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 shooting mode

Ruairi Robinson

Ruairi Robinson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
398
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
48
Website
www.ruairirobinson.com
will it be possible to fix the anamorphic shooting mode to record the surroundview area top and bottom (so we have to crop the image less to get a final 2.35:1 ratio image) - it's still less pixels to record than 4k 16x9 right?

is it possible?

I'm sure I'm not the only one that would benefit from this...
 
D21 can do it...and ARRIRAW in 2.8K un compressed over Dual LinK HDSDI.

I am earning $ to invest this...after RED.

Stew.>>>
HKG
 
pheboglobi said:
You aren't alone, Ruari, I'd like to see this feature as well.

Garrett
Click to expand...

I mean, not to be ungrateful, the new features in the new build sound awesome... it's just that this is my number one request, and I suspect it would not be that big a deal to impliment...

So I'm going to keep asking...
 
Return to film

Return to film

We have shot HD and then returned it to film 2:35 and the idea was just to crop your image and format it to fit the exact pixel size of the final image. We sent those series of Targa files and it was squeezed back on film optically. No real need to shoot anamorphic anymore if you ask me. With the definition of Red, better cheat it and shoot standard then crop than go through the assle of squeezing, desqueezing, and the risk of getting lost in all those conversions...

No lab wants too deal with 4K anyway at the moment (too expensive, to complicated, etc...) and they mostly require normal 1080 or eventually 2K for processing back on film. So shoot and crop in 4K is already a huge benefit if you want to finish 2:35...

Just my 2 cents, but if anyone can prove me wrong about the convenience of shooting Panavision anamorphic lens style, then I'm all ears.
 
lewis said:
No real need to shoot anamorphic anymore if you ask me. With the definition of Red, better cheat it and shoot standard then crop than go through the assle of squeezing, desqueezing, and the risk of getting lost in all those conversions...
Click to expand...

Do we REALLY need to go into these discussions??? IMHO NOTHING can compare to a film that's beautifully shot on anamorphic lenses. So cheating it is NOT the same thing.

PS I think to use the whole sensor is a brilliant idea.


regards,


Fredrik
 
Relax with the CAPITALS...

Relax with the CAPITALS...

Ok cool, chillout, you do what you have to, my opinion, if I may have one, is that for just those who need or wish to use the anamorphic FORMAT, you know, that big long rectangle, there are alternate possibilities and tricks, period. I work with Panavision all the time, so I know a few things as well... Shoot Vista or 8 1/2 x 11 if you like, I've been through this a lot with labs, mixing or not different film formats and HD, and trust me, these experiences can be worthy for OTHER people... Your taste is just your taste, even if you share it with other people... So is mine!

And yes, we need to STILL have those discussions. If WE feel like it.
 
Yes, use of more vertical resolution for anamorphic would be great. One way to look at it, is it's only another 236 lines. Not a huge difference, but could help as an option -- we would lose the look-around area in the vertical directions, though.
 
lewis said:
Ok cool, chillout, you do what you have to, my opinion, if I may have one, is that for just those who need or wish to use the anamorphic FORMAT, you know, that big long rectangle, there are alternate possibilities and tricks, period. I work with Panavision all the time, so I know a few things as well... Shoot Vista or 8 1/2 x 11 if you like, I've been through this a lot with labs, mixing or not different film formats and HD, and trust me, these experiences can be worthy for OTHER people... Your taste is just your taste, even if you share it with other people... So is mine!

And yes, we need to STILL have those discussions. If WE feel like it.
Click to expand...

It's not the point, every time someone talks about shooting anamorphic there's always a proclaimer for cheating it because it's useless to shoot anamorphic, that it's just a headache etc. It's just like the Pro 35 people talking about why shooting film when it can look the same on video.

It's just not the same and it can never be. Yes you can get the same format by cropping but it's not about the format it's about what these lenses produce, although it's of course a nice format.

If I could get it by cheating I would gladly do so, but it's just not possible.

