RED Anamorphic lenses? A smart move?

[Pawel Achtel]

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.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

After playing around with digital diffusion in post for a feature, which added time to our color correcting sessions, I am convinced more than ever in the value of getting the look you want in-camera if that's the simpler way.

It's one thing to add a warm tint to an image in post, which is easy, but when you start talking about changing the shape of the bokeh in the background separate from the foreground, you're talking about isolating portions of the frame from other portions, and to do that for 1000+ shots in a feature can add a considerable amount of time in post.

I agree that if all you want is a sharp 2.40 image, using bigger sensors with more resolution makes more sense, just as in film, 65mm spherical is superior to 35mm anamorphic. But if you also want all the oddball optical artifacts of anamorphic photography, then why not do it in-camera if you're sure that's what you want? Yes, the blue flares can be done with filters or in post (though it tends to look a bit artificial) but the stretched out of focus backgrounds would be a lot more time-consuming to achieve in post for lots and lots of shots.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

It's one thing to add a warm tint to an image in post, which is easy, but when you start talking about changing the shape of the bokeh in the background separate from the foreground, you're talking about isolating portions of the frame from other portions.

You just described the second worst project I've ever worked on. :violent:

Thankfully it was for a film challenge and my poor judgement in team choice was mercifully brief. But not before having to roto and defocus a bunch of shots for the dp. Coincidentally that was also the last 48 hour film challege I ever helped out with... I wonder why....

Oh man that project had some golden quotes like "We don't need to shoot any coverage. I'm sure it'll cut together." Ha!

 

[Zack Birlew]

Well, if anything it would be nice to have a modern anamorphic attatchment at least for the front or rear of the lens. There are the ones on eBay for the Cooke 20-100, Angenieux 25-250, etc. but those only work on those specific lenses. The rear attachment would be ideal as it could work with any PL lens but I know there are some drawbacks to having a rear attachment in terms of light loss and whatnot. Another thought is why not make a universal front anamorphic adapter that is a 15mm/19mm rod mount attachment, sort of like that Xtreme Fisheye adapter from Century Optics. Just line up the lens with the adapter on rods, place the mattebox in front and be good to go.

 

[Matt Garrett]

the thing with rear attachments is that the squeeze is happening after the iris so you lose all the anamorphic artifacts.

 

[Steve Gal]

Having a front anamorphic would not work since it has to focus separately from the lens itself. this is the case if using an anamorphic lens attachment from a projector.

I have a beautiful set of Elite anamorphics for rent in NYC and I must say they are outstanding. Anyone who is interested is welcome to come in and shoot a test to see for yourself.

 

[Shane Betts]

Here are some shots with my lenses
http://gallery.me.com/mikeburton#100072

Beautiful Mike. Just gorgeous. Were they shot on RED? Maybe it shows how much those late 60's, early 70's movies influenced me and drove me into the business in the first place but I love those looks. I'm very excited about the ET Pana mount. Saw Star Trek last night and the flares and bokeh entertained me more than the movie itself (OK, I'm no trekky).

Richard Darge has started an interesting thread here: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30519 about using old lenses on digicams to back off the ultra sharp look. I think it fits well with this thread. I'm going to do some tests on our RED once it comes back from the current job.

 

[Michael Hastings]

But if you also want all the oddball optical artifacts of anamorphic photography, then why not do it in-camera if you're sure that's what you want? Yes, the blue flares can be done with filters or in post (though it tends to look a bit artificial) but the stretched out of focus backgrounds would be a lot more time-consuming to achieve in post for lots and lots of shots.

Seems like "...if you're sure that's what you want?" is a key point here. I'm wondering where the STRETCHED out of focus background really serves a cinematic purpose beyond what shallow DOF (or say smooth rounded bokeh versus hexagonal which is less natural/eyelike) would do in the same shot?

I can see where it might create a more dreamlike or hallucinogenic feel in those types of sequences. But, now that we have these digital formats with plenty of resolution for wide screen without special cameras and more expensive film, is there a real reason for it or is it just an inside thing for photographers and directors to notice? I don't mean that as antagonistic, I'm just trying to educate myself, and understand if there is real motivation for it.

 

[Zack Birlew]

Having a front anamorphic would not work since it has to focus separately from the lens itself. this is the case if using an anamorphic lens attachment from a projector.

