Anamorphics for future use?

[Zack Birlew]

Alright, guys, I've got a question for you. I'm currently toying with the possibility of investing in some lenses and I'm going back and forth on whether I should aim for a set of LOMO anamorphics or just settle with the obvious RED Primes set.

I know all about anamorphics and how they work and what the differences are, I don't need any information on that. However, what concerns me is all this talk about lens coverage and the future Epic models. I saw the RED Primes presentation at the REDUser party at NAB and seeing the difference between the RED primes and the, ahem, other brand, it was clear to me that lens coverage will become a very important issue especially once we breach 4K and go into 5K and 6K territory. What I haven't seen yet is anyone talking about anamorphic coverage. Will these lenses actually carry on or is it foolish to buy anything else right now except the RED Primes?

I've seen it mentioned many times but I tried to inquire about purchasing some of the Vantage Blue filters that emulate the anamorphic lens flares many of us love, however, they simply pointed me in the direction of some renters in Los Angeles. Heck, if I could just buy the filters I'd do that and forget everything else but alas, I cannot. I'd heard a price point of $10,000 for one somewhere and, even though it's just a filter, I might actually consider that a pretty fair price for what they will do.

Now, don't get me wrong, $20,000 is a TON of money but that's why, if I do choose to purchase a set of lenses, I would want them to be the best I could get. I love anamorphics but I also love low light, that's another reason why I go back and forth. However, with 5K and 6K, I may technically get away with higher ISO's, thus making the issue moot to a degree.

So, what should I aim for?

 

[hunterrichards]

Not very scientific, but I just tested my lomo roundfronts and they cover the full frame sensor in the 5D mark 2 totally vertically (24mm Vertical) and about 75% of the way horizontally (which is 36mm).

Remember that most anamorphics are meant to cover a 4-perf sized frame (The Red One is 3-perf s35 in size)- The new larger sensors will be great because you can actually get closer to the proper full 4-perf size frame you need (~18mm V) extracted from the center instead of the current cropping on the Red One.

The 30mmx15mm sensor in the new Epic still isn't technically tall enough for the full anamorphic frame- I wouldn't worry too much about it.

P.s. I would just rent lenses as you need them- that way you can make decisions based on the project and not what you have at home.

 

[Shane Betts]

Never mind the quality, feel the height.

Never mind the quality, feel the height.

One of the issues, as I understand it, is that anamorphics are designed for 4 perf frames and the Red sensors are all 3 perf in aspect - somewhat 16:9ish. This means that what you'll be looking for in an Epic will be the height of the 5k sensor, not the width. The width, unless you're looking for a 1:4 frame when desqueezed, is relatively moot as you'll not use the edges, just a centre crop. So, as I understand it, unless you're looking at an Epic 645 or 617, anamorphics will cover the height and the width is unnecessary.

As I understand it. No doubt someone smarter than I will correct me

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, 2X anamorphic lenses are designed to cover a 22mm x 18mm area of the 35mm 4-perf negative.

Since the Mysterium-X sensor is 30mm x 15mm, a 2X anamorphic lens only has to cover an 18mm x 15mm area on it (which is a 1.20 : 1 aspect ratio, which with a 2X optical squeeze, gets you a 2.40 : 1 image.) So you will be fine with the lens coverage of any standard 35mm anamorphic cine lens on the Mysterium-X sensor.

Now with the 36mm x 24mm Monstro sensor, I'd guess that most anamorphic lenses will cover the 24mm height since most actually can cover the 24mm width of Super-35. But they may not cover the width needed, which would be 29mm x 24mm. Assuming you were limited to a 24mm width, then your 2X anamorphic lens on the Monstro sensor would probably be extracted from a 24mm x 20mm area of the 36mm x 24mm sensor.

However, longer anamorphic lenses may cover 29mm x 24mm so it may only be some of the wide-angle ones and zooms that you will have problems with.

 

[Shane Betts]

Ah, excuse my ignorance here. Do anamorphic lenses resolve to an image circle or an image oval? Never actually looked...

 

[Zack Birlew]

Hmm, okay. So you're saying that with wide anamorphics it will be like putting a DX lens on a full frame sensor? (ie. Vignetting and then punch in during post?)

