“Cooke to launch anamorphic lenses for large format“

[Jeff McCoy]

https://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/tech/cooke-to-launch-anamorphic-lenses-for-large-format-cameras/5132510.article

 

[Phil Holland]

I'm happy with that news. Though I do think 1.5X-1.6X is something that needs to be explored for larger format. Panavision's got the 1.6X Ultra Vistas at this point, which are interesting.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Great. But why are cinema lens manufacturers using half-arsed still photography terms for frame sizes? It's called VistaVision.

 

[Aaron Lochert]

Great. But why are cinema lens manufacturers using half-arsed still photography terms for frame sizes? It's called VistaVision.

Probably because VistaVision's spotlight lasted 7 years about 50-60 years ago and the up-and-comers in the industry are probably far more familiar with the term "Full Frame" than they are "VistaVision."

Also, Sony and Canon are calling their larger format cinema cameras "Full Frame" so you're probably better served directing your anger at them for using the term. And although Arri is saying "large format", with the LF, they also routinely use the term "Full Frame" in their copy, saying the LF is "slightly larger than full frame." Cooke is just designing lenses for cameras on the market and there's only one right now using the term "VistaVision."

 

[Phil Holland]

Great. But why are cinema lens manufacturers using half-arsed still photography terms for frame sizes? It's called VistaVision.

The world is a complicated place when it comes to format sizes and defining them. With the advent of still cameras and motion pictures cameras using essentially the general same style of film transport via perfs and actual negative sizes it sort has become a mixed bag.

VistaVision itself is a term created by Paramount in the 50s. However, well before that the 36x24 format known as (sexy name coming up) 135 Still Film in the early 1900s. And VistaVision itself actually does use a slightly larger image plane/negative.

VistaVision had it's hay day throughout the 50s for about a decade, then sort of moderately vanished from the industry and was used sparingly stateside. However, many of those VistaVision cameras found themselves overseas producing a new generation of larger format cinematography abroad. VistaVision was really reinvigorated in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s mainly for use in Visual Effects and special Plate Photography. Famously Star Wars and similar fair.

Fast forward to the world of digital, somehow through the hive minded communication during the early days of the internet the term "full frame" took hold in reference to DSLRs. This is also the very same Still 135 format. And if I was king of the world it would have been hammered home early on that we just call that FF35, but alas, I used up all my wishes for other things.

Now in modern times with the resurgence of larger format motion picture production both in digital and celluloid mediums it's getting a bit hairier. Particularly you'll notice all of the various larger format systems are all using slightly different sensor sizes.

Which makes things even trickier as many lenses have been designed with their optimal projected image circle for the 135 Still format, and while many cover the slightly larger formats, you will notice slight concessions often in the corners both in resolving power as well coverage. Which is why a few companies actually designed new glass in the post-RED VV world.

Formats are a fun topic and I'm very much into the general standard driven RED ecosystem of DCI and UHD widths rather than "bonus height" sensors, but those taller sensors certainly can tap into things like these anamorphic lenses. But not may people are finishing out to a 3:2 aspect ratio for any real reason when it comes to spherical work. What is good, is outside of the typical world of video where a camera that shoots a 4K image is exactly 4K, we have lots of over provisioning with various systems for downsampling and reframing or stabilizing in post production. Resolution and format size are both helpful there.

To the current digital cinema cameras sitting in the VV and FF35, RED sort of did their own very interesting take on the format emphasizing width. I was actually shocked to see Canon's C700 FF not be a 3:2 sensor, but super not shocked that Sony was a 36x24 design. And Arri just a hint larger than the FF35 size. RED VV is the largest image circle in this group before going up to larger 65mm systems.

I agree that general terminology of VV is probably okay, but since literally everybody has a different take on "large format" at the moment, it is important to understand the nuances especially on the technical and optical side of things.

Sorry for the long winded answer. This has been fun to observe and be a part of in this new generation and I'm curious exactly where we go from here after some of the lessons are being learned.

My sensor chart is always fun to glance over to see exactly where each format lands.

 

[Michael Lindsay]

Cookes FF plus description (from testing S7s) also indicates/suggests that they go bigger than both Stills FF and classic VistaVision...

Using these lenses on a LF allows rentals houses with LFs to compete against ARRI media's 65 in Anamorphic as there would be nothing to be gained from going 65.

 

[Tom Gleeson]

I suspect the Vistavision name is still owned by somebody and therefore Cooke or anybody else cannot use the name in a commercial context and if you want tp be pedantic none of the cameras are exactly VistaVision spec anyway