But that's not entirely the case. Otherwise, adapters like the Panasonic, Century Optics, Optex, etc. anamorphic adapters wouldn't exist. Because they screw onto filter threads, they have to be able to spin, but that's just to align the adapter to the lens properly. Yet, if you mounted the adapter onto rods and just slid that towards the front of the lens, you wouldn't have to do any alignment. Using a projector lens, yes, you would need to have focusing capabilities for the screen, however, for a camera, all you need is the anamorphic optical element to squeeze the image. It's no different than using a wide angle attachment.

 

[mikeburton]

Beautiful Mike. Just gorgeous. Were they shot on RED? Maybe it shows how much those late 60's, early 70's movies influenced me and drove me into the business in the first place but I love those looks. I'm very excited about the ET Pana mount. Saw Star Trek last night and the flares and bokeh entertained me more than the movie itself (OK, I'm no trekky).

Richard Darge has started an interesting thread here: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30519 about using old lenses on digicams to back off the ultra sharp look. I think it fits well with this thread. I'm going to do some tests on our RED once it comes back from the current job.

Thanks! All those still frames were shot on the RED with the Lomos. I whole heartedly agree that the older glass and RED together have a much more organic look.

 

[Steve Gal]

But that's not entirely the case. Otherwise, adapters like the Panasonic, Century Optics, Optex, etc. anamorphic adapters wouldn't exist. Because they screw onto filter threads, they have to be able to spin, but that's just to align the adapter to the lens properly. Yet, if you mounted the adapter onto rods and just slid that towards the front of the lens, you wouldn't have to do any alignment. Using a projector lens, yes, you would need to have focusing capabilities for the screen, however, for a camera, all you need is the anamorphic optical element to squeeze the image. It's no different than using a wide angle attachment.

That happens to also be a 16x9 anamorphic and specifically for a zoom lens but yes I guess there can be an anamorphic attachment like this.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I can see where it might create a more dreamlike or hallucinogenic feel in those types of sequences.[...] is there a real reason for it or is it just an inside thing for photographers and directors to notice?

Because it looks cool!

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

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.

I'd be less skeptical about what you just said if you backed it up with I dunno maybe a screen shot or 2 and some video examples, video is best cause you can photoshop an anamorphic look but getting it in post with motion is a whole different ball game.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

That's why I said "from purely technical perspective". If you just want contrast and low noise (a clean look), wide aspect ratio, there is no reason to use anamorphic. This does not say you shouldn't use anamorphic lenses for artistic reasons. If you are interested in anamorphic distortions and flare, sure, shoot with anamorphic. This is different. But, you can't "undo" them in the post.

 

[Nova Invicta]

The argument for anamorphic

The argument for anamorphic

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.

 

[Alex Carr]

There is a 4x5 Filter that adds Horiz Flares,etc... can't remember the name but its twice as thick as a normal filter and costs about $10k.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Firstly I disagree with Pawel Achtel the lazy way of today is to simply say fix everything in post.

But that's not what I said. Spherical simply gives you more choices to create the look in post because it is "clean". You can apply most (but, agreed, not all) elements of the anamorphic look to it. Of course, if you are absolutely certain that this is the look you want and nothing else then, yes, it is better to shoot anamorphic for artistic and economical reasons. My point was that "clean" spherical image gives you more choices, including those artistic choices that you can not achieve with anamorphic lenses.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

does anyone have some good examples of "POST anamorphic flares"?
Something shot spherical, yet added the horizontal flare in post?

I am shooting a film this summer, and some scenes require that anamorphic flare look...However, If I can.. I would rather stick with spherical lenses for the entire shoot.

 

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

I want to add something in the mix...

Regular film projection of spherical images in 1:1,85 are using an area of 21mm x 11.5mm to pass the light to project an image in a 400sqft screen... that alone has optical limitations that don't allow the projected resolution to pass the limit of 850 lines.

So when projecting anamorphic images the film area is 21mm x 18.5mm so the light that passes is 40% more. That alone elevates the projected resolution to over 1100 lines.

All these, if you do a test print, is visible by naked eye in a projection...

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.

 

[Shane Kelly]

look at magic bullet look suite, it has a cool anamorphic flare filter. The one thing is that the light source has to be in the picture, whereas with anamorphic lenses it can be outside the frame and creating a flare.
here's a couple of shots from a recent project: