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 :)

RED Anamorphic lenses? A smart move?

Evangelos Achillopoulos said:
I want to add something in the mix...


So I believe, when originally the scope was developed, it was also for resolution reasons and not only for artistic (bokeh etc.), apart of coarse of the wider image, that is an artistic aspect.
Click to expand...

It was also to combat the rise of television and get people back in theaters.
 
Evangelos Achillopoulos said:
So I believe, when originally the scope was developed, it was also for resolution reasons and not only for artistic (bokeh etc.), apart of coarse of the wider image, that is an artistic aspect.
Click to expand...

Scope was never designed for resolution reasons, it was simply a way of getting a widescreen image onto 35 mm film.
The alternatives where things like 65 mm and Cinerama which where not as practical as Scope the idea that they where thinking about how many lines of resolution could be crammed out of the negative is laughable at best.
 
I fully agree with Craig on this one.

Once you start squeezing and stretching the resolution goes out the window. All things being equal, anamorphic glass will never match the contrast or resolving power of a spherical lenses. Spherical lenses are much sharper, faster and more contrasty.

Yonks ago the medium might have been the limiting factor, so it made sense to use larger area of the frame to squeeze wide screen image into it at a relatively small optical degradation of the image. These days a 4k sensor can resolve up to 3.6k of detail. This has never been possible to achieve with anamorphic projection from the final print. I doubt anamprphic film ever approached 2k.

With the sensor developments we are getting close to limits of the lenses. Therefore using anamorphic lenses is not going to improve the final image, is it?
 
CraigWB said:
Scope was never designed for resolution reasons, it was simply a way of getting a widescreen image onto 35 mm film.
The alternatives where things like 65 mm and Cinerama which where not as practical as Scope the idea that they where thinking about how many lines of resolution could be crammed out of the negative is laughable at best.
Click to expand...

Whether or not CinemaScope was designed originally for an increase in resolution (compared to Academy 35mm), the truth is that in 35mm theatrical photography today, anamorphic is generally the highest resolution 35mm format because it uses more negative area than 35mm 1.85 matted widescreen or Super-35 cropped to 2.40.

But this is mainly because anamorphic uses 4-perf 35mm at nearly full aperture height, Academy aperture width.

With 16x9 sensors, a 2X anamorphic lens requires cropping on the sides to get the image back to 2.40, so it's a wash, resolution-wise, compared to cropping a spherical image vertically to get to 2.40.

However, a 1.3X anamorphic lens on a 16x9 sensor may produce a 2.40 image that seems slightly more detailed than cropping a spherical image to 2.40.

Remember that when you use a larger sensor area for the actual final image, the MTF of the lens can actually be lower because the image itself is larger and therefore enlarged less to fill the same sized screen, though in the case of a 1.3X anamorphic lens versus a cropped spherical image, the only improvement might be in vertical resolution.

In other words, your lens' ability to resolve "x" lines per millimeter matters a little less when you have more millimeters in the first place.

--

Historically speaking, Cinerama (1952) - being three 6-perf 35mm frames photographed and then projected side-by-side did provide a tremendous leap in resolution over standard 4-perf 35mm Academy 1.37 (22mm x 18mm) since you were talking about a combined negative area (72mm x 27mm) that was larger than even 5-perf 65mm (53mm x 23mm). Plus each projector only had to take care of 1/3 of the screen, so there was maximum edge to edge sharpness.

CinemaScope (1953), on the other hand, only involved squeezing a wide image onto the standard 4-perf 35mm frame, so basically audiences just saw an Academy area more or less spread across a much wider screen. Plus the early optics were quite mediocre.

But at the same time, Academy was being phased out for cropped widescreen like 1.85, and CinemaScope was therefore a bigger negative area in comparison. And once the optics improved by the 1960's, you saw the average anamorphic movie looking sharper and more detailed than the average 1.85 movie - look at a 35mm anamorphic movie like "Doctor Zhivago", which blew-up to 70mm pretty well.

There is some advantages even today in making anamorphic lenses that eliminate the need to crop to get the final aspect ratio. Even the crappy anamorphic attachments for DV cameras to squeeze 16x9 onto a 4x3 sensor, though optically mediocre, often seemed to create a "smoother" (though not sharper) image due to fewer pixels being wasted.

But honestly, anamorphic is as much a religion as a science today and it's not purely an issue of resolution.

In 4-perf 35mm, the fact that anamorphic wastes less negative and therefore creates a larger image that is enlarged less, gives you less grain and the feeling of a smoother, more detailed image -- even if the MTF characteristics of the anamorphic lens show it to be inferior to spherical optics.

Truth is that even today, I've rarely seen a Super-35 movie look as rich and detailed as an anamorphic movie, if both are shot in optimal conditions. Just compare John Toll's anamorphic work on "The Thin Red Line" to his Super-35 work on "Tropic Thunder". Ignoring artistic differences, "The Thin Red Line" clearly benefitted from the larger negative area used.

But again, this applies less and less as the sensors get more and more widescreen and need less cropping. I mean, look at 5-perf 65mm compared to 4-perf 35mm anamorphic -- 5-perf 65mm uses spherical lenses and a widescreen negative shape and produces a superior image.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I'd like to see some real-world examples of that.
Click to expand...

Apart from shooting charts, I do have some real-life 4k Red images with lots of fine detail (scenic wide shots with large DOF) acquired with MP 14mm that visibly produce more than 3k detail at reasonable (visible) contrast. I am entirely happy cropping them to 1:2.40. Just don't know how to upload them here.
 
OK, here is a sample 4k frame, 1:2.40 ratio.

http://achtel.com/production/A012_C017_033011_0408.jpg

EDIT: and another frame, perhaps a bit better example: http://achtel.com/production/A012_C189_03311X_0468.jpg

They were taken on a dolly, so there is some motion blur, but not much at this angle. I applied about 25% sharpenning in RC, which is probably a tad too much considering deep DOF of the shot, hence it's "video" look. I do not have access to the r3d file at the moment, so can't post one without sharpenning applied. But, the fine detail seems to be there and at a high contrast. If anyone has similar wide, deep focus 4k frame obtained with an anamorphic lens, it would be interesting to compare the look. This shot was made with MP 14mm at around f/5.6 which is diffraction limited on this lens.

This is my starting point with no grading applied just yet. I intend to apply some digital softening and some colour shifts and pulls. I haven't decided on the filnal look yet, but something along subtle sepia-hues appeal to me. If anyone like to suggest the look, please do so. I'm not a colorist :)
 
Hi guys and gals,
I am new on the forum and I am actually working on an anamorphic lens feature as the assistant editor. We are cutting on FCP. (So there is a way to shoot anamorphic on RED now! I'll ask our DP what lenses we are using for you guys.)

The RED/FCP path is all new for me and my editor, I start pulling in footage Monday and am currently out of my depth technically and trying to surface. Here are a few questions:

Anyone know if RED unsqueezes the anamorphic image as it shoots? I see no info on how to unsqueeze anamorphic in FCP.

I am curious whether it is possible to edit the film effectively with the QT proxies RED apparently makes as it shoots, or whether I am better off working with QT 422 or RED Native.

Anyone know Steven Soderbergh's editorial assistant on CHE so I can ask these questions? It would be great to talk to someone who has done this all the way through DI.

Thanks in advance you guys.

Ann Husaini

Seriously mucho help would be appreciated.
 
Well, you just adjust the aspect ratio in FCP. I believe there is an anamorphic option in the REDCINE or REDALERT software but, never having shot on a RED, I haven't used that software. I've used the Panasonic Anamorphic adapter on various HD cameras and usually the best aspect ratio area falls somewhere between -30 and -32. I've tried lining up the anamorphic footage to match the FCP 2.35:1 widescreen matte and that's about the range I've gotten, some say to just go with -32 but that doesn't line up properly but, then again, it's only a sliver off so maybe it's a good sacrifice for a more pleasing looking aspect ratio.

As far as 2X anamorphics goes, since the Panasonic Anamorphic adapter is 1.33x, you'll have to first unsqueeze the footage, I don't know what number that would be since I haven't worked with 2X anamorphics either but it would have to be more than -32. Then you'll have to zoom in and cut off the sides of the image and, depending on what you want, pan left or right to adjust. Use the 2.35:1 widescreen matte and line it up that way or you could simply start out by having the matte and zooming in while you adjust the aspect ratio so you can get it looking right.

If somebody has done this before with 2X anamorphiocs and has numbers to show then please chime in as this would be good for anyone to know.
 
Pawel Achtel said:
I think anamorphic acquisition is a fix to a problem that does not exist with the new line of RED and other products.

If you want bigger image area, just use a bigger sensor brain.

If you just want anamorphic look artefacts (like eliptical bokeh, or light streaks), do it in post.

At a risk of stirring up the pot and creating a heated discussion, from purely technical point of view: anamorphic acquisition is no longer useful or justified.:couch:

I've been shooting beautiful 2.39:1 scope footage on Red One and sharp spherical lenses that I could never achieved with anamorphics.
Click to expand...


I know this is an old thread, but I just wanted to put in my 2 cents:

With anamorphic, what you frame is what you get. No re-cropping later. I like that!:emote_popcorn:
 
Nova Invicta said:
Firstly I disagree with Pawel Achtel the lazy way of today is to simply say fix everything in post. Anamorphic whether clean looking or with distortions and flares has been used numerous times to add drama to a scene or a stylized look to a film. David Fincher for instance used anamorphic lenses to exagerate close-ups and compress the out of focus depth of field to add tension in Alien 3 by mainly shooting on long anamorphic lenses. Anamorphics are routinely used in commercials to create a specific look and some of the best action films shot predominately in-camera use anamorphics.
Anamorphic is still very popular and whilst niche compared to spherical gives us yet another choice something many on this forum would deny in an almost evangelical pursuit of one size fits all.
Am I passionate about Anamorphic, yes but even more passionate about keeping choices.
Click to expand...


Second This. Be decisive, make a choice and go with it. If you feel it aides the story then do it.
 
Scott, try a recent beta build...select 4k anamorphic in the preference menu and your good to go. Shooting native Anamorphic on RED has a been a breeze with recent firmware updates (ie build 18 and up). The LCD and EVF will de-squeeze the image to give you the proper aspect ratio in the monitor...a long awaited feature that RED so respectfully solved.

Shooting my next film on Hawk Anamorphics. For those who like the organic look of RED plus anamorphics then let us know cause we have an incredible set. We are currently the Only set of HAWK anamorphics available in NYC and the east coast. (correct me if I am wrong) Happy shooting. :)

Best
 
Oh for the record the JDC Xtal Express anamorphics are available to rent from Panavision with PL mount.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Recently I've been watching some old 50's widescreen movies... was thinking about Technirama, which was a 1.5X anamorphic lens put on an 8-perf 35mm (VistaVision / FF35) camera to get a 2.35 scope image onto a 1.50 : 1 negative.

If FF35 takes off, then the 1.5X anamorphic lens system used for Technirama sounds like it should make a comeback, albeit with newer lenses, not the huge old Technirama lenses like the Delramas.

But it's odd to think that cinema lenses were made back in the 1950's that covered the FF35 format and were anamorphic to boot.
Click to expand...
How do you feel about the sharpness of theses lenses? I have three Panavision anamorphic lenses from the sixties in BNCR. I plan on testing these next week with the VP adapter. Do you thing these adapters will be able to be reused on the Epic or Scarlet?
I will let you know my results. ,eric
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top