Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

ARRIFLEX D-21 vs RED

CraigWB said:
you call that 18 step program fast and easy? with film I have 5 steps

- Shoot
- Work print
- Edit
- Neg Cut
- Print

OK 6 steps the sound guys have to do their thing.
Click to expand...


Stephen Webb said:
Have to agree with CraigWB, Sanjin your "easy and fast" 4K workflow could do with some work!
Click to expand...

But guys in between CraigWB's 6 film steps there are more steps

to get thing done and really you should not play the amateurs here.

I gave it to you exactly 18 steps and you are done with 4K DPX

on your drive(s) ready for a film recorder/scanner

(and don't forget all is done on MacBook Pro laptop).

Also I do not count the (missing) steps from the first CraigWB's

step "Shoot" to the second "Work print",

please don't make me laughing :) .

Till the end "Print" we could finished even about close to 100 steps

if somebody could count properly.

Again :)

and again :)

and again :) .
 
I think his points are more to say: This is what I do.
In an all do-it-yourself workflow, you'd be screwed in analogue.
you (and others) have showed that it CAN be done with RED.
 
CraigWB said:
Anamorphic lenses squeeze the 2:39:1 image into a 4:3 area but since Red is a 16:9 sensor the lens over shoots the sensor at the top of the bottom.
If you where to un squeeze the image as is you would get an image that is far too wide and you've lost half your vertical field of view.
In order to correct this you crop the sides of the 16:9 image back to a 4:3 one and in the process lose a bunch of your horizontal FOV as well.
You still get the 2k image that an ARRI would give you but at a cost of the Benefits of the Anamorphic FOV.
The ARRI D 21 on the other hand has the full 4:3 35mm sensor so it enjoys the full benefit of the anamorphic lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Someone said it. Anamorphic is an optical distortion created by the lens. The lens squeezes the image, and when screened, the projector has an "inverted" anamorphic lens that "desqueezes" the image. That's the process in 35 film anyway. Note that with resolution calculation, if you shoot anamorphic, you capture "squeezed" image BUT when you "desqueeze" it, you don't create more lines, you just spread the same lines wider, thus less definition... Anamorphic doesn't create lines, it just creates space, taking benefit of a squeezing a large image in a narrow area by the trick of a lens distortion... Anyway, those of you who made films will understand... I don't think I'm clear...:sarcasm:
 
It really seems odd to me that people are shooting anamorphic on digital sensors. It's basically matching up analog technology (lens) to digital technology (sensor). Seems like a strange pairing.

Has anyone ever done any actual tests on this to see if there is a genuine benefit?
 
I'm sure Arri has shot some stuff but it's more to do with the look that anamorphic lenses create.
I've herd that it provides a FOV similar to 65mm but don't quote me on that line with out confirming it first.
 
Tom said:
It really seems odd to me that people are shooting anamorphic on digital sensors. It's basically matching up analog technology (lens) to digital technology (sensor). Seems like a strange pairing.

Has anyone ever done any actual tests on this to see if there is a genuine benefit?
Click to expand...

Tom,

As I heard it was projected on RED Boot at NAB (Soderbergh's vision of Che, etc...).

I wish that I was there.
 
To those that needed a clearer explanation, here it is:

5_1209486542.jpg


So yes, it does matter. You may have higher resolution on the RED in 4:3 mode, but you lose significant FOV [and, therefore, perceived DOF] when compared with a true 4:3 sensor. If I did this with 4K 2:1 mode, the difference would be even more dramatic.

It's not a true 50% cut as some have suggested, but it's close [roughly 40%]. So your 100mm anamorphic prime on a RED will have the approximate FOV of a 169mm lens on a true 4-perf sensor [Correct me if I'm wrong, I probably am. These conversions always bother me].

The decision to use anamorphic lenses is rarely a technical one these days. With the tight grain structure of modern film stocks, the actual resolution difference between S35mm 1.85 and four-perf anamorphic is offset by the significant edge softness of the anamorphic glass - yes, even the Primos.

Nobody can argue with the look of anamorphic lenses though. It's an awesome aesthetic that fits certain projects perfectly. Is it better? Well it used to be [from a resolution standpoint]. These days? It's only better if your aesthetic requires it.

Hope this helps.
 
Dalsa already has some out. Nice lenses, but they still won't match the FOV and, in turn, DOF characteristics of a true 4-perf sensor.

Ultimately it's not a huge deal... but it's still something to think about.

I've been on many a shoot where the DP has insisted on shooting 4:3 on the RED. The more technically-minded DPs expect and understand the changed FOV from what they're used to, but many are initially baffled when their 50mm lens looks more like an 85mm. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "didn't you say it had a super 35mm sensor?"
 
Soon we'll have Sodebergh's Che pictures and the we can have a look.

