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 :)

Soderbergh is a wild man...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deanan said:
Must be lime flavored kool aid :)
Click to expand...

Haha. :) Although, a number of Viper people tend to like that green tint right out of the camera.

Jannard said:
I think a specific anamorphic mode is in our future...
Click to expand...

Cool. Could this also mean a possibility for anamorphic glass from RED?
 
to David Mullen ASC

to David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC said:
...
Of course, I'd still love to see someone make a set of 1.33X anamorphic lenses for use on 16x9 sensor cameras...
Click to expand...

David,
can yo kindly explain me how to acheive 1:2,39 proportion when using 16x9 sensor and set of 1.33 anamorphic lenses? i am calculating and getting 1:2,36 instead of 1:2,39. where is the trick? is that 1:2,36 image little croped later or what? i simply do not understand this.

thank you,

filip
 
I'm pretty lost. So I'm going to give myself a shot and see if maybe I got it.

You shoot with a certain part of the sensor. Then the anamorphic lens stretches it 2x's and then you stretch the rest in post? What is the advantage? Just to be able to use an Anamorphic lens? And why can't you use the anamorphic lens any other way?
 
Hmm lime flavored or brackish water kool aid (bayer pattern). Come on guys the Red just has the wonderful luxury of end users never seeing what its raw bayer pattern actually looks like. Its the advantadge of a data workflow over a video workflow which is the way it should be done. Really with a good modern DDR system you never have to look at what the camera is actually recording and thats exactly what Graeme has developed with Redcode RAW.

As far as the lime flavored Koolaid lets see where the red one is in 6 years and see how many released features it has under its belt ( a lot i hope) and then I'd say compare it to the viper.
 
car3o said:
I'm pretty lost. So I'm going to give myself a shot and see if maybe I got it.

You shoot with a certain part of the sensor. Then the anamorphic lens stretches it 2x's and then you stretch the rest in post? What is the advantage? Just to be able to use an Anamorphic lens?
Click to expand...

Yes. I think you got it 100%. Let me ATTEMPT to redeem myself with this post...

You put an anamorphic lens on the Red. This projects a squashed image onto the sensor (the left and right parts of the 16:9 image recorded by the sensor are black).

EDIT: Uh, they're not actually black, it's just that the info there can't be used unless you're planning to project at 3.5:1 ultra-widescreen or somethin' (thanks Mr Mullen)

The advantage is that you get the anamorphic look. Eg:
1. cool oval bokeh (oval out of focus highlights) instead of round bokeh (very, very difficult to fake this in post)
2. cool oval lens flares and blue streaks (can be faked in post and the streaks can be faked with a filter, but it's nicer to do them in camera, right?)

The Viper has what people (like me, confusingly and rather erroneously for this context ;) call an anamorphic mode because it outputs 2.35 to HD-SDI in a squashed way to maximize 2.35 detail BUT, as Deanan pointed out, these modes use spherical lenses. So you don't get the cool bokeh, flares, etc. I thought this was what Jim was talking about when he talked about anamorphic on a Viper because even if you wanted to (and you wouldn't, because the resolution loss would be too great), you can't use 35mm cine anamorphic lenses on a Viper (or an F900, or F23 or Varicam) because they don't 35mm sensors.

In theory, anamorphic would be a weak spot of a 16:9 digital camera such as Red, especially when comparing to full-aperture 35mm film. While film cameras shoot anamorphic partly to increase recorded resolution by spreading the image across the whole full-aperture piece of film, with 16:9 digital you are decreasing recorded resolution, because you're only throwing your image onto the middle of your sensor. It's the opposite of the film process.

So what Jim's excited about is that Soderbergh is confident enough in the resolution of the Red that he feels that he'd prefer to shoot with the Red "at its worst", rather than 35mm "at its best".

Also note that Soderbergh could have used, say, the Arri D20 (which has a 4:3 sensor designed for anamorphic), if he wanted to stay digital and if he was concerned about the quality of the Red with anamorphic lenses. But he didn't because it seems that even a fraction of the Red sensor is good enough.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
car3o said:
I'm pretty lost. So I'm going to give myself a shot and see if maybe I got it.

You shoot with a certain part of the sensor. Then the anamorphic lens stretches it 2x's and then you stretch the rest in post? What is the advantage? Just to be able to use an Anamorphic lens? And why can't you use the anamorphic lens any other way?
Click to expand...

Hey, welcome.

The anamorphic lense squeezes the image into a square. In post you stretch it out to a wide rectangle (1x2.40) or in the case that you are making a film print you just leave it squeezed and crop off the sides.

You aren't gaining much technically by doing this on RED, versus just cropping to 2.40. You are just trading horizontal rez for vertical. But anamorphic lenses have certain optical properties, a certain look, certain kinds of flare, a special way of going out of focus, and they render out of focus lights as ovals. I think that is why Soderberg is making the choice to use them.

Check out one of my favorite movies, Heat by Micheal Mann DP Dante Spinotti, to get an idea what that look is all about.

Cheers,
IBloom
 
You just stretch it out for viewing purposes in post -- what you'll send out to 35mm film will still be squarish with a 2X squeeze.

However for home video and digital projection versions, you'll convert it into an unsqueezed image, probably letterboxed for 16x9 and 4x3 home video.

Right now, I don't think you are cropping the sensor in-camera; the anamorphic lens' projected image has a 2X squeeze and probably covers most of the sensor, maybe with some slight vignetting on the wilder angle lenses (maybe not) -- either way, you can't use all of the projected image onto the full sensor because the aspect ratio is too widescreen. You have to crop it so that the normal unsqueezed image is 2.39 : 1.
 
Bruce Allen said:
...with 16:9 digital you are decreasing recorded resolution, because you're only throwing your image onto the middle of your sensor.
Click to expand...

With 16:9 you aren't actually decreasing resolution that much when choosing anamorphic, only about 10%. Red's current aspect ratio of 2:1 is what makes for the great sacrifice in resolution when going anamorphic, to the tune of about 30%.
 
John Cordell said:
With 16:9 you aren't actually decreasing resolution that much when choosing anamorphic, only about 10%. Red's current aspect ratio of 2:1 is what makes for the great sacrifice in resolution when going anamorphic, to the tune of about 30%.
Click to expand...

Ohh... sorry, have been away, hadn't noticed the whole 2:1 thing on the Red.com page.

So, the Dalsa anamorphic lenses would be a perfect fit then, because they are designed for their 2:1 sensor?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
The 2:1 aspect ratio on Red is temporary. The sensor itself is 16:9, and 16:9 4k recording will likely be enabled soon.
 
Jeff Brue said:
... As far as the lime flavored Koolaid lets see where the red one is in 6 years and see how many released features it has under its belt ( a lot i hope) and then I'd say compare it to the viper.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I suggested that got a me a cheap jab that has since morphed into a flip-flopping debacle:wink:
 
Jeff Brue said:
Hmm lime flavored or brackish water kool aid (bayer pattern). Come on guys the Red just has the wonderful luxury of end users never seeing what its raw bayer pattern actually looks like. Its the advantadge of a data workflow over a video workflow which is the way it should be done. Really with a good modern DDR system you never have to look at what the camera is actually recording and thats exactly what Graeme has developed with Redcode RAW.

As far as the lime flavored Koolaid lets see where the red one is in 6 years and see how many released features it has under its belt ( a lot i hope) and then I'd say compare it to the viper.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and agreed again. Again, have no idea how this relates to original kool-aid reference which was about anamorphic on the Viper being 1K. But that's fine because I think we have moved on and the many flavors we now have are pretty funny.

Mardi_Gras said:
Exactly what I suggested that got a me a cheap jab that has since morphed into a flip-flopping debacle:wink:
Click to expand...

Mardi Gras, if you still feel angry, PM me some more. But try to read my original post again and understand it so you can respond properly instead of going off on a tangent.

I stand by my original statement that suggesting the Viper can do anamorphic at "1K" is drinking kool-aid.

Viper does not do: "true anamorphic" at 1K. You can't even stick a 35mm anamorphic lens on a Viper. I didn't think Jim was talking about this at first because, quite frankly, it doesn't make sense.

Viper does do: "anamorphic" at 1.9K. They call it anamorphic because it squashes the 2.35 image to fit the 16:9 signal. Fincher calls it anamorphic because it does 2.35. But as pointed out by Deanan, that is using a spherical lens. So no cool bokeh.

Viper could also do (if you wanted to make it look bad): 2.35 cropped out of 16:9, giving 1920x817, which equals 1.5K, and the Viper isn't exactly the sharpest thing on the planet so its effective resolution might be a little lower. That's what I thought Jim was talking about (since it's the only combination of the words "viper" "anamorphic" and "crop" that makes any sense).

You seem to want to make it look like I was suggesting that:
a) the Viper is better than the Red (it's not, Red beats it in almost every way)
b) the Viper will shoot more films than Red within first 5 years or whatever (it won't, Red will crush it)
c) I would ever use a Viper (wrong, I'd use a Red)

On a positive note, we now have some pretty funny definitions of kool-aid (brackish is my fave and lime-colored is a pretty apt one for the Viper). And if anyone ever actually does get "1K" anamorphic footage out of the Viper (maybe sticking on that old 16:9 Century Optics adapter you have back from the DV days might work ;) send us a screenshot and I'll send you a photo of me drinking spherical or anamorphic kool-aid of your choice.

Jim is really nice and has apologized when he shouldn't have had to. I've apologized and I'm happy to do it again.

Okay, I'm going to get back to trying to carve oval aperture discs for my Lensbaby in order to get that oval bokeh now...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Bruce, it takes a big man to apoligize.... LOSE SOME WEIGHT!:usd:
 
Hey, thanks ibloom. I appreciate it. So basically it's about the look SS desires.
-Rh

ibloom said:
Hey, welcome.

The anamorphic lense squeezes the image into a square. In post you stretch it out to a wide rectangle (1x2.40) or in the case that you are making a film print you just leave it squeezed and crop off the sides.

You aren't gaining much technically by doing this on RED, versus just cropping to 2.40. You are just trading horizontal rez for vertical. But anamorphic lenses have certain optical properties, a certain look, certain kinds of flare, a special way of going out of focus, and they render out of focus lights as ovals. I think that is why Soderberg is making the choice to use them.

Check out one of my favorite movies, Heat by Micheal Mann DP Dante Spinotti, to get an idea what that look is all about.

Cheers,
IBloom
Click to expand...
 
Hi Jim,

This has probably been discussed before, so pardon me if it has... is there any chance of Red making its own set of anamorphic lenses? I think it'd be great if you did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top