Jump to content


Photo

mumping in anamorphic lenses


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Jason West

Jason West

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Mumbai, India

Posted 12 March 2010 - 12:59 PM

Hi,
Can anybody explain the mumping of anamorphic lenses how it actually occurs on a elemental level, and how one avoids it.How well does the anti mumping in the newer g series lenses work.
thanks,
jason West
  • 0

#2 Jean-Louis Seguin

Jean-Louis Seguin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Other
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 12 March 2010 - 02:46 PM

Hi,
Can anybody explain the mumping of anamorphic lenses how it actually occurs on a elemental level, and how one avoids it.How well does the anti mumping in the newer g series lenses work.
thanks,
jason West


Edited by Jean-Louis Seguin, 12 March 2010 - 02:49 PM.

  • 0

#3 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11941 posts
  • Other

Posted 12 March 2010 - 04:59 PM

Now, call me a Johnny-come-lately part-timing not-knower, but - "mumping"?
  • 0

#4 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 March 2010 - 05:07 PM

I thought the mumps (a problem with the Cinemascope lenses) had been more or less sorted with the Panavision lenses in the 1960s. Here's one explanation:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/CinemaScope

Edited by Brian Drysdale, 12 March 2010 - 05:09 PM.

  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 March 2010 - 07:41 PM

I thought the mumps (a problem with the Cinemascope lenses) had been more or less sorted with the Panavision lenses in the 1960s. Here's one explanation:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/CinemaScope


The problem was always exaggerated by Panavision to sell their lenses over B&L CinemaScope lenses, but it actually existed... basically the squeeze ratio dropped off as you focused closer, but the unsqueezing was a constant 2X in movie theaters, so the net result was that close-ups looked "fat". Panavision basically moved the problem off of the in-focus area and into the out-of-focus area... which now get too much of a squeeze as you focus closer, but the subject remains the correct squeeze, hence why out of focus lights become vertical ovals in anamorphic shots.

But there is a bit of a slippery slope in that regards and I've noticed that occasionally faces look like they have the wrong squeeze to them, but it could be just that the focus is slightly off.

You see the stretched background here in this frame:
Posted Image

On the original negative, it would look like this. You see basically that the background is over-squeezed, more than 2X, so it still looks skinny when unsqueezed:
Posted Image
  • 0

#6 Oliver Christoph Kochs

Oliver Christoph Kochs
  • Sustaining Members
  • 323 posts
  • Film Loader
  • Germany

Posted 12 March 2010 - 08:52 PM

Could it be that the human eye is used to round bokeh effects and tries to interpret them as a circle.
Thus the optical effect makes the face wider.
Kind of like a skinny person wearing a horizontally striped shirt would look - let's exaggerate - fat.
  • 0

#7 Jason West

Jason West

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Mumbai, India

Posted 12 March 2010 - 10:01 PM

hi,
thamnks for the answers,
I also had not heard of mumping until recently whilst reading panavisions literature on the G-series, where on page two it specifically says "the lenses utilize panavisions patented anti-mumping technology" sounds like something new to me not something that was eradicated in the 1960's.it goes on to say there is no "hump" in the gear set, so the lenses maintain their cylindrical profile , any offers on how this works.
  • 0

#8 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 March 2010 - 04:50 AM

hi,
thamnks for the answers,
I also had not heard of mumping until recently whilst reading panavisions literature on the G-series, where on page two it specifically says "the lenses utilize panavisions patented anti-mumping technology" sounds like something new to me not something that was eradicated in the 1960's.it goes on to say there is no "hump" in the gear set, so the lenses maintain their cylindrical profile , any offers on how this works.


Reading that section, I've a feeling the "hump" may be a bump on the lens casing that housed the gears in the earlier lenses, but this is no longer there on the G series.

I'm not sure if this is the patent involved (perhaps bought by Panavision), but quickly scanning through, it does seem to address the "mump" issue:

http://www.freepaten...com/2890622.pdf
  • 0


CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Glidecam

Opal

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport