Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Shooting Anamorphic vs Widescreen for TVC

steve green

steve green

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
Thousand Oaks, Ca
Hi everyone,
What is the difference in the final look for broadcast as far as aspect ratio on a 16x9 TV. Will Anamorphic be "skinnier" then widescreen? If the two aspects are the same on TV then what's the advantage to shooting Anamorphic lenses? Thanks, as always for any insights.
 
Purely the look of anamorphic. Shallower depth of field, field curvature, flares, etc. The stuff that makes it look anamorphic. The aspect ratio would be the same, it's just all the cool stuff ;-)

Nick
 
Anamorphic isn't necessarily a type of aspect ratio, though 2.40 : 1 is the most common, which would require a letterbox to display on a 16x9 monitor. Traditional anamorphic lenses have a 2X horizontal squeeze so once unsqueezed by 2X, you get a very wide shape -- if you used a 1.20 : 1 area of the sensor, then you'd end up with a 2.40 : 1 image.

So if you only wanted to fill a 16x9 TV screen but use a 2X anamorphic lens, you'd end up only using a .8888 : 1 area of your sensor to get an image once unsqueezed that was 1.7777 : 1 (16x9).
 
Thanks, David.....I guess what I'm asking is, if I shoot widescreen on my Dragon with spherical lenses will the end result, on TV, be the same size as shooting with anamorphic in an "anamorphic" setting on the Dragon?
 
Nick Gardner said:
Purely the look of anamorphic. Shallower depth of field, field curvature, flares, etc. The stuff that makes it look anamorphic. The aspect ratio would be the same, it's just all the cool stuff ;-)

Nick
Click to expand...


Thanks, Nick....That makes sense.
 
Actually, when I am shooting anamorphic, and need a telephoto shot, I'll switch out of anamoprhic mode and into wide screen, and shoot the telephoto shot on a spherical lens and then pop back into anamorphic world for the next shot.

Nick
 
There are TV shows shooting digitally with anamorphic lenses as a "look," then blowing up to 16x9 for broadcast. Normally, I'd say this is a bad idea (no vertical reframing room), but Fear the Walking Dead did this for their first season and it's a fantastic-looking show.
 
steve green said:
Thanks, David.....I guess what I'm asking is, if I shoot widescreen on my Dragon with spherical lenses will the end result, on TV, be the same size as shooting with anamorphic in an "anamorphic" setting on the Dragon?
Click to expand...

Broadcast HD is 1920 x 1080 (1.7777 : 1 aka 16x9). If you shoot 6K HD on the Dragon, you are recording 5568 x 3132 pixels, which is a 1.7777 : 1 / 16x9 aspect ratio, which is why it is called "6K HD". You'd downsample this in post to 1920 x 1080. If you shoot 6K WS, you are recording 6144 x 2592 pixels, which is a 2.37 : 1 aspect ratio, so to show that in HD, you'd have to letterbox the 2.37 image into 16x9.

If you shoot 6K 6:5, which is the anamorphic mode, you are using a 2X anamorphic lens and recording a 3792 x 3160 pixel image, which is a 1.20 : 1 aspect ratio, which once unsqueezed becomes 2.40 : 1 -- whether you want to unsqueezed it by doubling the horizontal pixel dimension or by cutting the vertical pixel dimensions in half is up to you, but eventually you'd have to downsample the results to a 2.40 : 1 letterboxed image inside a 16x9 HD recording.

So yes, more or less, 6K WS spherical is 2.37 : 1 and 6K 6:5 anamorphic becomes 2.40 : 1 once unsqueezed. Close enough.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Broadcast HD is 1920 x 1080 (1.7777 : 1 aka 16x9). If you shoot 6K HD on the Dragon, you are recording 5568 x 3132 pixels, which is a 1.7777 : 1 / 16x9 aspect ratio, which is why it is called "6K HD". You'd downsample this in post to 1920 x 1080. If you shoot 6K WS, you are recording 6144 x 2592 pixels, which is a 2.37 : 1 aspect ratio, so to show that in HD, you'd have to letterbox the 2.37 image into 16x9.

If you shoot 6K 6:5, which is the anamorphic mode, you are using a 2X anamorphic lens and recording a 3792 x 3160 pixel image, which is a 1.20 : 1 aspect ratio, which once unsqueezed becomes 2.40 : 1 -- whether you want to unsqueezed it by doubling the horizontal pixel dimension or by cutting the vertical pixel dimensions in half is up to you, but eventually you'd have to downsample the results to a 2.40 : 1 letterboxed image inside a 16x9 HD recording.

So yes, more or less, 6K WS spherical is 2.37 : 1 and 6K 6:5 anamorphic becomes 2.40 : 1 once unsqueezed. Close enough.
Click to expand...


Allright, David, that's what I'm looking for......So the end result, not taking into account the lens characteristics, is about the same looking frame on a 16x9 monitor.......Now we just need to weigh the pluses and minuses of the anamorphic lenses. I've never been a big fan of the horizontal flaring......
 
If you don't like the aberrations/character of anamorphic (e.g. curvature, vertical bokeh, horizontal lens flares), then I'd go Wide Screenspherical. It's generally cheaper, "easier," but with a wide aspect ratio. IMO, the framing for 2.4 aspect ratio (whether spherical or anamorphic), takes you into a different world from 16:9. I've operated several anamorphic shows, but I just shot my first feature in spherical Wide Screen and was very happy with the decision.
 
Jim McKinney said:
If you don't like the aberrations/character of anamorphic (e.g. curvature, vertical bokeh, horizontal lens flares), then I'd go Wide Screenspherical. It's generally cheaper, "easier," but with a wide aspect ratio. IMO, the framing for 2.4 aspect ratio (whether spherical or anamorphic), takes you into a different world from 16:9. I've operated several anamorphic shows, but I just shot my first feature in spherical Wide Screen and was very happy with the decision.
Click to expand...

Jim, that's exactly the way we're leaning......we think for our TV spot the widescreen feel is perfect but the anamorphic cost and hassle is unnecessary.
 
steve green said:
Allright, David, that's what I'm looking for......So the end result, not taking into account the lens characteristics, is about the same looking frame on a 16x9 monitor.......Now we just need to weigh the pluses and minuses of the anamorphic lenses. I've never been a big fan of the horizontal flaring......
Click to expand...
There's also some inherent vignetting and a short depth-of-field in the classic anamorphic lenses. No question to me, it is a distinctive look, and I understand why some people find it appealing. I'm positive there was another recent TV series that shot in anamorphic but delivered in 1.78 for broadcast, and I was impressed by how sharp it was and how well they controlled the flares except when they deliberately wanted to use them for an effect.

No question, anamorphic lenses are traditionally heavier, cost more money, and aren't as fast as spherical lenses. There are trade-offs either way, but having lots of choices is a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top