I'm also open for discussions where people suggest alternatives for people who can't get to use anamorphics, but want to come as close as possible. Then it's really helpful but that was just not simply the case this time.

fredrik
 
Originally Posted by lewis View Post
No real need to shoot anamorphic anymore if you ask me
Click to expand...

I shoot anamorphic for the optical properties that the format affords, not the aspect ratio - it is not the same as spherical cropped - such properties include asymmetrical stretching on focus, notably shallow DOF and unique flare properties. But if it looks all the same to you, great.

As a result I would love to have an anamorphic viewing mode on the camera as the current image display in anamorphic makes framing difficult given that everything is stretched - requiring the use of another squeeze box step and an additional monitor which is a bit of a drag.
 
lewis said:
I've been through this a lot with labs, mixing or not different film formats and HD, and trust me, these experiences can be worthy for OTHER people... Your taste is just your taste, even if you share it with other people... So is mine!
Click to expand...

Who said I was delivering in Anamorphic squeezed? You shoot for the look. Deliver for deliverables.

weirdcrew said:
It's just not the same and it can never be. Yes you can get the same format by cropping but it's not about the format it's about what these lenses produce, although it's of course a nice format.

If I could get it by cheating I would gladly do so, but it's just not possible.
Click to expand...


Amen. Oval bokeh, shallow DOF and horizontal flares are the ticket to getting over the plastic feel video, IMO. Makes it more buttery and smooth. The look and feel of these lenses is so far beyond anything I've seen with sphericals (not that there aren't great spherical lenses out there) that the loss of resolution is a zero concern with me when shooting.
 
Besides my Nikon set, I chose to piece out an anamorphic set. I love that look and would love a desqueeze option in the next build. I don't mind it recording full scensor and being forced to crop later. It actually gives you options later in post which I like. Just want to see it desqueeze for monitoring without having to rent another monitor.
 
lewis said:
We have shot HD and then returned it to film 2:35 and the idea was just to crop your image and format it to fit the exact pixel size of the final image. We sent those series of Targa files and it was squeezed back on film optically. No real need to shoot anamorphic anymore if you ask me. With the definition of Red, better cheat it and shoot standard then crop than go through the assle of squeezing, desqueezing, and the risk of getting lost in all those conversions...

No lab wants too deal with 4K anyway at the moment (too expensive, to complicated, etc...) and they mostly require normal 1080 or eventually 2K for processing back on film. So shoot and crop in 4K is already a huge benefit if you want to finish 2:35...

Just my 2 cents, but if anyone can prove me wrong about the convenience of shooting Panavision anamorphic lens style, then I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

Hi Lewis,
I think a lot of this stuff depends on your Post Path and how much money you throw at it in the DI stage. HD always looks soft to me when taken to
a 2.35:1 film out. Even printing from the original first burned Neg. I've seen
good results with little noise but the softness always gives it away as Video IMHO. Others find the results fine for limited release films screened in small venues. I've seen tests with RED at 2.35:1 and the results are better but still soft due to the OLPF and cropping. Up on the big sheet the differences between say 2 perf film at 2.35:1 and RED at 2.35:1 are very noticable. The interest in Anamorphics with Digital Acquisition is an attempt
to improve this with the use of full sensor real estate and 5 or even 6K RAW capture. Epic may be the answer. I notice in Europe and France for that matter, a lot of theatres are very small by American standards. The need for higher resolution 2.35:1 acquisition formats may not be that great in your part of the world.
Cheers Mezmo
 
