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 :)

What does Anamorphic mean/imply ?

B

bob wilson

Active member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So the EPIC cameras are 'Anamorphic' according to the specs. I realise this has two possible meanings.

What does this mean exactly, and what does it imply in terms of practical use/what we will see?

Thanks
 
Anamorphic

Anamorphic

So the EPIC cameras are 'Anamorphic' according to the specs. I realise this has two possible meanings.

What does this mean exactly, and what does it imply in terms of practical use/what we will see?
Click to expand...

The current RED ONE camera also supports "anamorphic"

What it means is that when using a 2:1 anamorphic lens - which translates a 2.4:1 aspect source image into a 1.2:1 aspect area on the sensor ...

...the camera also records in 1.2:1 aspect, but stretches that back to 2.4:1 aspect in the monitor path(s)
 
Stuart, a couple of noob questions:

1. Does that mean that you have to 'unsqueeze' the image in post?
2. For the 2/3" Scarlets, approximately how much resolution do we lose shooting 2:1 3k? 2.4:1 3k? If any at all.
________
Blonde Latina
 
on the red one, 4k 16:9 is 4,096x2,304. 4k 2.1 is 4,096x2,048. so you lose vertical resolution proportionally to your aspect ratio the wider you go, not sure what the numbers would be on scarlet.

If you are showing your film in a theater, they all have projector lenses that desqueeze anamorphic, so you would not desqueeze in post yourself. otherwise you can do it yourself in post.
 
So does this mean that when I upload images from scarlet to the mac, they will look "squashed" in FCP?

Forgive my ignorance..

Will we notice a difference in image quality for the scarlets when compared to the anamorphic red one or epics?
 
Alec Morris said:
on the red one, 4k 16:9 is 4,096x2,304. 4k 2.1 is 4,096x2,048. so you lose vertical resolution proportionally to your aspect ratio the wider you go, not sure what the numbers would be on scarlet.

If you are showing your film in a theater, they all have projector lenses that desqueeze anamorphic, so you would not desqueeze in post yourself. otherwise you can do it yourself in post.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the answers. After debayering, it seems like shooting 2.4:1 @ 3k on the 2/3" Scarlet might be falling close to 2k. Hmm... Does shooting at the wider ratios help with storage? I mean, less data/frame?

Now all we need to know are the exact specs of the 2/3" Mysterium-X, or, X16. :D
________
Iolite Handheld Vaporizer Review
 
The images are squashed or skinny because the anamorphic camera lens made them that way. If you want to watch them stretched back out horizontally to look normal, you could convert them.

Don't confuse an anamorphic lens with a 2X squeeze (2:1) with RED's 4K 2:1 recording mode, which has nothing to do with anamorphic photography.
 
yes. anamorphic cinematography can only be done with anamorphic lenses. a non anamorphic super wide aspect is nothing more than a cropped image.
and it won't look the same as an anamorphic image. wes anderson is a current director that uses anamorphic lenses quite a bit if you want to get an idea. or watch blade runner
 
Yep, lots of reasons to go anamorphic and lots of reasons not to. However, it all boils down to personal taste really. Some would say that VFX are harder to do with anamorphic but that doesn't stop Michael Bay when it comes to "Transformers". There's a kind of back and forth about sharpness with anamorphics too, some say they're too sharp and some say they're not sharp enough. Epic movies like "Lord of The Rings", which you would think would have used anamorphics for it's massive landscape shots, actually used simple Super-35 film and cropped it to the 2.40:1 aspect ratio.
 
A couple films/filmmakers to check out if interested in filming anamorphic.

P.T. Anderson's films are typically anamorphic (incredible flares in Punch Drunk Love).

Heat (Michael Mann) is an incredible example of anamorphic photography and composition. I believe Dante Spinotti was the cinematographer.

It's hard to put a finger on what it does differently than spherical lenses, but it's something special for sure. The horizontal "streak" flaring is usually the easiest way to spot anamorphics at work (though some people use filters to accomplish this effect).

I've worked on a few videos and a feature that used older Lomo anamorphics on the Red, and I have to say, I really loved the result. I'd be interested to see how the Hawk 1.3x lenses work with the 16x9 sensor (no longer requiring a crop or sensor window to accomplish 2.40), though I doubt it will have quite the same effect visually as the standard 2x squeeze.
 
2K RGB from 3K RAW

2K RGB from 3K RAW

After debayering, it seems like shooting 2.4:1 @ 3k on the 2/3" Scarlet might be falling close to 2k. Hmm...
Click to expand...

Hmm... indeed, a < $5K camera doing what > $50K 2/3" 3-chip cameras can't..
 
A. Clint Litton said:
A couple films/filmmakers to check out if interested in filming anamorphic.

P.T. Anderson's films are typically anamorphic (incredible flares in Punch Drunk Love).

Heat (Michael Mann) is an incredible example of anamorphic photography and composition. I believe Dante Spinotti was the cinematographer.

It's hard to put a finger on what it does differently than spherical lenses, but it's something special for sure. The horizontal "streak" flaring is usually the easiest way to spot anamorphics at work (though some people use filters to accomplish this effect).

I've worked on a few videos and a feature that used older Lomo anamorphics on the Red, and I have to say, I really loved the result. I'd be interested to see how the Hawk 1.3x lenses work with the 16x9 sensor (no longer requiring a crop or sensor window to accomplish 2.40), though I doubt it will have quite the same effect visually as the standard 2x squeeze.
Click to expand...

Thanks A. Clint, this is interesting, I will check those films out.

Interestingly, I always thought they used filters to achieve that horizontal flare "look" - apparently I'm wrong, it's anamorphic lenses.

It would be good to have some online examples of anamorphic vs. non anamorphic to see the actual difference in results - seeing as its the results that we go for!
 
Ok, I have a better idea of what anamorphic looks like now - and I recognise it from a lot of music videos and films. Love it. Anamorphic clip on RED ONE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuakVga2Kco&feature=related

So, to check my understanding: The SCARLETs can work with anamorphic lenses, but you have to view a 'squashed' image on the LCD. The EPICS & RED ONE have an option to 'unsquash' this image so you can view it correctly on the LCD. Is this right?

Thanks for bearing with my ignorance! If the above is correct,

Could we not just use an anamorphic lens on the SCARLETs and then un-squash in post?

Could we not just set the "Custom" mode on a SCARLET to unsquash the image?

Can the anamorphic "look" and lens flare not be achieved with a plugin for FCP?
 
Data Rates

Data Rates

I didn't mean it like that. The 'Hmm...' was part of the next sentence. :)
Click to expand...

Sorry - then the question / comment was -

Hmm... does shooting at the wider ratios help with storage? I mean, less data/frame?

Yes it does mean that ...
 
bob wilson said:
Could we not just use an anamorphic lens on the SCARLETs and then un-squash in post?

Could we not just set the "Custom" mode on a SCARLET to unsquash the image?

Can the anamorphic "look" and lens flare not be achieved with a plugin for FCP?
Click to expand...

Using anamorphics and de-squeezing in post is very much possible...it's how people shot anamorphic with Build 16 (only build 18 gives you a desqueezed monitor path, AFAIK). Basically you're setting 1.2:1 aspect ratio guide (almost 4:3) in the center of the 16:9 sensor/monitor. Afterwards, you run it through redrushes with a 2x Fit Width and crop off the extra width that was recorded on either side of the 1.2:1 guides, and voila, you'll have a 2.40:1 image.

Don't know about an available custom mode, but shooting while the image is squashed isn't so awkward after a while, though I would always prefer to view the image in the intended aspect, desqueezed while shooting as I think it makes every composition more intentional, cutting out some of the guesswork. I'm sure plenty of features have shot in this manner, and many people use an external monitor that can desqueeze the image for proper viewing (i.e. director's monitor), but it would be awesome if at least the EVF had this capability too, for the operators.

As such, a great feature for future cameras and monitors would be an optical desqueeze option, similar in effect to the optical viewfinders on Panavision cameras where there's a toggle that compensates for viewing through anamorphic lenses. As I don't see optical viewfinders making their way into the Red stream, this would be achieved in a digital fashion, but it would be great to make it an independent feature from shooting mode.

The only advantage, then, to shooting in Anamorphic mode on the current beta build (18) is that it automatically windows the sensor to the 1.2:1 crop, so all you need to do with footage is desqueeze (no longer need to crop via redrushes or other means, which increases the transcode times)...less math involved, more simplified workflow.

Re: plugins for FCP, I'm sure something exists somewhere in the Final Cut Studio/after effects realm, but I'm of the belief that whenever something can be done in camera on the day, it will fit more seamlessly. Sometimes it's noticeable and distracting when people add flares, etc after the fact, which in my mind takes away from the viewing experience, rather than making a solid contribution. That said, I'm sure some people on these boards could post examples of these effects being made in post that work very well for the footage...in any case, I would say do as much testing as possible and see what yields the best results for you.

Cheers,
Clint
 
Thanks Clint, so that means I'll be able to shoot with an anamorphic lens on the SCARLET, and just crop+stretch in post.

I'm getting my list together for the scarlet, it looks like an anamorphic lens will be on that list. I've been searching for anamorphic lens prices online in the UK, but all I can find are "anamorphic adapters" - what is an adapter? I'm assuming I won't need an adapter on the Scarlet? Does anyone know where its possible to purchase anamorphic lenses?

Cheers
 
Bob, you are aware that a good anamorphic lens is gonna run you at about $40K?
 
I believe an anamorphic adapter is something that goes onto a spherical lens and squeezes it to make the increase in horizontal resolution when doing so with proper anamorphic lenses isn't feasible. I don't know that this is really the way to go, as it would seem to me that this is more of a trick, but I can't honestly say from personal experience.

As Big stated, this could be a sizable investment, and may not make sense depending on which Scarlet you're planning to purchase (FF Scarlet may make sense, with greater sensor height, but maybe not so much on a 2/3" 16x9 sensor). At the very least, I would try to rent some anamorphics and test them out with your camera to see if it's worth the investment.
 
BigOBCD said:
Bob, you are aware that a good anamorphic lens is gonna run you at about $40K?
Click to expand...

Bob, check out this link. http://www.red235.com/

While many wouldn't call Lomo a good anamorphic lens compared to what is on the market today (I don't personally know as I have never shot with them), if you can find a good set you can be one step closer to achieving the look that you are going for. There are a few threads on members here that have purchased Lomos and are really, really happy with them. Look up Mike Burton...he has a few threads on the lenses he purchased and has screen shots. I think his set of 3 only cost him $5 or $6k, but I think he did a lot of research to find them. Anyhow, the link above appears to show a set of 4 Lomos (supposedly in good shape) being sold for around $19k. I think a number of redusers have already bought from here as well.

Just wanted to pass along the info,

Omar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top