 

[PaulClements]

Ah, excuse my ignorance here. Do anamorphic lenses resolve to an image circle or an image oval? Never actually looked...

Oval I believe.

I made a quick diagram to show the what I believe is the coverage of anamorphic lenses on 4 perf.

If I was going to say which to choose between Lomo and the Red lenses I would probably say Red lenses. In terms of build and image quality the red lenses are superior, even though the Lomo's might be capable of giving an interesting look you'll have more joy and probably more business using the Red set. Furthermore you'll be waiting on the Monstro sensor to become available to really get the most out of the lenses, otherwise you'll be cropping the shots at the edge to get to 2.40:1 and severely cropping to get to 16:9.

Paul

 

[Zack Birlew]

Well, the way I see it, I can always use Nikon lenses for 16:9 work and at 6K I wouldn't think I'd have to worry about cropping too much, but that all depends on how it looks as Monstro is still(?) being developed. It's just that I figure if I were to buy a set of cinema lenses I would want something different or at least have the best no-hassle lenses I could afford. Right now, that's landed me inbetween the LOMO's and the RED Primes. The RED primes are a no-brainer because they'll be the sharpest things out there, a big plus in my book, but then again I want my images to be pretty and I prefer the look anamorphics give even though they won't be as sharp in a lot of cases. I'm basically going at two extremes with this. I can always fall back on Nikons and other still lenses and that's a given no matter what I go with because there are just some still lenses I can get more easily and cheaply than I could with cinema PL lenses (ie. f/1.4 and lower, Tokina 11-16, Fisheye, zooms, etc.).

The movies I plan to make are probably going to range in visual effects heavy stuff to romantic comedy and drama stuff with a horror film or two tossed in. I've always heard of anamorphics complicating visual effects but I don't understand what they mean when they say that. Is it the whole squeeze/unsqueeze thing or what? What about greenscreen work with anamorphics, is it harder or different at all?

 

[Andrew Ceperley]

For VFX work, it's the distortions (especially on wider lenses) that cause problems. It becomes increasingly hard to digitally track footage for compositing because the distortion is different the farther away/closer a subject is. Apparently Digital Domain had some real issues on the recent Star Trek movie with the 'Scotty in the water pipes' scene for this very reason...they shot it anamorphic, wide, and handheld...oops. They had to track the same image multiple times at different depths...and even had to go through frame by frame often just to make sure everything matched up. They also had some issues with flares covering up the image from time to time.

But unless you're doing some significant 3D tracking and what-not, I can't imagine it would be a problem...I also can't imagine a greenscreen being any more or less difficult with an anamorphic lens. The image might not be as sharp, but I'd imagine you'd have plenty resolution to work with right off the bat. Of course, those pesky (but pretty) flares might mess up a good key.

I'd buy anamorphics. Not the most practical thing in the world, but if it's the look you want all the time, then it kinda makes sense. Sometimes practicality is overrated...

...then again, at that price point, sometimes it's not.

 

[Tom Lowe]

The wider anamorphics are going to vignette a lot in the corners on a FF35 sensor. I would hold off on them for now, until more testing can be done on Epic or Scarlet FF35. I put a 35mm Panavision anamorphic on my 5D2 yesterday, and it was a disaster. It covered only a small part of the sensor, with a deep, severe black ring around the frame and massive vignetting.

My general advice to people is to look to a future where FF35 becomes the gold standard for digital cinema acquisition. There are a lot of people who will argue that S35 or XS35 (I think that's what you're calling it, David?) will remain the gold standard, due to the fact that the entire cinema industry right now uses it. And that is a strong argument. But to me, the lure of FF35 will be too strong to resist, and kickass new FF35 cine lenses will begin to emerge. In the meantime, a lot of longer cine lenses already cover an image area significantly larger than S35, so why not buy a FF35 Epic so you can shoot at maximum sensor size and resolution?

I think Jim has stated that Epic will actually be able to choose different resolutions (sensor dimensions) based on the coverage of the lens you are using! That would be amazing.

Bottom line: FF35 is coming, so invest in glass accordingly!

 

[Roberto B]

There are a lot of people who will argue that S35 or XS35 (I think that's what you're calling it, David?)

X35 goes better.. shorter.. the pattern is the 35.. not a 2nd subsidiary of the subsidiary of the standard.. lol