Jump to content


Anamorhic lenses


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 R.PRABHAKAR

R.PRABHAKAR
  • Guests

Posted 19 December 2005 - 05:22 AM

Advice & suggetions required for the use of anamorhic lenses in HD & also conversion to 1:2.35
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 December 2005 - 12:21 PM

First of all, note that HD is native 1.78 : 1 (16x9), either 1280 x 720 or 1920 x 1080 pixels.

The most common and practical technique is to:

(1) compose 16x9 HD for cropping in post to 2.35, make a letterboxed version, and use that to transfer to 2.35 35mm anamorphic. This is how films like "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones / Revenge of the Sith", "Once Upon a Time in Mexico", etc. handled 2.35.

A less common technique is to:

(2) use the Thomson Viper FilmStream Camera, which allows you to compose for 2.35 and record it to fill the 1920 x 1080 pixel HD recording -- sort of an electronic squeeze. The image on an 16x9 HD monitor will have a 1.33X squeeze in order to fill the screen, so in post, you'd use that version for the transfer to 2.35 35mm anamorphic (which has a 2X squeeze) but also make a conversion to a 2.35 letterboxed HD master for HD viewing.

Even rarer is to:

(3) use the Canon 1.33X anamorphic rear-lens adaptor, which is hard to find. This will optically put a 1.33X squeeze to the image to fill 16x9. The Canon adaptor may require you to flip the image electonically in the camera menu if possible.

Trouble with standard anamorphic lenses in 35mm is that they have a 2X squeeze, which is fine since a 35mm frame is nearly square to begin with, but when put into a 16x9 format like HD, which is already 1.78 : 1, you end up with an image which is too widescreen once unstretched, to 3.56 : 1. So you end up cropping the sides to get back to 2.35, so there's no advantage compared to just cropping spherical 16x9 photography top & bottom to get 2.35.
  • 0

#3 R.PRABHAKAR

R.PRABHAKAR
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2005 - 05:26 AM

thanks mr.mullen now it has become a trend in india ppl have started making films in HD so most of the directors or behind it i am palnning to use cinealta it is expansive here they have a FLA(film lens adopter) so planning to use zesis lenses bcoz ultraprime is expensive is it fine?
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 December 2005 - 11:48 AM

A 35mm cine lens on an adaptor for an HD camera would not be as sharp as an HD lens, but it might be OK for you. I don't really have any experience with those adaptors, but I believe you'd have to get the image flipped somehow in the camera's menu, plus it would add to the length of the lens set-up.
  • 0

#5 KETCH ROSSI

KETCH ROSSI
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Director
  • ITALY, now in Hollywood.

Posted 02 July 2006 - 12:14 PM

Hi guys this is my first post, hope to get it right.

I'm to in the process of purchasing a new camera to shoot in HD and need to have a final product in 2.235:1 formato to project directly to digital cinemascope widescreen theathers in Italy, my home town.

The option for me can go from using the Viper filmstream(as David mentioned) or the Sony F950 and this two camera do the same squeezeing format to have a 2.235:1 final, the other choice I explored is to shoot with a 2/3 HD camera using Canon new Anamorphic converter for 2/3 HD camera mount to use with HD Cine lenses,
this will give a 100% HD 2.235:1 final product, no cropping needed, also if choosing Panasonic camera has a optional pakage that comes with a inverter of the immage and a second component must be added to unsqueeze the frame for proper on camera visualization.

The third an less expensive option would be (as David mentioned) to shoot native 16:9 and crop in Post, I my self would love to view further this option but my goal is the final product to be very good 2.235:1 quality projectable image.

The project that I'm working on is for me as important as waht is left of my life, infact it is more important than my life, as I know I have little left of it, and this is my only chance to make the project right so I must use the way that gives best resolt, not sure wich one yet, but as I join this forum I hope to be of hel[p to others as others to be of help to me.

KETCH ROSSI
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 July 2006 - 12:33 PM

You should talk to the digital projection people in your town to find out how they are showing 2.35 images. Some places don't carry the necessary anamorphic lenses for scope and thus use a 2.35 letterboxed 16x9 recording and then crop and zoom out to fill a 2.35 screen. This can look OK but you do lose a little resolution and 1/3 of the light output of the projector.
  • 0

#7 KETCH ROSSI

KETCH ROSSI
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Director
  • ITALY, now in Hollywood.

Posted 02 July 2006 - 02:27 PM

Hi David, if your post is directed to me, yes the cinemas are all equipped with Anamorphic 2.235:1, 2.237:1 and 2.239:1 projection systems, in Venice, Rome, Milan and Nice wich will be the first places were I will be screenning the first clips of the film.

But my main issue remains in wich way to go it will be best for quality picture vs. budget.

I explain:

If the finish resolt I need to get is Anamorphic format of 2.235:1 or so, wich is the most used way in cinematography today and wich gives the best resolts.

Cropping, use of Anamorphic during shotting or use of a camera that those that natively.

Options, procedures of production editing and post in each choice.

Thanks much,
KETCH ROSSI
  • 0

#8 Olex Kalynychenko

Olex Kalynychenko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine

Posted 02 July 2006 - 02:41 PM

I explain:
If the finish resolt I need to get is Anamorphic format of 2.235:1 or so, wich is the most used way in cinematography today and wich gives the best resolts.


At finish, you need film or video tape ?

You not think use traditional 35 mm cine film shooting technology ?
35 mm anamorphic film shooting -processing of film- edit of film - print anamorphic positive copy.
or
35 mm anamorphic film shooting - processing of film - digital film scnner - digital postproduction -
digital film printer of positive copy .
or
35 mm Super 35 film shooting with mask ...... print anamorphic positive copy.
The 2x compression on final stage have very good quality of image.
  • 0

#9 Lance Flores

Lance Flores
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Producer
  • San Antonio/Dallas/Detroit

Posted 02 July 2006 - 03:47 PM

Hi David, if your post is directed to me, yes the cinemas are all equipped with Anamorphic 2.235:1, 2.237:1 and 2.239:1 projection systems, in Venice, Rome, Milan and Nice wich will be the first places were I will be screenning the first clips of the film.

But my main issue remains in wich way to go it will be best for quality picture vs. budget.

I explain:

If the finish resolt I need to get is Anamorphic format of 2.235:1 or so, wich is the most used way in cinematography today and wich gives the best resolts.

Cropping, use of Anamorphic during shotting or use of a camera that those that natively.

Options, procedures of production editing and post in each choice.

Thanks much,
KETCH ROSSI


A lot depend on how much post effects you're going to do. If there is much digital pan & zoom or extensive pixel manipulation then you need the pixel and colour seperation that a f950 or Viper will give you. If your work is mostly documentary with high quality image something like a Panasonic 200 will work just fine and you can buy a couple or more, which is what we did for the documentary and "making of" part ofour next feature(s), also our storyboard/previs work.

If you need to do a lot of or extensive work at post, green screen or extensive digital fx, you need to go with a camera with a hight pixel density and seperation like the f950 or Viper. We are doing evaluation right now and are working with the Viper people now. I've never used the Viper before but just got my hands on upprocessed footage, or rather data, for 2.37:1 and working with it on a Avid Nitris. Right now, I like the Viper Filmstream far better for the wide screen work. If the evaluation continues to go as the way it is now, we will purchase four.

We should be finished by next weekene. drop me a line and I'll let you know things work out. The f950 is a good camera, but it looks like for all the 2.35:1 work we're doing, it's going to be the Filmstream for us.

Depending on the how you're going to use the data/frames you capture will be the criteria for your choice of camera.
  • 0

#10 KETCH ROSSI

KETCH ROSSI
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Director
  • ITALY, now in Hollywood.

Posted 02 July 2006 - 05:20 PM

Hi Olex, I will be dilling only with HD in all they will be no film envolved in any stage of the project.

Hi Lance, some good advice has been given to me in other topics and one is to go with the new Panasonic HDX900 with Canon new Anamorphic converter
or just cropped in post; or use the Panasonic new HDX900 to be also a great camera and also proposed to be used with Canon Anamorphic converter or croopped in post.

If you have a knowlege of the price of the Viper I like to know to see first of all if feets in to my budjet to buy one.

But also please give me an input on choicec between this.

Thanks much,
KETCH ROSSI
  • 0

#11 KETCH ROSSI

KETCH ROSSI
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Director
  • ITALY, now in Hollywood.

Posted 05 July 2006 - 01:58 PM

HI,

THIS IS MY LAST POST ON THIS TOPIC AND WILL NOT RETURN

I'm PURCHASING THE "VIPER FILMSTREAM" CAMERA SYSTEM AS SUGGESTED

I WILL POST FROM ITALY AS THE PROJECT PROGRESSES

THANKS TO EVERY ONE FOR THE ADVICES

KETCH ROSSI
  • 0


Metropolis Post

Glidecam

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Technodolly

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Opal

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products