Your Anamorphic Workflow?? Frame/resolution choice, etc

[Richard Gale Optics]

Hi there guys.

My name is Richard Gale and i run a small optical outlet in Great Britain. Some of you might know my work (Dog Schidt Optiks, etc). I hope this topic is ok with Mods. Please let me know if my talking about business is not allowed here. I'm not really trying for a hard sell, but am more here to get some feedback on current processes you guys go through when shooting with anamorphic lenses. I'll touch upon a little about what we're up to here since we're finalising a new anamorphic lens system and want to make sure we provide you guys with as much useful information as we can.

Since most anamorphics worth their weight are 2x, I am aware that due to the need to crop away the sides, a large proportion of your RED sensor areas never make it to the delivery stage. I've been watching with excitement the developments of the weapon 8k VV chip (since the height of the sensor permits full capture of the image circles of a 2x anamorphic lens - a 4:3 frame on the VV sensor is about the same size as a 4:3 frame on alexa). However other than the VV chip, most of you are limited to a maximum of around 15mm of sensor height, and when windowing in for a 4:3 frame you;re losing a lot of your horizontal sensor area.

Because of this I have been working on a new 1.5x anamorphic system designed to work in front of primes - allowing you to anamorphosize a set of Ultra primes, S4's, Mk3 superspeeds or k35's for example. Being a 1.5x squeeze it's gonna be more suited to the circa 16:9 chips employed on RED cameras since less cropping will be required in order to obtain a 2.40:1 delivery. (shooting 8k 16:9 on helium will create a desqueezed ratio of 2.66:1 meaning only a small amount of the frame needs to be cropped away for a standard 2.40:1 delivery). In this situation you'd partner the anamorphic lens with primes from 24mm up to 135mm.


So, I'd love to hear some of your thoughts regarding shooting anamorphic on RED. Ideally your workarounds for when using 2x lenses. and the limitations you might run into when using anamorphics on your cameras.

thanks in advance and please let me know if you need more information. i don;t want this to turn into a sales pitch so please no talk of prices etc. but I'd love to hear some insight into how yo;re getting the most from anamorphics on the RED system, and how you see things moving in the future?

cheers!

 

[Phil Holland]

Not truly something that needs to be worked around in practice.

Commonly in the world of RED people use the 6:5 format to produce a proper 2.40:1 aspect ratio image using 2X optics. And 16:9 or 4:3 for 1.33X. Recently there has been a resurgence in 1.25X glass as well.

I'm also a 1.5X user and it hasn't ever been a true standard, but there's merit with it.

The key thing about anamorphic lenses for me is the look they create. Is it pleasing or not?

Overall 2X has my "heart" when it comes to anamorphic glass. However, the Isco 1.5X does indeed do nice things, which is why I'm excited about your Olivia project.

I should add that the Isco 1.5X anamorphic glass was designed to be used with a 3:2 aspect ratio image and RED indeed has 3:2 aspect ratios supported in camera

RED currently supports 2X, 1.3X, 1.25X in camera.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

On the camera side I just desqueeze for monitoring and usually shoot for 16:9 which works out to nearly square. On the new Helium that's still a full UHD worth of horizontal pixels. Most anamorphic lenses are already so soft/artifacty that I think 3.5k horizontal is plenty to match the lens.

For the post side, I just set my pixel aspect ratio to 2.0 and then stay in anamorphic as long as possible until the final output.

As to 1.5x... not terribly interested. I think RED has enough resolution that I don't mind cropping. There is no benefit in my opinion to shooting anamorphic for "increased resolution" like the bad old days. Modern lenses are so damn sharp (Dog Schidtt excluded ) that just shooting spherical is going to end up giving you way more sharpness than anamorphic, even on VV. So the only thing I really get out of anamorphic is the perspective shifts, flares and bokeh which are all dramatically diminished with the 1.3x/1.5x range of anamorphic.

 

[Richard Gale Optics]

Not truly something that needs to be worked around in practice.

