What is your take on shooting anamorphic lenses for non-widescreen production?

[Kamilla Lusa]

Hi,

I have access to vintage anamorphic Lomo lenses for an upcoming short film. I feel that the story really calls for a kinda soft look and I really like typical anamorphic effects like oval bokeh and light streaks. However upon discussing it with the director I also feel that the appropriate digital cinema distribution format would be 1.85:1
What is your take on this situation? Am I missing something important? Will I run into trouble shooting anamorphic and cropping the sides of the frame? No previous experience with anamorphic glass whatsoever.

Thanks,
Kamilla

edit: Upon posting this I quickly realised that this topic would be more suitable for the cinematography section of the forum. If any moderators should stumble upon this, I think this thread should be moved, thanks.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see unsurmountable problems. Keep in mind that with a 2X squeeze, the sensor area used to end up with 1.85 : 1 has to be half that width, i.e. .925 : 1, less wide than it is tall. Or in other words, if the max pixels you can record vertically is 2700 on the Epic, then you will end up using a frame that is 2497 x 2700 for a 1.85 image that has a 2X squeeze. So at best, you have just enough resolution for a 2K or HD finish.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Here is 2x anamorphic in 1:85

We do some work in 2.4 with 2x ana and then crop out a TV version in 16:9 usually then working in 2592x1080... which is quite nice as you got some pan in scan matieral to pick from on the sides... But usually I manage to wrestle it and convince both the agency and the end client that wider is better...

and it is:

alexa full sensor, gets really nice and wide:

Epic full sensor gets crazy wide. but we shoot 5k FF alot of times when doing anamorphic VFX shots as we then get a almost 32:9 frame to pan and scan and track. Nice to be able to put tracking dots in the side of frame and such and then in post we cut down to a good 2.4

here is a epic full frame 2x ana.

https://vimeo.com/50692877

with the lens vinjeting a bit. But on the 50mm and up the hawks cover full Epic sensor. below is a 50mm still more than soft in the corners

http://www.flickr.com/photos/108703124@N02/10855709754/

 

[Gabriel Przybysz 2]

Exactly as David wroted. Only one more suggestion - remember about widest possible lenses - after cropping you will still keep resonable FOV. Rest should be benefit - if your set is well serviced. And remember - you will be limited to horizontal shooting, anamorphic dont like fast tilt too - especialy wide because of noticeable distortion

 

[Gabriel Przybysz 2]

I don't see unsurmountable problems. Keep in mind that with a 2X squeeze, the sensor area used to end up with 1.85 : 1 has to be half that width, i.e. .925 : 1, less wide than it is tall. Or in other words, if the max pixels you can record vertically is 2700 on the Epic, then you will end up using a frame that is 2497 x 2700 for a 1.85 image that has a 2X squeeze. So at best, you have just enough resolution for a 2K or HD finish.

Exactly as David wroted. Only one more suggestion - remember about widest possible lenses - after cropping you will still keep resonable FOV. Rest should be benefit - if your set is well serviced. And remember - you will be limited to horizontal shooting, anamorphic dont like fast tilt too - especialy wide because of noticeable distortion

 

[Björn Benckert]

Exactly as David wroted. Only one more suggestion - remember about widest possible lenses - after cropping you will still keep resonable FOV. Rest should be benefit - if your set is well serviced. And remember - you will be limited to horizontal shooting, anamorphic dont like fast tilt too - especialy wide because of noticeable distortion

The distortion can be kept out in post if wanted so no big problem.

 

[Gabriel Przybysz 2]

The distortion can be kept out in post if wanted so no big problem.

Right, indeed.
Bjorn, great stuff, as usually.