you say, you won't get the same look with 1.5:1 anamorphics. People don't use anamorphic lenses for FUN - they use them because they like the specific look. (or they get a bigger/cleaner negative area on 4x3 35mm film area, which is irrelevant when we are talking about the red camera, and a 16x9 chip!)


Yes, it probably would be possible (assuming there's room between the rear lens element and the imager, or you don't mind doing the conversion at the front of the lens) to build an adapter that "corrects" the 2:1 optical image for 16:9. You would certainly lose some resolution, and probably some light, and you'd have the issue of perhaps not having such an anamorphic look to the final images as mentioned above. All in all, forget it, would be my advice.
Click to expand...

Well... that's what I wondered. Since you have extra glass for the anamorphic element anyway, it sort of sounded stupidly innefficient. Can't hurt to ask though...

That said, you say you hate the idea of cropping down the sides and having the "black bars" top and bottom. What is your delivery format??
Click to expand...

35mm film for theatrical distribution, HD, pal, ntsc. All of them. But theatrical to start with.

If you're going to theatrical distribution (film or digital) you don't have "black bars" at the top and bottom, you fill the screen vertically and optically stretch the image to fit the wider horizontal ratio. So you just lose the horizontal rez of the crop. Not so bad.
Click to expand...

You are of course correct been a while since I dealt with stuff shot super16/scope so I'd forgotten exactly how it works... Still, extra horizontal info ain't much use to anyone since scope is so wide anyway (if it was vertical at least you could use the extra image for reframing!)

If you're going to DVD/TV/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray/Any other non-theatrical distribution route (internet?!), then you've got way more resolution than you need to fill the screen, so it doesn't matter that you've got to crop and letterbox - you're still getting as much resolution as you possibly can from the delivery format, regardless of what you shot it on - that's where the bottleneck is.
Click to expand...

That's true, but it's still stupidly innefficient, and there are no benefits to working this way I can think of, apart from preserving the look.

I'm not saying people should rush out and shoot anamorphic, btw, just that if you're cropping to a 'scope ratio, a horizontal crop with anamorphics doesn't lose you much more than a vertical crop with sphericals (a little, but not enough to make that much odds)...
Click to expand...

Would it be possible for someone to build a lens with the lens properties of 2:1 optics, but for a 16x9 sensor? To have the same optical characteristics as the Panavision style c/E series scope lenses? for example - the 2:1 vertical bokeh stretch, and the extremely narrow DOF, and I suppose the coatings that create that unique flare... etc.

to be clear - nobody gives a flying fuck any more about the "advantages" of shooting scope to get a bigger negative area for widescreen photography, etc.

It's ALL about the look.


R.
 
Ruairi Robinson said:
That's true, but it's still stupidly innefficient, and there are no benefits to working this way I can think of, apart from preserving the look.
Click to expand...
Well, sure - but (a)that's the highest resolution of the delivery medium, so it's only even more inefficient to start with a higher resolution frame and (b)...

Ruairi Robinson said:
to be clear - nobody gives a flying fuck any more about the "advantages" of shooting scope to get a bigger negative area for widescreen photography, etc.

It's ALL about the look.
Click to expand...
That's my point exactly!!! :biggrin:

Ruairi Robinson said:
You are of course correct been a while since I dealt with stuff shot super16/scope so I'd forgotten exactly how it works... Still, extra horizontal info ain't much use to anyone since scope is so wide anyway (if it was vertical at least you could use the extra image for reframing!)
Click to expand...
You could quite happily use the extra horizontal information to reframe horizontally, so you still have that advantage, as with a vertical crop (but it a different axis, of course)...

Ruairi Robinson said:
Would it be possible for someone to build a lens with the lens properties of 2:1 optics, but for a 16x9 sensor? To have the same optical characteristics as the Panavision style c/E series scope lenses? for example - the 2:1 vertical bokeh stretch, and the extremely narrow DOF, and I suppose the coatings that create that unique flare... etc.
Click to expand...
Well, the coating could of course be duplicated, but all of the other properties are due to the nature of the 2:1 optics - so with 1.5:1's you'd get all of those properties, but reduced in magnitude. As I said before, quite how much that will affect the overall look the lenses produce is a matter of speculation unless or until someone builds some...
 
Well, you could quite happily use the extra horizontal information to reframe horizontally, so you still have that advantage, as with a vertical crop...
Click to expand...


Sure, but obviously extra headspace vertically is much more useful (especially if you are framing for multiple formats, etc. And if there's a kick in the camera move that you have to iron out by stabilising etc. extra vertical headspace is again much more helpful...

R.
 
