anamorphic lenses with r1, scarlet s35 and epic ff5

[Sven Seynaeve]

Hi,

We're looking at the Hawk ANAMORPHIC V LITE 1.3X lenses and they seem very tempting for use with 16/9 hd or 4K sensors.
However I know we can use them with r1 and f35 and they're a perfect match imho ,
BUT,,

what would happen if we use them with Scarlet s35 or epics35, which seems to have a bigger sensor ( will the same surface be covered),
I can't find the updates if epic will have a 4/3 sensor or still have a 16/9 sensor like the R1. Concerning the FF35 sensor, what would be the best match???

So, will they be the best for use with all kinds of Red sensors or will it also be possible to use regular anamorphic lenses with these future camera systems..

any advice appreciated...

 

[Dominic Jones]

The Hawks will definitely cover the S35 variants of Scarlet and Epic. They will not cover FF35 versions.

As regards aspect ratio of the new sensors, the numbers make it seem as though the S35 versions will be 2:1 with the option to crop to other ratios, but there may be other factors (such as additional blanking pixels) that we don't know. They may still be 16:9 in terms of active recording area. They will definitely not be 4:3.

The FF35 versions will be 1.50:1 (or 3:2 if you prefer integers!) as per SLR cameras, by the looks of things, as will the 645.

There is, afaik, currently no anamorphic glass of any variety (1.33x, 2x) that will cover the entire FF35 chip in either direction, although with 2x lenses you'll be able to get more area than you would on the S35 chips due to the squarer ratio of the anamorphic gate.

Hope that helps,
Dom.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

You might be able to get away with standard 2X anamorphic lenses on the FF35 sensor since they should fill the 24mm tall sensor height and you'd only need to use around a 29mm sensor width to get a 2.40 image (1.20 image with a 2X optical squeeze).

Of course, you're cropping a 36mm wide sensor to 29mm then, so 6K RAW becomes more like 4.8K RAW.

 

[Sven Seynaeve]

Thx, Dominic and David for the fast response.

 

[Emmanuel Cambier]

You might be able to get away with standard 2X anamorphic lenses on the FF35 sensor since they should fill the 24mm tall sensor height and you'd only need to use around a 29mm sensor width to get a 2.40 image (1.20 image with a 2X optical squeeze).

Of course, you're cropping a 36mm wide sensor to 29mm then, so 6K RAW becomes more like 4.8K RAW.

Yes but then this 4.8K becomes 9.6K when you unsqueeze it…

Pretty amazing by any standard.


Emmanuel

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes but then this 4.8K becomes 9.6K when you unsqueeze it…

Pretty amazing by any standard.


Emmanuel

That's meaningless -- I could take a 1K file and convert it into a 100K file, doesn't mean anything. Taking an image shot 4.8K RAW and converting it to 9.6K doesn't make it 9.6K.

Besides, you probably wouldn't handle the squeezed files that way anyway -- you either make a 4K or 2K digital cinema master, what you'd transfer to film would be a 4K or 2K file that had a 1.20 : 1 aspect ratio and a 2X squeeze, and for monitoring purposes in post, you'd probably look at it shrunk down and letterboxed, you wouldn't monitor it in 9.6K except for perhaps effects work, and even then, you'd finish it in 4K or 2K.

 

[Emmanuel Cambier]

That's meaningless -- I could take a 1K file and convert it into a 100K file, doesn't mean anything. Taking an image shot 4.8K RAW and converting it to 9.6K doesn't make it 9.6K.

Besides, you probably wouldn't handle the squeezed files that way anyway -- you either make a 4K or 2K digital cinema master, what you'd transfer to film would be a 4K or 2K file that had a 1.20 : 1 aspect ratio and a 2X squeeze, and for monitoring purposes in post, you'd probably look at it shrunk down and letterboxed, you wouldn't monitor it in 9.6K except for perhaps effects work, and even then, you'd finish it in 4K or 2K.

David,

I'm not talking about "converting" a 4.8K image, simply a 4.8K anamorphic image "is" a 9.6K unsqueezed image.

The magic of anamorphic in this days of data management is that it "only" takes a 4.8K anamorphic worth of data through the post production, to end up with 9.6K of displayed image once unsqueezed.

Emmanuel

 

[REDGATE]

data

data

You can't end up with more pixels than you started with. It is still 4.8k just with a different aspect ratio.

 

[Emmanuel Cambier]

You can't end up with more pixels than you started with. It is still 4.8k just with a different aspect ratio.

I am not adding any pixels, mind you, an anamorphic 4.8K image is 4800 by 4000 pixels, but if you measure the height of this image it does have the number of pixel of a 9.6K 2.40:1 image, 4000 pixel high in this very case.

This is the very principle of anamorphic cinematography, and it is a smart one and very relevent in this age of data wrangling.

Emmanuel

 

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

Come on Emmanuel. You got a straight answer to a stupid statement, and an answer from a worldclass DP at that. Let it rest.

On the subject of the 1,33 anas: I simply dont understand what justifies their existence.
I own a set of Lomo anas that I love to shoot because of all the carectaristics of the "dirty" 2:1 squeeze. Its a really fantastic visual tool for the right story/job.
Not having any experience with the new 1,33 anas, it seems to me the squeeze is too insignificant to do any good when compared to the look and cost of spherical?
Maybe some one with 1,33 experience can make a convincing argument?

 

[conrad gaunt]

I've bought an old anamorphic 80mm square front Lomo, never used anamorphic lenses before hope it actually arrives..

 

[David Mullen ASC]

David,

I'm not talking about "converting" a 4.8K image, simply a 4.8K anamorphic image "is" a 9.6K unsqueezed image.