Format VS DOF

Format VS DOF

First, smell this post with a strong perfume of smileys, okaaay?! My post was about format. Not the actual delivery of anamorphic lenses. I have used and still use Panavision for many years for that brilliant result. Still, there is a huge mumbo jumbo about anamorphic. It certainly is a drag to bring 4K to a lab for film transfer, and people should only be too well informed about it. I agree on aesthetics and all, but one must be really sure the content is really worth it before going to such technically complicated extends. And that doesn't explain the rage about it. We're just talking. Enough with the religiousity of imagery. My point still, is about people, their resources and shooting format. We've all been there, first with CD's VS vinyls, then HD VS 35 stock... In the end, what matters is your degree of happiness VS your result... One has to understand that anamorphic is also recording "squeezed" informations, so once it is stretched out, it delivers bits of that information stretched out to refill the gaps of that looong empty rectangle... It's mathematical. Do it on a piece of paper that you fold in tiny accordeon slices. Draw on it, then unfold it... There's half the image missing. In optics language, that translates in stretching your drawing thus filling those gaps, but still... This is why it's shallow and soft and has that unique look, this plus the spherical effect... The paper sheet example was given to me by Vittorio Storaro, a true anamorphic guy that was still pretty cool with working with everything and anything, a very tolerant light artist. It was about content, mainly... Seemingly I'm not responding to what you guys are discussing, mine was just a warning about format and post, and the true decision of the need for anamorphic... This is too religious for me, no lack of respect intended. I respect everyones choices and taste, but IMHO there is a lot of great glass, and anamorphic certainly ain't ALL there is... Bottom line, anamorphic is great for film because the 35 workflow is already, and for decades now, proven and ridiculously smooth, but digitally, it is not. It's just hassle and pain. For now anyway. That was my warning. We have shot numerous jobs where because of certain format or lenses choices, we ended up paying more than if we had just shot it on film in the first place. That is never the goal of shooting digital, is it? There are a lot of people who got a Red and never shot on film before, and until we are in 2025 and all theaters project HD or 2K or 4K, there will be a LOT of film transfer. That concerns most of everyone here that do or intend of doing narrative features for theatrical release. TV is something else. If you guys can afford the hassle and pain of shooting anamorphic and return it to film, well good on ya! I certainly won't tell you any better! I love anamorphic too! Cheerios! :biggrin:
 
Hi mezmo, I agree on most, and although for some huge screens there might be another good reason for anamorphic, I still insist that anamorphic IS, as you must know, already a trick. It is all about delivering sensationalism. Read about the numerous stories where the studios relied on anything possible to get the most amazing and sensational images to compete with one another. Anamorphic cinemascope was one of them. It changes nothing to the fact that it has a unique look, but it is not the best image either. James Cameron has recently stated some facts about 60p that are insanely hurting (ouch ouch, don't touch my comfy myths), but he's right on the point that it's all about eye education... We are used to it, thus we think it's THE right image. A truly insane accurate and high definition image still looks better, technically, than a smooth deformed lens aberation twisted image. But we are educated that way. Which is why narrative fiction on video sucks and doesn't work. I can't believe anything fictitious or get involved as an audience in a story if it's shot on Betacam. Nor anyone I know for that matter. This is also why (sorry :) I brought this discussion about formats, and not aesthetics. I don't mix pots and pans. This thread is really about personnal taste I think. And "live" the workflow once, anamorphic 4K to film, and then we'll talk... I'll buy the drinks, cause you'll need one (a lot more than one, actually)...

But I'll second that request anyway, since i'd be a shame not to implement it on Red or Epic, that's certain...

PS: there is one of the biggest screen in the world in Paris, The Grand Rex (designed by the same architect that did the Radio City Hall in NY) which has a screen of 21m x 11m, roughly 70ft x 36ft) and hosts 2700 seats, but for the rest of the theaters, though Paris have the I think most film theaters for any city in the world, I agree, they are mostly small screens. If you go in the country though, there are a lot of new multiplexes with high end last technology gear, huge screens... (All this just for info and knowledge pleasure, not chauvinism or defense, I swear...)
And just for your eyes...

rex.jpg

rex2.jpg

salle01.jpg


I used to have my office on the last floor... sob sob... Now I moved right accross it... It's a beautiful theater... Had my last short premiere there, shot on Super 35 and trust me, it was amazing (although not anamorphic)!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top