Ruairi Robinson said:
Sure, but obviously extra headspace vertically is much more useful (especially if you are framing for multiple formats, etc. And if there's a kick in the camera move that you have to iron out by stabilising etc. extra vertical headspace is again much more helpful...

R.
Click to expand...
Yeah, vertical headroom is more handy, certainly - just pointing out the possibilities!!

I've read about various streak and anamorphic "effect" filters, but never used any. I mentioned in another one of the anamorphic debate threads that I'm slated to shoot a feature on HD for a vertical crop to 2.35:1 this summer, so if that goes ahead I may well test some or all of the available filters. I'll report back if I do...

Of course, they're not going to simulate things like the discrepancy in horizontal and vertical DoF, and the distinctive Bokeh of anamorphic optics, so they're not going to get you all the way there...
 
Dominic Jones said:
Yeah, vertical headroom is more handy, certainly - just pointing out the possibilities!!

I've read about various streak and anamorphic "effect" filters, but never used any. I mentioned in another one of the anamorphic debate threads that I'm slated to shoot a feature on HD for a vertical crop to 2.35:1 this summer, so if that goes ahead I may well test some or all of the available filters. I'll report back if I do...

Of course, they're not going to simulate things like the discrepancy in horizontal and vertical DoF, and the distinctive Bokeh of anamorphic optics, so they're not going to get you all the way there...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mention the filter only for the sake of discussion. To be hoest, the blue flare thing is about the least interesting of the artifacts of anamorphic lenses as far as I'm concerned. They are painfully overused to "jazz up" shitty ads on tv far too much...

But I'm very fond of the way DOF looks on close ups... What can I say - I'm a fan of Blade Runner...
 
Ruairi Robinson said:
What can I say - I'm a fan of Blade Runner...
Click to expand...
Oh, ho ho hooooo, you've hit the mother-load there!!

If I'm ever sat in the pub with a bunch of mates and some poor, unsuspecting soul mentions Blade Runner, you can literally hear the groans of "Don't get him started" half way down the street!!!

What a beautifully shot film. That's it. I'll leave it there...!
:biggrin:
 
Check out Babel. Prieto shot the Japan section, minus a couple of low light shots, on 'Scope. But since the film was released as 1.85, he just cropped off the sides. They wanted the look of scope for the same reasons you mention, oval highlights, flares, DOF, but not the full width of the frame. There was an article about it in American Cinematographer a couple of months ago.
Anyway, you've said that rez doesn't matter that much at these levels(of resolution) anyway, so, you'll certainly get the look if you just crop off the sides.
 
I have drawn up a graphic to show how the different ratios work out when you window a 2:1 anamorphic lens. Hopefully that will make it a bit clearer.

59_1174488521.gif


So at 2540p, active pixels would be 2540 x 3035 for anamorphic 2.39:1 ratio
and at 4K, active pixels would be 2304 x 2753 for anamorphic 2.39:1 ratio

(By the way why I am doing this and not working?)

M
 
Given that at 4K, the active pixels would be 2304 x 2753 for anamorphic 2.39:1 ratio. There is an argument for saying the quality would be sufficient for outputing at 2K. You will lose the wide end of the anamorphic lens though by a whopping 1.4x
 
Didn't Fincher use anamorphic Lenses on the Viper for Zodiac?
 
Nope, the viper has the facility to re-map its pixel array to fill a 16x9 frame with a 2.35 image. Its essentially the same as shooting spherical, but you don't loose the 280-odd lines of vertical resolution by cropping to achieve your aspect ratio.

J
 
John Allardice said:
Nope, the viper has the facility to re-map its pixel array to fill a 16x9 frame with a 2.35 image. Its essentially the same as shooting spherical, but you don't loose the 280-odd lines of vertical resolution by cropping to achieve your aspect ratio.

J
Click to expand...

But of course that is only possible because it has pixels to spare. When you crop on the Red you will be doing the same thing if you shoot 4k and your end target is 2K or 1080p

M
 
Martin said:
But of course that is only possible because it has pixels to spare. When you crop on the Red you will be doing the same thing if you shoot 4k and your end target is 2K or 1080p

M
Click to expand...

hmm... so if I was a big movie director doing a massive summer movie, and saying "I'll shoot on red if I can get anamorphic lenses working efficiently"

Would I be getting the same answers?

How much does it cost to build a bloody lens in the first place, give or take?

ALSO - we keep hearing that the sensor is replaceable/upgradeable - does that mean it would be possible to install a 4x3 sensor? (same size as the arriD20...!) so you can use the full frame of scope lenses PROPERLY...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top