Anyone shot 1.3 Squeeze Hawk Anamorphics on Epic?

[Christopher Probst]

Just curious if anyone has experience with this... I'm considering trying it out on a job in Prague... Vantage has a rental facility there so getting the 1.3 V-Lites will be easy, I'm more interested in hearing people's experience with workflow, desqueezing on set, and in post. I don't believe Red has any plans to add a 1.3 desqueeze option in camera via firmware (which would be extremely helpful for the .0001% of users shooting with 1.3 V-Lites...)

I expect crickets on this thread... surprise me.

 

[Anders Holck]

Off the top of my head: On-set, be sure to get monitors which supports custom scaling modes (most Tv-logic / Transvideo /FSI) so you can get the correct desqueeze, and definitely shoot a proper frame leader with a perfect circle / Square.
You don't necessarily need to have support for 1.3x in camera (But be aware that one competitive camera system has support built in)

I'm not sure but I think Vantage has a HD aspect ratio converter box you can rent as well, if needed.

 

[Kemalettin Sert]

yeah! but just a test for now we are going to shoot feature with hawk v lites in this summer.
anyone please enlighten me about difference between shooting on epic vs alexa studio? by sensor size and aspect ratio..

 

[Anders Holck]

Here are some raw details that I noted a while ago:

Alexa Studio:

2x 2.39 Scope (4:3 sensor Area)
2582 x 2160 Photosites (1.195:1) 21.30 x 17.82 mm

2x 2.39 Scope (4:3 crop of 16:9 sensor Area)
1936 x 1620 Photosites (1.195:1) 15.97 x 13.37 mm

1.3x 2.39 Scope (16:9 sensor Area)
2880 x 1620 Photosites (1.78:1) 23.76 x 13.37 mm

Currently 4:3 is limited to ARRIRAW with the Codex on-board.

There is desqueeze tools for 2.39 scope in all modes.


EPIC:

2x 2.39 Scope (4:3 crop of 16:9 sensor Area)
3296x2700 Photosites (1.195:1) 17.83 x 14.6 mm

1.3x 2.39 Scope (16:9 sensor Area)
4800x2700 Photosites (1.78:1) 25.97 x 14.6 mm

2x squeeze implemented on board. Records on board in all modes.

 

[Björn Benckert]

This is just my personal reflection... shoting alexa 4:3 raw... will put a dent in a equipment workflow and crew budget that is far bigger than running with 2 or even up to 4 epics on set.
you need the alexa raw units, not one but more than one.
You need the codecs unit and you got such an amount of data so you post house will hate you or you will hate them for them charging ffor the conversions and handling..
also shooting alexa 4:3 with 1.3 gives just a slight anamorpic feel, also the hawks are allready very clean (not flairing much etc)
and you ebd up with about 1.85 aspect in the end.

So for our part we invested in 35-135 hawk-c's with 2x squize.
I think those are the coolest lenses to put infront of an epic.
even though you cant use the full sensor and get a 2:35 image the 5k ana mode is super nice and allow for rather high camera speeds with low compresion and the files are still in super high resolution compaired to most cameras.

So to me its an easy choise... rather have 3 or 4 epics on set equiped with one anamorpic prime each instead of having that heavy alexa studio with its stupid backpack for the same cost.

Our hawks c's will be available to test in stockholm shortly and ready to rent world wide as soon as darryl a fellow red user has them delivered to us... I will let you know when

 

[Björn Benckert]

This is just my personal reflection... shoting alexa 4:3 raw... will put a dent in a equipment workflow and crew budget that is far bigger than running with 2 or even up to 4 epics on set.
you need the alexa raw units, not one but more than one.
You need the codecs unit and you got such an amount of data so you post house will hate you or you will hate them for them charging ffor the conversions and handling..
also shooting alexa 4:3 with 1.3 gives just a slight anamorpic feel, also the hawks are allready very clean (not flairing much etc)
and you ebd up with about 1.85 aspect in the end.

So for our part we invested in 35-135 hawk-c's with 2x squize.
I think those are the coolest lenses to put infront of an epic.
even though you cant use the full sensor and get a 2:35 image the 5k ana mode is super nice and allow for rather high camera speeds with low compresion and the files are still in super high resolution compaired to most cameras.

So to me its an easy choise... rather have 3 or 4 epics on set equiped with one anamorpic prime each instead of having that heavy alexa studio with its stupid backpack for the same cost.

Our hawks c's will be available to test in stockholm shortly and ready to rent world wide as soon as darryl a fellow red user has them delivered to us... I will let you know when

 

[Anders Holck]

There are some x1.3 tests on john brawley site http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/here-they-are-anamorphic-lens-tests/ definitely more subtle effect than x2....

 

[John Brawley]

Just curious if anyone has experience with this... I'm considering trying it out on a job in Prague... Vantage has a rental facility there so getting the 1.3 V-Lites will be easy, I'm more interested in hearing people's experience with workflow, desqueezing on set, and in post. I don't believe Red has any plans to add a 1.3 desqueeze option in camera via firmware (which would be extremely helpful for the .0001% of users shooting with 1.3 V-Lites...)

I expect crickets on this thread... surprise me.

I tested EPIC with 1.3X anamorphic lenses late last year for a feature film that I shot at the beginning of the year, 100 Bloody Acres.

We ended up choosing Alexa shooting to ProRes with 1.3X, but we also tested 2X Lomo's on both EPIC and Alexa. We also tested recording to ARRI RAW using the ASTRO RAW recorder.

The director's didn't ended up liking the look of the EPIC as much as the ARRI, and we were surprised at how little difference there was between ARRI RAW and ProRes. ProRes was a lot easier and cheaper. It meant I could justify the ridiculous expense of flying a set of 1.3X Hawks in from Vantage.

I really liked the 1.3X hawks. They are very very well made and they don't tend to flare as easily as Panavision or Lomo anamorphics. The 1.3X squeeze is definitely more subtle as well, but it's still very much an anamorphic "look"

At the time I asked Jim about a 1.3X anamorphic monitoring option and he said it was on the list of things to do. I'm not sure they ever got around to it.

jb