James_Mills
Well-known member
I'm still confused, Mike. I'm not that well versed in traditional anamorphic capture, just from what I've read about modern anamorphic shooting. What do you mean about "desqueeze"? I'm thinking you might actually be saying what I was and I was just saying it wrong; I mean that when you shoot at, say, a 1.5 squeeze on the lens, you have to thus compress it in post. Would that be desqueezing? Did they not have to squeeze anamorphic footage before digital editing? I always thought the glass itself stretched the footage and you had to thus squeeze it in post (though, now that I think about it, I'm not sure how they could have done that back in the Leone days without digital means).
I understand what you mean about losing resolution though. That's why I preferred to use the Panasonic LG7200 for dslr anamorphic shooting because it does a 1.33 squeeze and thus the compression gives it a nice 2.35:1 in post without any resolution lost (you don't have to crop, in other words). In this sense, why would you need the camera to do this for you? I think that's where I'm confused. Would you still need anamorphic lenses to shoot "anamorphic" in this case?
I'm worried none of that made sense.
I understand what you mean about losing resolution though. That's why I preferred to use the Panasonic LG7200 for dslr anamorphic shooting because it does a 1.33 squeeze and thus the compression gives it a nice 2.35:1 in post without any resolution lost (you don't have to crop, in other words). In this sense, why would you need the camera to do this for you? I think that's where I'm confused. Would you still need anamorphic lenses to shoot "anamorphic" in this case?
I'm worried none of that made sense.