Commonly in the world of RED people use the 6:5 format to produce a proper 2.40:1 aspect ratio image using 2X optics. And 16:9 or 4:3 for 1.33X. Recently there has been a resurgence in 1.25X glass as well.

I'm also a 1.5X user and it hasn't ever been a true standard, but there's merit with it.

The key thing about anamorphic lenses for me is the look they create. Is it pleasing or not?

Overall 2X has my "heart" when it comes to anamorphic glass. However, the Isco 1.5X does indeed do nice things, which is why I'm excited about your Olivia project.

I should add that the Isco 1.5X anamorphic glass was designed to be used with a 3:2 aspect ratio image and RED indeed has 3:2 aspect ratios supported in camera

RED currently supports 2X, 1.3X, 1.25X in camera.

Thanks very much for your valuable input Phil. What do you think is the most limiting aspect of the iscorama lenses for you? have you used them on the VV chip yet?

That's great news about the 3:2 mode. providing a 2.25:1 desqueeze and a nice middle ground between 2.40:1 and 1.85:1 - cropping vertically or horizontally to determine delivery format.

I'm hoping zeiss release a 35mm otus some time soon - a set of 28mm, 35mm, 55mm and 85mm otus lenses would probably be my go-to for olivia-scope and the helium chip.

once I'm sorted out I'll have to get a unit to you for evaluation - maybe schedule a lens + camera marathon if you have a free gap in your schedule - or a interesting project where olivia might fit the bill....

 

[Richard Gale Optics]

On the camera side I just desqueeze for monitoring and usually shoot for 16:9 which works out to nearly square. On the new Helium that's still a full UHD worth of horizontal pixels. Most anamorphic lenses are already so soft/artifacty that I think 3.5k horizontal is plenty to match the lens.

For the post side, I just set my pixel aspect ratio to 2.0 and then stay in anamorphic as long as possible until the final output.

As to 1.5x... not terribly interested. I think RED has enough resolution that I don't mind cropping. There is no benefit in my opinion to shooting anamorphic for "increased resolution" like the bad old days. Modern lenses are so damn sharp (Dog Schidtt excluded ) that just shooting spherical is going to end up giving you way more sharpness than anamorphic, even on VV. So the only thing I really get out of anamorphic is the perspective shifts, flares and bokeh which are all dramatically diminished with the 1.3x/1.5x range of anamorphic.

thanks Gavin. I agree with all you say. Anamorphics always degrade overall resolution when compared to a similar speed and field of view captured with spherical glass. What I would contest is that during your point regarding the relation between sensor area/resolution you don't consider the effect of sensor area on the perspective and depth of field. For instance, if I told you you could use a bigger sensor area and a longer focal length and usually a faster aperture by using more sensor area this is obvious. but what often gets overlooked is that you gain a greater ability to separate your in focus areas from your out of focus areas. Because the OLIVIA SCOPE unit has been designed to be nearly optically transparent (in terms of reduction in resolution, CA, smear, contrast etc). If i told you that rather than using a 25mm 2x anamorphic of t2.8 on a 4:3 frame on a dragon chip (with the associated reduced resolution), you could instead use a 25mm t1.3 master prime wide open + the 1.5X Olivia Scope and a 16:9 sensor area (around 1/3rd more sensor area), you'll have a similar framing, but with greater overall resolution, capability to obtain depth of field around 3 times shallower and with almost two stops of transmission advantage. does this make sense or change your point of view? I suppose I need to shoot some direct comparisons to really illustrate this phenomenon.. regarding your final point - I think my main priority is to try and undo all of the damage previous non 2x anamorphics have done to people's opinions about reduced squeeze anamrphs

 

[PatrickFaith]

For me the real problem has nothing to do with the horizontal crop, as Phill mentions the crop works about perfect and I have plenty of pixels at 6k. Main issue for red is not having open gate, and I find I often need a wider less on the vertical as something is cut off(i.e. my current lowest anamorphic is 35 mm master prime). Another fairly common thing is the master prime is too big for some work, but I don't have anything in a lighter lens that I like to match(I know some guys have a bunch of really nice kowas, but those are both rare and expensive now).

 

[Phil Holland]

Thanks very much for your valuable input Phil. What do you think is the most limiting aspect of the iscorama lenses for you? have you used them on the VV chip yet?

That's great news about the 3:2 mode. providing a 2.25:1 desqueeze and a nice middle ground between 2.40:1 and 1.85:1 - cropping vertically or horizontally to determine delivery format.

I'm hoping zeiss release a 35mm otus some time soon - a set of 28mm, 35mm, 55mm and 85mm otus lenses would probably be my go-to for olivia-scope and the helium chip.

once I'm sorted out I'll have to get a unit to you for evaluation - maybe schedule a lens + camera marathon if you have a free gap in your schedule - or a interesting project where olivia might fit the bill....

Yep. I've used my "best copy" of the Isco 50mm f/2.8 a few times. I've had 10 of these lenses come through me over the years. For me the biggest advantage of that lens is the size of course, however, the f/2.8 optics aren't the most inspiring. Especially the iris.

When myself and others pair it with various other lenses they aren't corrected for the lens itself and often reveal too much spherical distortion, even on longer glass. That's the real pain here. However, there's better lenses out there and Olivia will handle them from what I can tell. Close focus is always a pain with the Isco and I rack a lot.

I'd love to check out what you've been up to. I have a deep love for anamorphic glass and capture. For me it all comes down to the look at the end of the day. Most of my favorite anamorphic glass is 2X, but there's certainly room especially on larger formats for a 1.5X. Similar to how 1.25X plays well on say 65mm.

 

[Marc Wielage]

So the only thing I really get out of anamorphic is the perspective shifts, flares and bokeh which are all dramatically diminished with the 1.3x/1.5x range of anamorphic.

What we have seen in side-by-side camera tests with spherical and anamorphic glass is also a natural tendency for vignetting, the size "breathing" during rack-focus changes, and a narrower depth of field. I look on all these things as technical flaws, but you can make a good argument that all of these things are also acceptable as a creative look if that's what the DP wants. I see all this stuff in Fear the Walking Dead (shot with traditional Panavision anamorphics), but it doesn't bother me.

I do have to laugh when I see Gotham, which will throw in horizontal anamorphic lens flares from time to time, but I don't think it's an anamorphic show.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

Hi Richard, here's a write-up I posted awhile back about shooting with the 1.5x Iscorama on Red cameras: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread...PHIC-ADAPTOR-IS-Posible&p=1641356#post1641356

Of the current crop of cameras, I find Red cameras to be the most flexible for supporting non-standard anamorphic lenses, mostly down to user-customizable frame/crop guides down to the pixel level. Really simplifies extracting non-standard camera aspect ratios in Resolve or Redcine-X. Also, desqueezing custom ratios can be easily done with most on-board monitors these days.

I find the biggest downside to be down-time on set due to the overly complex mechanics of a dual-lens system. My Iscorama has the Van Diemen Mk2 mod which offers many of the efficiencies of PL cinema lens shooting - non-rotating front housing, focus gear (though not robust enough for use with wireless follow focus motors!), long focus throw with 3' close focus, calibrated and well-spaced focus scale, lens support foot, etc. I have no complaints with the image at all, it is gorgeous.

However, the cost, rarity, and fragility of the lens causes it fall into a very narrow niche which makes it an impractical choice in most use cases. It's too expensive for everyday run-and-gun shooting, too rare for multi-cam interviews, and too finicky for high-end jobs which can afford Cookes or Kowas scope lenses. Which sort of leaves low-budget passion projects. That would be my main concern with any dual-lens system. Footage can look great though.

 

[Fergus Cahill]

Hi Richard, Big fan of your work. Cant wait to see the Olivia glass finalised.

Phil and Co. may be able to interject and correct me, but the one thing that I have noticed from the Helium sensor. ( I haven't received it yet, so this is going off others footage) Is that with the increased resolution (or pixel pitch) Helium seems to 'enhance' the artifact's of the glass that is being used. There has been a lot of people freaking out about CA, thinking its the sensor when it has been the lenses.

It sounds like you are ontop of CA, but with people freaking out about seeing "Magenta Fringing" for the first time, I thought it was worth mentioning.

 

[Craig Lees]

Hi Richard,

Didn't feel like a sales pitch at all!

There is no work around really for anamorphic 2x shooting on REDs, you just have to shoot with a little crop as the best you can do is shoot 6:5 for a scope aspect ratio in order to maximise the greatest height possible from the sensor to produce the widest shot you can from your widest lens.

What would be a neat solution is a kind of focal reducer akin to a metabones adaptor to maximise the height of the sensor for all of us red operators who can't afford a VV (and for those still waiting for one!).

At the moment, for wides I stick on my 35mm and move the camera back as far as possible but a real pain sometimes for interiors but everyone puts up with it because they love the look ; )

Cheers.

Craig Lees
ED & SX UK
Fd SSC & Lomo Anamorphic Sets

 

[Richard Gale Optics]

Thanks to everyone for your insights. It may be that I need to invest in a red camera finally. or lease a contemporary model like the Epic W Helium for a month or so. Please keep your discussion going! R

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

One more thing I would add is that there is usually a trade-off between larger, heavier, front-element anamorphic lens/adapters which can allow the use of wider focal lengths and smaller, more nimble lens/adapters with limited wide-angle capability. While wide focal lengths are often necessary to fill out a lens set, a whole set of big-heavy lenses may be a deal-breaker for many smaller productions that are used to working with small camera packages. I'm noticing that small scope lenses like Kowas and Hawk V-Lites have been extremely popular while larger scope lenses seem to be less so. Obviously this is market-dependent, but there is something to be said for making new lenses as small and compact as possible - more Hawk Mini/Zeiss Master Anamorphic/Panavision C/G Series, and less Arriscope/Panavision Primo/Elite. Modern cinematography style is pretty reliant on small compact rigs, handheld, gimbals, real (often small) locations, and small crews. Just a thought.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I say skip the front element thing and make a full serie of prime anas. It´s difficult enough with anamorphics to keep them collimated aligned etc. fiddling around with a front element does not make things easier. Also I find when shooting anamorphic you need to swap lenses a lot more often, then to jump from one lens to the next with a front element is, I think something for us hobbyist, the professional AC´s will just skip it and go for real ana´s they are death scared even when using such as it´s more difficult to pull focus etc.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

Also I find when shooting anamorphic you need to swap lenses a lot more often, then to jump from one lens to the next with a front element is, I think something for us hobbyist, the professional AC´s will just skip it and go for real ana´s they are death scared even when using such as it´s more difficult to pull focus etc.

This is an excellent point, well said. Unless you are only targeting the hobbyist market, I don't think a dual lens system is realistic. Add in the fact that producers are pushing for shorter prep days (or none at all) and a camera package these days often comes from multiple sources in a wide range of conditions, no professional camera department is going to want to add more chaos to that situation.

 

[Craig Lees]

Hi Richard,

I don't know if you're based in London but I literally just received my Epic-W allocation (have two other different REDs too) & should arrive in a couple of weeks and am keen to shoot some stuff in the evenings if you are game? Maybe drop me a Private Message?

Cheers.

Craig Lees
ED & SX UK
Fd SSC & Lomo Anamorphic Sets

 

[Richard Gale Optics]

Thanks for all the new replies!

@Bjorn and @Satsuki I get where you're coming from. Though I'd be interested to know how you;d feel about a system that did just 'work' without collimation issues. Operators would simply set their prime to infinity and do all focusing on the anamorph.

The optics in this unit are designed to work with lenses from 28mm up to 135mm on 8k helium / 6k dragon or 24mm upwards on normal s35mm. or 35mm-40mm on 8K VV.. - the optics have been designed (corrected for CA, smearing, etc) for primes as fast as master primes. And even when testing on my LEAF APTUS-II 10 medium format back I am seeing little to no degradation to the image quality.

If i told you that by integrating a single olivia scope lens onto the front of a master prime 25mm, 35mm, 50mm and 75mm, and that as long as the master primes are set to infinity, the focus point on your follow focus stays the same regardless of your focal length of your prime lens. So a preston or RT motor can be left permanently installed to the focus gear on olivia scope and aligned without even needing to be touched. - there is a static auxiliary rail mount on the side of the anamorphic specifically for ff motor fitment so the ff motor fitment doesnt hinder sliding of the anamorphic back and fourth for prime changes

Is the need to slide the anamorphic forward on the 19mm rails to change your master primes enough of a problem to deter you from achieving clean t1.3 anamorphic footage from the full sensor area of a red camera? If those specs are mouth watering, in what instances would this performance be desired enough to force you to work around the inherent weight of the lens (which is way heavier than any of the lightweight options). this aint a drone or gimbal lens - that's for sure!

I'm of the belief that heavy weight setups still have a place - for instance, some people still feel it's worthwhile carrying around 1000ft magazines of 35mm film. -Or even 65mm film! I'm pretty sure that if RED cameras were 15kg beasts most of the films we'd see from red shooters would have more of the genuine Hollywood aesthetic since users would be forced to work around weight.

 

[Richard Gale Optics]

Hi Richard,

I don't know if you're based in London but I literally just received my Epic-W allocation (have two other different REDs too) & should arrive in a couple of weeks and am keen to shoot some stuff in the evenings if you are game? Maybe drop me a Private Message?

Cheers.

Craig Lees
ED & SX UK
Fd SSC & Lomo Anamorphic Sets

Thanks Craig. I'm in Bristol but am regularly in London. I'll give you a shout some time soon! Would be good to do some Helium + Olivia Scope natural light evaluation.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

I'm very interested in this Lens as x2 scope with S35 RED cameras is a no go for me until Red decides to make an 18mm high sensor.
Wich is not going to happen with Helium (even though we begged for ;-) ).

Cropping sensor is not much a resolution loss problem than more loosing the sensor size and Fov wich is a counter productive effect.
I better shoot spherical on the FF 1.94:1 and cropping slightly to 2.39:1 than cropping the x2 ana frame to 4:3.

Pat

Ps would this work on a zoom lens (without being parfocal)?

 

[Richard Gale Optics]

I'm very interested in this Lens as x2 scope with S35 RED cameras is a no go for me until Red decides to make an 18mm high sensor.
Wich is not going to happen with Helium (even though we begged for ;-) ).

Cropping sensor is not much a resolution loss problem than more loosing the sensor size and Fov wich is a counter productive effect.
I better shoot spherical on the FF 1.94:1 and cropping slightly to 2.39:1 than cropping the x2 ana frame to 4:3.

Pat

Ps would this work on a zoom lens (without being parfocal)?

Thanks Patrick. It's irritating that a nice 18mm height was not specified on the new h35 sensor - I can only imagine it was to protect the 8k dragon chip or a possible helium 8k/12k vv??


It was the scarcity of 18mm height (or 4:3) sensors, and the inherent limited compatibility of current 2x anamorphics that prompted me to go along the 1.5x direction. the reduced squeeze made it easier to design a ultra fast design - and i hope that the added speed and reduced dof(when required) goes some way towards making up for the reduced defocus distortion we love about 2x units). Additionally as you point out, the sensor area is maximised sicne less frame needs to be removed to achieve a 2.40:1 ratio.



The lens will work on zooms and theoretically a zoom wouldn't need to be parfocal since as long as focus is maintained at the infinity point of the zoom lens it'll stay collimated. to test a zoom set the zoom to widest and focus at a distant telegraph pole, now zoom in and see if the pole goes out of focus. if it stays in focus then OLIVIA SCOPE will too!