No, it's not. It's effectively 4.8K RAW, and what file size you want to create from that can't create more pixel resolution. It's completely meaningless to say that it is 9.6K unsqueezed.

You usually get more vertical resolution compared to cropping spherical images to 2.40, but you don't gain any horizontal resolution by shooting in anamorphic over spherical. Saying that it's "9.6K unsqueezed" implies some sort of improvement in horizontal resolution over 4.8K RAW images shot with spherical lenses.

 

[Emmanuel Cambier]

No, it's not. It's effectively 4.8K RAW, and what file size you want to create from that can't create more pixel resolution. It's completely meaningless to say that it is 9.6K unsqueezed.

You usually get more vertical resolution compared to cropping spherical images to 2.40, but you don't gain any horizontal resolution by shooting in anamorphic over spherical. Saying that it's "9.6K unsqueezed" implies some sort of improvement in horizontal resolution over 4.8K RAW images shot with spherical lenses.

Hi David,

With all due respect:

- a 2.40:1 4.8K cropped spherical image has a vertical resolution of (4800/2.4) 2000 pixels

- a 2.40:1 4.8K anamorphic image has a vertical resolution of (4800/1.2) 4000 pixels

While I agree that this anamorphic image don't have a true 9.6K horizontal resolution, this is the double vertical resolution from the spherical one, and the exact vertical resolution of a 2.40:1 9.6K image, wich is far from "meaningless".

Emmanuel

 

[Zack Birlew]

Well, of course, if I get a FF35 Scarlet, the first thing I'm putting on there is my Panasonic Anamorphic adapter. I've just gotta!

I'd anticipate that it would work just fine, still costing in exposure no matter what, but still it should give a more natural anamorphic picture than when I put it on a 16:9 camera.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

That's exactly what I said, you can gain vertical resolution with anamorphic because you aren't cropping to achieve 2.40.

I'm just objecting to this whole "4.8K RAW is 9.6K unsqueezed" statement which is meaningless AND misleading, and the fact that there is more vertical resolution with anamorphic 2.40 doesn't make it any more accurate to claim or imply some sort of increased horizontal resolution.

It's not "9.6K unsqueezed", not in any meaningful way at all. I don't want students and other beginners reading this website to get the wrong idea, which is why I am so insistent on correcting you. Anamorphic photography does not give you double the horizontal resolution just because the image has a 2X optical squeeze.

Emmanuel, you can promote or explain the value of anamorphic photography without having to resort to confusing and misleading concepts like "9.6K unsqueezed." Just stick to the facts and you'll be fine.

 

[C.H.Haskell]

Well if your looking for a set of Hawk Anamorphic glass in the NY area then dont hesitate to call me. Cheers.

 

[Emmanuel Cambier]

That's exactly what I said, you can gain vertical resolution with anamorphic because you aren't cropping to achieve 2.40.

I'm just objecting to this whole "4.8K RAW is 9.6K unsqueezed" statement which is meaningless AND misleading, and the fact that there is more vertical resolution with anamorphic 2.40 doesn't make it any more accurate to claim or imply some sort of increased horizontal resolution.

It's not "9.6K unsqueezed", not in any meaningful way at all. I don't want students and other beginners reading this website to get the wrong idea, which is why I am so insistent on correcting you. Anamorphic photography does not give you double the horizontal resolution just because the image has a 2X optical squeeze.

Emmanuel, you can promote or explain the value of anamorphic photography without having to resort to confusing and misleading concepts like "9.6K unsqueezed." Just stick to the facts and you'll be fine.

Thank you David for your patience, as usual:embarrassed:, I now stand fully corrected that horizontal resolution is not increased by shooting anamorphic, and I only wish others will benefit from my mistake and your kind correction.

My last question would be how important do you consider vertical resolution to be?

Thank you for your help,
Sincerly
Emmanuel

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Vertical resolution is important.

Now the trouble with 2X anamorphics on 16x9 sensors, compared to using spherical lenses... is that in order to end up with a 2.40 image, it's a wash resolution-wise because you're either cropping horizontally or vertically.

Even in the case of the 6K FF35 Epic sensor (1.5 : 1 sensor), using spherical lenses and cropping that to 2.40 would be around 6000 x 2500 (15MP), versus a 2X anamorphic frame which would be around 4800 x 4000 (19.2MP)... which is better, but not twice as much overall resolution.

But in the case of the 4K 16x9 (4096 x 2304) Red One recording, cropping spherical photography to 2.40 gets you 4096 x 1707 (7MP)... whereas putting on a 2X anamorphic lens, you end up cropping the sides of the 16x9 recording and using 2765 x 2304 (6.4MP). Hence why I say it's a wash. It's also why we need more 1.34X anamorphic lenses.

As for those who say that you'd be missing the cool anamorphic bokeh with 1.34X anamorphics, I don't think so, not if they were front-element anamorphics. The mild 1.2X anamorphics that Dalsa was building showed classic anamorphic behavior and if you look at old Ultra Panavision movies like "Battle of the Bulge" (65mm with a 1.25X anamorphic squeeze) you see anamorphic bokeh.

 

[Chris Burket]

From what I've read on the HAWK V lite's, they are actually convertible between 1.33x and 2x squeeze. It would need to be done by a lens tech in the shop, but it can be done by switching out the back of the lens. Check Vantage's site to confirm it. I think they are pricey, around 30,000 per lens is what I've heard rumors of.

 

[Antoine MARTEAU]

Precise explanation David thanks for sharing...

As for the Hawks if it's the price is right it seems not appropriate with the price range of the Red... Sad because the technical proposition sounds nice...