Anamorphic and CGI ? Is it more expensive?Anamorphic cgi special effect
Posted 01 December 2016 - 11:10 AM
My name is Reynald Capurro, i'm about to shoot my first feature in Canada next year and I would like
To know if it is more expensive to shoot anamorphic vs spherical ? Is it more time consuming on the set also? Concerning the visual effects concerned I would say that we might have a little bit of everything.
Blue screen / erasing / mate painting /...
I'll be shooting in Arri Alexa prores XQ with Hawk Vantage ( need to make some comparison test)
Thanks for your help.
Support Cinematography.com and buy gear using our Amazon links!
PANASONIC LUMIX GH5 Body 4K Mirrorless Camera, 20.3 Megapixels, Dual I.S. 2.0, 4K 422 10-bit, Full Size HDMI Out, 3 Inch Touch LCD, DC-GH5KBODY (USA Black)
Posted 01 December 2016 - 12:20 PM
Generally anamorphic lenses are more expensive to rent, they can be harder for focus-pulling depending on your stop (due to the generally shallower-focus), they tend to flare more, and they take more work for a vfx compositor to add elements to or combine elements with due to unique distortions in the lenses. But if they give you the look you want and you can afford them, then give them a try -- fortune favors the bold.
Posted 01 December 2016 - 01:40 PM
The best way to deal with visual effects today in this modern high-res digital world, is to shoot the plates open gate, with a high resolution camera (Red Dragon 6k) which gives you a lot more information for reframing. Using spherical lenses, prevents any distortion from effecting the visual effect shot. This technique is common place with big movies that shoot on green screen.
In the past, visual effects shots would be captured with VistaVision or even 65mm for a larger negative that holds up better through the optical effects workflow. I can't think of a good example of anyone using anamorphic lenses on green screen shots, maybe David remembers.
Posted 01 December 2016 - 04:14 PM