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 :)

Cooke Anamorphics

Kemalettin Sert said:
yeah dude i appreciate jazek's experience and knowlege but this is reduser and everybody will say my Epic is better bigger sexier than alexa..lol its just so funny here i like it a lot :)
Click to expand...

True but if you shoot a 50mm anamorphic lens on an Epic in 5k ana mode it won't have the width of a 25mm lens as it's supposed to... I think time will correct this as it's obvious that anamorphic lenses, with all there flaws, are here to stay in a digital world. And Red would be foolish to ignore that fact...as they already haven't with RED and EPIC having ana modes of shooting.

All i'm saying is it could be better.
 
Kip Kubin said:
True but if you shoot a 50mm anamorphic lens on an Epic in 5k ana mode it won't have the width of a 25mm lens as it's supposed to... I think time will correct this as it's obvious that anamorphic lenses, with all there flaws, are here to stay in a digital world. And Red would be foolish to ignore that fact...as they already haven't with RED and EPIC having ana modes of shooting.

All i'm saying is it could be better.
Click to expand...

Hell, they make a monochrome sensor, why not a 4:3? I think that would be a great idea for red, and they'd likely sell more of those than the monochrome, imo. Big ASC DP's and Directors like anamorphic, just look at how many films are still using them. Point is, the top three cinema lens manufacturers (Angie, Cooke, Zeiss) are all making BRAND NEW anamorphic lenses this year, in addition to other companies. I'd say they all agree anamorphic is here to stay.
 
I just saw some selects today from a History Channel shoot....EPIC + ANAMORPHICS...and its looks like CRACK!!!!!!

Some of the best, most INSANE footage I've seen in a while.

EPIC + ANAMARPHICS are totally born to live together.

Even with the CROP to squeeze out 1080p deliverables, it looked INSANELY CLEAN and awesome. I was looking at it in an Avid Symphony edit with real broadcast monitors. Not on a computer. Trust me.

LOOKED SICK!!!!
 
Timur Civan said:
Don't care about frame size.

They will likely be beautiful.... All i care about....

:)
Click to expand...

I hear you brother. When my colleague's spot is done, I'm going to post it here in this thread. Just another example of how GORGEOUS these lenses can be on EPIC.
 
Anamorphic 101

Anamorphic 101

Yes Nick,
"Crack" is the word that comes to mind...:wink5::wink5:
Here is how anamorphic advantage works:
1.You are cramming more into the frame so more detail- more resolution.
2. you are using longer lenses to achieve the same field of view so you get the 65mm shallow DOF effect.
Essentially shooting 35mm stock and getting 65mm (70mm)results.
With that however comes the compromise- decreased optical performance, flares, optical artifacts.
Now the Cinematographers being the clever bunch they are adapted to the compromises and even attempted to use them to help the story. At least they made you believe that apparently. But they only did it because of the two above major advantages that outweighted the compromises.
Now by cropping the sensor you simply remove the two main advantages of anamorphics resolution and FOV/DOF.
What's left may arguably benefit the story but it's more of a novelty or fad that will wear of if the real technical advantages are not there anymore.
And they are not in this configuration.
I won't argue about aestethics because you know what they say about opinions:001_cool:
But the techical advantage argument is very weak at best.
Now if Red made a 4:3 sensor camera.......:yesnod:
 
OptiTek said:
Yes Nick,
"Crack" is the word that comes to mind...:wink5::wink5:
Here is how anamorphic advantage works:
1.You are cramming more into the frame so more detail- more resolution.
2. you are using longer lenses to achieve the same field of view so you get the 65mm shallow DOF effect.
Essentially shooting 35mm stock and getting 65mm (70mm)results.
With that however comes the compromise- decreased optical performance, flares, optical artifacts.
Now the Cinematographers being the clever bunch they are adapted to the compromises and even attempted to use them to help the story. At least they made you believe that apparently. But they only did it because of the two above major advantages that outweighted the compromises.
Now by cropping the sensor you simply remove the two main advantages of anamorphics resolution and FOV/DOF.
What's left may arguably benefit the story but it's more of a novelty or fad that will wear of if the real technical advantages are not there anymore.
And they are not in this configuration.
I won't argue about aestethics because you know what they say about opinions:001_cool:
But the techical advantage argument is very weak at best.
Now if Red made a 4:3 sensor camera.......:yesnod:
Click to expand...


yes please.......RED 4:3.....come on RED step up to the plate........ http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?87083-Epic-4-3-Sensor&highlight=
 
OptiTek said:
Yes Nick,
"Crack" is the word that comes to mind...:wink5::wink5:
Here is how anamorphic advantage works:
1.You are cramming more into the frame so more detail- more resolution.
2. you are using longer lenses to achieve the same field of view so you get the 65mm shallow DOF effect.
Essentially shooting 35mm stock and getting 65mm (70mm)results.
With that however comes the compromise- decreased optical performance, flares, optical artifacts.
Now the Cinematographers being the clever bunch they are adapted to the compromises and even attempted to use them to help the story. At least they made you believe that apparently. But they only did it because of the two above major advantages that outweighted the compromises.
Now by cropping the sensor you simply remove the two main advantages of anamorphics resolution and FOV/DOF.
What's left may arguably benefit the story but it's more of a novelty or fad that will wear of if the real technical advantages are not there anymore.
And they are not in this configuration.
I won't argue about aestethics because you know what they say about opinions:001_cool:
But the techical advantage argument is very weak at best.
Now if Red made a 4:3 sensor camera.......:yesnod:
Click to expand...

Thanks Jacek! You ARE right. In the footage i'm looking at, I don't see the crazy shallow DOF. The resolution does not look any better than any other lens (to me). However...the insane flares and reflections? TO DIE FOR.

That being said, your post is INCREDIBLY instructive, and I really appreciate you taking the time to explain how this is all working. Duly noted, and downloaded into my intermal computer (ie my brain).

Thanks!
 
Nick Morrison said:
Thanks Jacek! You ARE right. In the footage i'm looking at, I don't see the crazy shallow DOF. The resolution does not look any better than any other lens (to me). However...the insane flares and reflections? TO DIE FOR.

That being said, your post is INCREDIBLY instructive, and I really appreciate you taking the time to explain how this is all working. Duly noted, and downloaded into my intermal computer (ie my brain).

Thanks!
Click to expand...


Ther is not so much more dof on anamorphic glas especially considering that they are usually also quite slow. But and this is important. The dof is oval. So your blur is 2 times as high as it is wide in the final image. That is somthing that seperates the background in a way that spherical lenses just cant do. So this helps the eye to separate the background in a way yhat is likeable to many. check this 5k ana pix and you see the "high blurs" not achived on regular glass...

http://www.syndicate.se/Files/~usr/hawk/A004_C015_0616MV.100mm 5k Ana.jpg
http://www.syndicate.se/Files/~usr/hawk/A004_C011_0616AK.75mm 5k Ana.jpg
http://www.syndicate.se/Files/~usr/hawk/Hawksinforest005.jpg
http://www.syndicate.se/Files/~usr/hawk/Hawksinforest001.jpg
http://www.syndicate.se/Files/~usr/hawk/guyinfactory.jpg
 
Bjorn i PM'd you. Would appreciate your advice.
 
Björn Benckert said:
Ther is not so much more dof on anamorphic glas especially considering that they are usually also quite slow. But and this is important. The dof is oval. So your blur is 2 times as high as it is wide in the final image. That is somthing that seperates the background in a way that spherical lenses just cant do. So this helps the eye to separate the background in a way yhat is likeable to many. check this 5k ana pix and you see the "high blurs" not achived on regular glass...
Click to expand...
Oval DOF? Really? It must be a language barrier. Maybe bokeh? but what does that have to do with background separation?
 
OptiTek said:
Oval DOF? Really? It must be a language barrier. Maybe bokeh? but what does that have to do with background separation?
Click to expand...

Yes sorry for my poor english your right DOF is something different. But what I mean is the blur in the anamorphic image is twice as much in y compared to x... and yes, that is one of the primary reasons for choosing anamorphics for many DP's. It's a subtile effect but this y smear is liked by many and I guess it's a taste thing. But I can explain it any other way that the blurs "feels more blurred" since it's not perfectly circular... does that make better sense?
 
I think you are complicating it too much. Background separation is a combination of DOF and perspective compression. With (more) compressed perspective (that longer FL lenses give you)the background seems closer and since the DOF is shallower (and, therefore, background is more blurred) this combination amplifies the "background separation"
And it has everything to do with the focal length.
As for the speed even with sphericals the stops wider than 2.8 are rarely used . So no difference there the anas all reach that.
The bottom line is that there are actually very solid benefits from using anamorphic lenses. "Properly" is the key word here.:yesnod:
 
OptiTek said:
I think you are complicating it too much. Background separation is a combination of DOF and perspective compression. With (more) compressed perspective the background seems closer and since the DOF is shallower (and, therefore, background is more blurred) this combination amplifies the "background separation"
And it has everything to do with the focal lenght.
As for the speed even with sphericals the stops wider than 2.8 are rarely used . So no difference there the anas all reach that.
The bottom line is that there are actually very solid benefits from using anamorphic lenses. "Properly" is the key word here.:yesnod:
Click to expand...

But you must agree that the "high blurs" is one of the main characters of anamorphics, or no?

see the attachment it's a crop out from a perfectly flat wall in defocus. All the horizontal lines / details are twice as blurred as the verticals due to the anamorphic 2x element in the lens. That is a thing that goes for all x2 anamorphic lenses.
 

Attachments

  • PastedGraphic-7.jpg
    PastedGraphic-7.jpg
    2.2 KB · Views: 0
Actually, technically...(you've got me!!!) you only get half the blur of the 70mm format with the anas-the horizontal half. Vertically it's still 35mm "blur" (whatever that means)
But since half is better than none....you get the picture-you are practically half (horizontal) way there to 70mm look with the anas. Again- using them properly. If you have to go wider because of the smallish sensor area you are back to square one- with all color fringing, and other nasty stuff to deal with. May as well shoot crisp spherical and crop....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top