I'm probably foolish for asking this...

[Nick Junkersfeld]

... but are we well past the point that we may ever see additional anamorphic support for DSMC cameras? I'd love 1.5x & 1.8x options considering the various lens choices that are becoming available for sensors just like Dragon (PS-Technik, Cooke etc.). And of course there are many many DSMC cameras out there working, that will continue to work for years to come.

 

[David Collard]

Don't hold your breathe. I believe it all comes down to sensor size, particularly the vertical, with regards to support for anamorphic 2x, 1.8x, 1.5x.
The reason for the 1.5x is mostly to accommodate 16:9 size sensors, whereas the 1.8x variety has the same sensor philosophy in mind while retaining more of the wide character and with less resultant clipping on the left and right in post.

Ideally, it would be cool to have a sensor that is dedicated to the anamorphic formats, but that presumably would mean shooting with a Monstro sensor. (Haven't)

Some other sensors also make accommodations for the anamorphic format in 4:3 and 6:5 modes.

 

[Tom Gleeson]

Nick,

No its a good question and I have a project coming up and I was keen to try some of the new 1.8X glass. I reached out to Red and asked the question specifically if the 1.8X squeeze will be supported and was told it was on the radar but there was no definitive commitment to adding support at this stage:sad:. I suspect if more people ask about alternate anamorphic squeezes this will move the question up the priority list. In reality the 1.8X lenses are only just becoming available but Arri is already supporting the format and as a professional Cinema camera supplier Red will hopefully follow

 

[Nick Junkersfeld]

Thank you Tom - I just sent a feature request to Red about adding both 1.5x and 1.8x modes to DSMC cameras. I would encourage others to do the same. With various 1.5x and 1.8x lens options either recently available or coming soon, I'd say it's a fairly big deal if we can't use them on DSMC Red hardware without inconvenient work arounds.


Here's the link to Red's Feature Request page if anyone else wants to do the same: https://support.red.com/hc/en-us/community/topics/360000015007-Feature-Request

 

[Jake Wilganowski]

Of course it will be added eventually

Question is when

 

[Zack Birlew]

1.5x and 1.8x are fairly unusual choices for anamorphics, normally it's 2X for 4:3 or 35mm full frame format or 1.33x for 16:9 or 35mm Widescreen (Super 35) format. All ratios have had their day in some form or another if you look at the history of anamorphics, particularly on 8mm and 16mm, but the gold standard is 2X anamorphics for the complete anamorphic look and effect. These days people are looking at 1.5x for the Iscorama lenses which are typically 1.5x and there's 1.8x with Letus' adapter and certain projector anamorphics, those will produce perfectly fine anamorphic looking footage but for camera support it's a little above and beyond as higher budget anamorphic use will be 2X or newer 1.33x options. Realistically, if RED adds support then it will be a definite bonus for inexpensive anamorphic users and win them kudos but otherwise it shouldn't be expected unless there's enough demand. I've heard the new Panasonic S1H has various anamorphic options so that alone could spur more interest, however, most of the newer stuff is still 1.33x or 2X save for a couple of new 1.8x lenses coming down the line. If you need something to help you when filming anamorphic, your best bet is to look for an external monitor with various anamorphic viewing features. I have a cheap Feelworld LCD that has 2x, 1.5x, and 1.33x which is nice although I know it would be more convenient to have it all stretched out already in-camera.

 

[Nick Junkersfeld]

Don't forget the PS-Technik Technovision line of 1.5x primes and zooms. Those are the primary modern 1.5x anamorphics on my radar that would be a great fit for the Dragon sensor. The zooms in particular are light and perfect for handheld work. It seems the number of 1.8x lenses will continue to grow as well.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

I’m curious what the benefits are of shooting with 1.8x glass, given the minimal difference in look and sensor crop compared to traditional 2x? It seems to me that 1.8x glass would be mainly to make full use of 1.33:1 (4x3) camera formats (1.33x1.8=2.39). Unless people are perhaps targeting wider aspect ratios?

Re: non-traditional squeeze ratios

I would like to see this be a user customizable function, just like custom frame guides. I shoot with an Iscorama quite a bit and personally use a 1.4x de-squeeze ratio to avoid the mumps at normal working distances. Currently, I have to do on set preview de-squeezing through monitoring, but it would be nice to have it be done by the camera and included in the metadata. There are also other oddball squeeze ratios around like the 1.25x Ultra Panavision lenses and 1.6x Ultra Vista Panavision lenses that this feature could service.

 

[David Collard]

I’m curious what the benefits are of shooting with 1.8x glass, given the minimal difference in look and sensor crop compared to traditional 2x? It seems to me that 1.8x glass would be mainly to make full use of 1.33:1 (4x3) camera formats (1.33x1.8=2.39).

My understanding of the 1.8x anamorphic is to make full use of the sensor size/vertical resolution most common in today's sensors. So in effect, instead of losing 10% on the right and left in post production, 1.8x allows the "full" anamorphic frame that you envisioned on set without compromise in post.

There are several other sizes like PS Technik 1.5x, 1.3x etc. and all of these allow more of your wide view within the frame. Cooke Optics has used their 1.8x as a benchmark in their marketing citing that anything lower than 1.8x loses the anamorphic characteristic look. However, not everyone cares as much about the "look" and will still benefit from the vertical and horizontal ratio derived from 1.5x etc.

 

[Nick Junkersfeld]

From the Cooke Chairman, “If you do the math, to get 2.39:1 desqueezed from a 1.5:1 Full Frame image, you’d have a 1.6x ratio. But to us, that’s not a very interesting anamorphic look. It’s like being half pregnant. The classic oval bokehs are missing.

“If we did a traditional 2x squeeze, there would be a lot of wasted space and pixels lost in cropping (1.5:1 x 2 = 3:1). So we arrived at 1.8x, which keeps the classic look and oval bokehs. Also, a 2.39:1 image squeezed to 1.8x benefits from covering over 90% of the Full Frame sensor area.”

 

[Nick Junkersfeld]

- Updating this thread -

Just received this from Red in regards to my Feature Request: "Thank you for your feedback. Under consideration for the next firmware release."

 

[Daniel Bichler]

Why are we only able to set an anamorphic desqueeze of 2X, 1.3X and 1.25X in camera.

With all these new Full Frame Sensors and the demand of 16:9 / 9:16 / 4:5 content, we have seen a bunch of lens manufacturers offering anamorphic lenses with 1.5x, 1.79x and 1.8x squeeze ratios like:

- Cooke 1.8x Anamorphic/i Full Frame Plus
- P&S Technik TECHNOVISION Classic 1.5X
- Caldwell Chameleon Anamorphic 1:79X

ARRI ALEXA LF does support.
Sony VENICE does support.
Kinefinity MAVO LF does support.
Panasonic S1H supports.
Maybe even more?

We love our Monstro, and we’d love to try theses new anamorphic lenses soon, but makes it just too complicated since we are used to REDs simple and efficient workflow!

The biggest thing we love about RED:
RED is always a big step ahead of all the other manufacturers, why not in this case?

Please, please, please give us this option asap!

 

[Jarred Land]

From the Cooke Chairman, “If you do the math, to get 2.39:1 desqueezed from a 1.5:1 Full Frame image, you’d have a 1.6x ratio. But to us, that’s not a very interesting anamorphic look. It’s like being half pregnant. The classic oval bokehs are missing.

“If we did a traditional 2x squeeze, there would be a lot of wasted space and pixels lost in cropping (1.5:1 x 2 = 3:1). So we arrived at 1.8x, which keeps the classic look and oval bokehs. Also, a 2.39:1 image squeezed to 1.8x benefits from covering over 90% of the Full Frame sensor area.”

1000% agree with Les ( Cooke ) . 1.5x is kinda dumb. It is a little bit like rear anamoprhics... why bother. It is good if you need to "create" resolution, but we don't.

1.8x is ok though.. and I already have an alpha build for DSMC2 that I am making for RVZ / Cooke. That will roll over into the next big SDK relaease in the spring.

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

Actually 1.5x can be handy when the look needed can't be too extreme, and can be used also on productions where 2x anas would be too much.

It's also very handy for 16:9 sensors (not applicable to RED) but if a rental house has cameras with 16:9 sensors too and buys 1.5x anas then these would be useable on REDs too...

ISCORAMAs 1.5x fronts have the most organic rendition imho and on average are measured at around 1.42x usually.

That's why the absolute best solution would be selectable custom resolutions and custom de-squeeze ratios...

2nd best would be having at least these 4: 1.33x / 1.5x / 1.8x / 2x

Thanks Jarred.

 

[Mike P.]

1000% agree with Les ( Cooke ) . 1.5x is kinda dumb. It is a little bit like rear anamoprhics... why bother. It is good if you need to "create" resolution, but we don't.

1.8x is ok though.. and I already have an alpha build for DSMC2 that I am making for RVZ / Cooke. That will roll over into the next big SDK relaease in the spring.

Long shot, but any chance for DSMC1 (which might have been the OPs intention)?

Even though I tend to agree, I also think it'd be a good idea to include 1.5x... (presuming if it's not super difficult, why not?)

 

[Nick Junkersfeld]

1000% agree with Les ( Cooke ) . 1.5x is kinda dumb. It is a little bit like rear anamoprhics... why bother. It is good if you need to "create" resolution, but we don't.

1.8x is ok though.. and I already have an alpha build for DSMC2 that I am making for RVZ / Cooke. That will roll over into the next big SDK relaease in the spring.

Never having used a 1.5x front anamorphic lens, I can't comment. However I'd like to be able to shoot that format on my CF Dragon

 

[Nick Junkersfeld]

Long shot, but any chance for DSMC1 (which might have been the OPs intention)?

Even though I tend to agree, I also think it'd be a good idea to include 1.5x... (presuming if it's not super difficult, why not?)

Yes, I most certainly am requesting these options for DSMC1 cameras - we are in the Dragon forum after all...

 

[Nick Junkersfeld]

"the next big SDK relaease in the spring."

Sorry to dredge up this old thread, but I must be missing something because I haven't seen anything indicating this is still on the way for DSMC1 cameras...

 

[Phil Holland]

"the next big SDK relaease in the spring."

Sorry to dredge up this old thread, but I must be missing something because I haven't seen anything indicating this is still on the way for DSMC1 cameras...

The most recent news on 1.8X is it's just been added to the latest Monstro beta build. Beyond that, I have no info.

Generally even with internal anamorphic support I find myself often doing it through a monitor and desqueezing in post.

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

The most recent news on 1.8X is it's just been added to the latest Monstro beta build. Beyond that, I have no info.

Generally even with internal anamorphic support I find myself often doing it through a monitor and desqueezing in post.

Thanks Phil for the update! So it will be rolled out to other DSMC2 brains too right? Nice!

Why externally??? Having it as metadata and done properly internally has many advantages, like not having camera menus distorted and it's also much easier for others who have to deal with the footage in post...among other benefits...