Jump to content


Photo

Normal 35 compared to Anamorphic 35


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Sanji Robinson

Sanji Robinson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • International

Posted 17 June 2018 - 10:39 AM

If printed directly from the negative and projected on a screen, how will an image shot with 35mm film using spherical lenses in 1.85 compare to an image shot with anamorphic lenses and desquezed in 2.40?

 

Will the anamorphic image appear much sharper on the screen?

 

Assume both lenses are equally sharp.

 

Please someone who has seen both projected.


  • 0

#2 Sanji Robinson

Sanji Robinson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • International

Posted 17 June 2018 - 11:08 AM

to clarify I mean how does a anamorphic print compare to a 1.85 print, both made directly from the negative? in terms of sharpness that is


  • 0

#3 Sanji Robinson

Sanji Robinson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • International

Posted 17 June 2018 - 11:20 AM

asc book says:

 

"the principal disadvantage is the actual size of the 1.85 format on the negative. Because of the smaller area, 1.85 is noticeably grainier than anamorphic 2.40. is is not as noticeable in the original negative stage and projecting in small screening rooms, but becomes more pronounced when projected in large theaters."

 

 "the most salient advantage is the much larger negative area. A 55% increase in negative area over 1.85, results in finer grain, better opticals, and an increase in apparent sharpness (I say apparent, because while a similar image photographed in 1.85 may be sharper, the increase in grain and greater magni cation actually make it appear less sharp).  the difference becomes most apparent going through the dupe negatives."

 

 

"Many people believe it is an advantage to shoot 1.85 because spherical lenses are sharper than anamorphic 2.40’s lenses.  is is a misconception. It is true that spherical lenses are o en sharper than anamorphic; however, the much greater negative area used with anamorphic more than makes up for the subtle di erence in resolution from spherical lenses. Properly executed camera tests comparing the two formats always reach this conclusion."


  • 0

#4 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4159 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 June 2018 - 12:29 PM

So most photochemical finishes are done open gate, meaning the film is and printed at 1.33:1 aspect ratio of the OCN (in this case 1.85:1) safety and there is a matte applied in the projection. Thus, you're only using part of the negative for projection. This was OK back in the film days because 1.85:1 screens were always SMALLER than 2.40:1 screens.

With 2.40:1, you're using the entire height and width of the print, so it is generally a crisper image. However, theaters will generally project on a larger screen so the additional resolution isn't really noticed.

The thing is, spherical lenses are generally crisper then anamorphic's. So all of that crispness you retain for anamorphic workflow, is kinda lost with the softer production and projection lenses.
  • 0

#5 Sanji Robinson

Sanji Robinson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • International

Posted 17 June 2018 - 12:55 PM

thank you but read this written in the ASC book

 

"Many people believe it is an advantage to shoot 1.85 because spherical lenses are sharper than anamorphic 2.40’s lenses.  is is a misconception. It is true that spherical lenses are sharper than anamorphic; however, the much greater negative area used with anamorphic more than makes up for the subtle difference in resolution from spherical lenses. Properly executed camera tests comparing the two formats always reach this conclusion."

 
has anybody seen both side by side?

  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20105 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 June 2018 - 01:34 PM

Sure, Ive seen and shot standard 1.85 and anamorphic. Anamorphic tends to be more detailed on the big screen compared to a projected 1.85 print unless you shoot a lot below f/4, where the softer focus and shallower depth of field will tend to counteract the advantages of the larger negative area of anamorphic (other than the finer grain). Conversely, though, the shallower depth of field can make close-ups pop out more from the background, giving the illusion of more sharpness.

It matters less today since few people show 35mm prints and often when they do, they shrink the height of the 2.40 image to fit the screen. So comparing 1.85 to 2.40 is a bit apples and oranges. You should shoot whatever gives you the visual effect you want and 1.85 spherical looks different enough from 2.40 anamorphic that it becomes more of an aesthetic choice (and a practical one) more than a technical one regarding resolution.
  • 0

#7 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4159 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 June 2018 - 01:17 AM

Yea, David is spot on about modern workflows and how the added negative space seems negated.

Honestly... with film prints and film projection, the bigger screen of 2.40:1 is always nice.
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

CineLab

Visual Products

The Slider

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

CineLab

CineTape

The Slider