D-21 claims this:

"The ARRIFLEX D-21 is the only digital high-end camera that can
make full use of anamorphic lenses for the CinemaScope format."

anamorphic.jpg

The image left, as recorded by the D-21 with an anamorphic lens.
The image right, a simple 2:1 stretch in post results in a CinemaScope format image.
 
Sorry, Stephen, for misunderstanding your point. I wasn't aware that the D-21's sensor was larger, vertically, than the REDs - or that the area covered by anamorphic lenses is also larger (I don't prefer the look, so I'm admittedly ignorant in this area), and thus what you were trying to convey makes sense. The point I was trying to make, though, was that it's not the fact that Arri's sensor is 4:3 in shape which makes it more desirable for some, but rather just that the size of the chip is larger itself. If RED's sensor was as tall as the Arri - but still 16:9 in shape (wider) - it would be an even better choice still. If you put an anamorphic lens on such a sensor, you'd get exactly the same thing you're getting out of the Arri now - but you'd get even MORE resolution from it shooting "flat" (assuming you had a lens which could cover that total area). What Brook stated - that you lose FOV shooting on a 16:9 chip when compared to a "true" 4:3 sensor - is misleading, and what I think causes the confusion. If you had a sensor with the dimensions I just described, you wouldn't lose FOV at all shooting 16:9. That's what I was getting at; no ratio is any more "superior" than another - it is merely the dimensions which are important and what total area your glass can cover.

What I predict for the future is that sensor sizes themselves will increase as the number of pixels you can cram into a fixed area is going to eventually reach a limit and provide compromises in image quality. This might require a total reworking of lens design to create new standards, but then again it's about time. All the current technology is focused on "matching" 35mm film output - eventually we're going to want to go beyond that. I do agree with Brook, however, that one who shoots anamorphically in 2008 does so for aesthetic reasons and not for the resolution gain. Most projects shot with the RED aren't going to finish in 4K as it is, letalone 4K anamorphic.
 
Brook Willard said:
I've been on many a shoot where the DP has insisted on shooting 4:3 on the RED. The more technically-minded DPs expect and understand the changed FOV from what they're used to, but many are initially baffled when their 50mm lens looks more like an 85mm. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "didn't you say it had a super 35mm sensor?"
Click to expand...
You run into the exact same problem shooting in 2K or 3K, however, which is the only way to shoot overcranked with the camera (16:9 or not).
 
Brook Willard said:
Dalsa already has some out. Nice lenses, but they still won't match the FOV and, in turn, DOF characteristics of a true 4-perf sensor.
Click to expand...

The nicest I've ever seen. Although the claim of a difference in FOV is untrue.

Spherical lenses are not the same as anamorphic lenses.

I just checked with the shop, DALSA Anamorphic images have what is essentially IDENTICAL FOV to traditional P-vision anamorphic images. The math puts it at less than a .5 mm difference. I have seen a wider variation in FOV between two "identical lenses" from an (unnamed) manufacturer. For all intents and purposes, that difference in FOV is insignificant.

I.

Illya Friedman
DALSA
Digital Cinema Division
www.dalsa.com/dc
 
I imagine (having not seen) that the issue with the Dalsa Anamorphics are that they are less severe than a "normal" anamorphic lens, so the aesthetic is more subtle. Of course this isn't automatically a bad thing - just a other choice.

Haakon, the whole point is that because the D21 has a 4:3 sensor you can put anamorphic lenses on it and it'll behave the way you'd expect. With the Red One you lose the comparative DOF/FOV because you're essentially taking a centre crop. Hence the suggestion that this is something EPIC could rectify by employing a 4:3 sensor. Of course that then depends on whether Jim and Co. think it worthwhile.
 
Stephen Webb said:
Haakon, the whole point is that because the D21 has a 4:3 sensor you can put anamorphic lenses on it and it'll behave the way you'd expect. With the Red One you lose the comparative DOF/FOV because you're essentially taking a centre crop. Hence the suggestion that this is something EPIC could rectify by employing a 4:3 sensor. Of course that then depends on whether Jim and Co. think it worthwhile.
Click to expand...
We're on the same page, no worries. I think any confusion has just been due to semantics. The way I see it, it doesn't matter that sensor is 4:3 in shape; what really matters is that the sensor is the same *height* as the area covered by an anamorphic lens. As I mentioned, if a sensor was 16:9 in shape but the same height of the sensor found in the D-21, we'd retain more resolution shooting flat but get different aesthetics shooting with anamorphic lenses (at the same resolution of the Arri chip).
 
The importance (as far as anamorphic is concerned) is that the sensor is of such a proportion that when you "un-squeeze" the image you end up with a correct 2.4:1 ratio without having to crop anything. That means either having a 4:3ish sensor (like the D-21) or having a lens that will squeeze the image correctly into a 16:9 sensor.
 
Hi Stephen,

The sensor could be an octagon for all it matters... as long as it can be cropped to cover the entire area covered by your lenses, the proportion/aspect ratio does not matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top