ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

12 years, 4 months ago - Matt Lovell

hi i have used anamorphic adapters with primes - it looks great but the main issue with the adapter route was that you have to set the focus distance on the adapter AND the lens attached to the adapter ... so you cant do focus pulls or ride the focus in any way ....ps we used it with a gh2 and an fs700

12 years, 4 months ago - Tom Sykes

David, whilst he may be cropping the image when recording and affecting the usual FOV, I think what Paddy was originally suggesting is cropping the image completely by letterboxing it in post, which may achieve somewhat the "look" of an anamorphic adapter or lens in relation to the aspect ratio, but for me, the beauty of the shooting anamorphic comes with the characteristics of anamorphic itself.

There's the obvious;

- oval bokeh
- horizontal flares

but then there's also;

- the ability to shoot close ups and still having space in the frame to see the background, this increased FOV is also beneficial to cropping in post as it retains the resolution of the image.

I think this is why Olly wants to shoot anamorphic, for the whole look it achieves, not what all the kids are doing on Vimeo to make it look "Cinematic", whilst I don't discredit people doing this, I can't help but feel most only do so to achieve this vision they think is Cinema.

Often a question I have heard is, "That looks so much better, but why?", in relation to banging on a 2:35:1 letterbox in FCP or something of the likes, which is sad for me, as it seems really false and takes away from learning to frame properly for 2:35:1 Cinemascope, or rather shooting and making a 1:66:1 frame work (1:78:1 for true 16:9), learning the advantages and disadvantages of shooting different aspects.

If you're still thinking of going down this route Olly, I would recommend hiring lenses if you can, as by using adapters you are losing light due to the amount of glass you'll be shooting through, it won't be drastic but i'm sure you'd rather have that extra stop you could lose (appx.).

Also, I say go for it, as you'll learn a lot shooting with different kit, rather than doing any changes in post, or by using a filter to create flares, which I think is the easy way out, and whilst it may save time, money and other expenditure, you can't replace knowledge that is gained through mistakes or achievement in the field.

If you end up using an adapter, try and find one with a 1.5x squeeze, this will get you close to 2:66:1 as you can, with a 2x squeeze, you will still need to crop a lot in post as it gives you about 3:55:1 aspect, thus cropping further degrading the image somewhat.

If you can find an anamorphic adapter which has a 1.35x Squeeze, then you're onto a winner, as this will get you as close to 2:35:1 as you possibly can without cropping anything in post.

If you can find one cheap, try looking for a Panasonic AG-LA7200 and adapt that for your 7D.

I hope you have the time to sort it ;)

12 years, 4 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

David and Tom, you were both right

Initially I suggested cropping the top and bottom of the image to give the 2.35 ratio. Then when it was clear Olly was going to use an anamorphic lens for the sake of using the lens's other characteristics (chiefly the bokeh and flares), so his 16:9 native ratio would leave the image *too* narrow when the pixels were stretched to give the correct aspect ratio - so cropping would still be necessary on the vertical edges.

Even cropped on the vertical edges, it still leaves 2538 x 1080 pixels in the image. Not all NLE's will handle this well. It's entirely possible that the whole image will have to be scaled to fewer than 1080 lines in order to maintain the aspect ratio - be interesting to see how Final Cut handles it :-)

12 years, 4 months ago - Matt Lovell

ps gearfactory rent a set of pl mount anamorphics for about 200 a day - those are probably your best bet .... we did most of a feature with the adapter but we had to move the camera to maintain focus which was fine because it suited the style... if it was up to me id rent some ...

12 years, 4 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Your heart seems set, so have fun. Just bear in mind you will still be cropping the image, only horizontally this time, and the filter/adaptor will probably lose as much useful light as you plan on gaining. If light is really an issue, don't shoot on a small sensor format 7D.

Aesthetically, well yes, the failings and limitations of the anamorphic lenses do have a certain aesthetic that most DoPs had to work around, creating a 'look'. Bokeh itself will, I suspect, be more of a function of the actual lens elements and aperture leaves. As for the smeary lens flares, it still sounds less grief to me to fake them in the few seconds you'll have them in any normal film than to tie yourself into a complicated workflow when the first thing you do is to step out of the workflow into digital anyway. But that's your producers call to make, and if that's you, enjoy it!

By the way if you're feeling creative, why not trouble your local now fully digital cinema (and most now are) and see if you can buy the old anamorphic projection lens from them, then make your own filter frame? There will be a glut of them in the country and despite being fairly good if old glass, the secondhand uses are limited, so hobbyist lens makers might get some bargains!

12 years, 4 months ago - Olly Ginelli

David - Thanks for your information, I am avoiding filters for the reason that they will simply create lens flare and not achieve true anamorphic. Tom has summed it up quite perfectly. Anamorphic has a distinct aesthetic that serves purposes that will never be fully achieved in post or with filters. Although I appreciate your recommendation.

I am very much an advocate of doing as much in front of the camera as possible, and avoiding the growing "lets do it in post" attitude that Tom has referred to.

Matt - Thanks for your info! Through my research I have heard similar things regarding racking focus. I guess its something i'll have to work into the storyboard. Who likes rack-focus shots anyway? ;) I will no doubt be looking into Gearfactory and thanks for the recommendation as my google-searches seem to have have overlooked them somehow.

Rob - Both your shoots looked great. On the Kowa 8z I noticed when light goes directly into the lens theres a bright vignette created. Was that hard to avoid or did it only happen when light was going directly into the adapter? Also, can I ask where you rented or came across these filters?

I must compliment you on your shots they're great, I'd invite anyone to try and recreate the flare at 24 seconds of your Anamorhpic Century video in post. Good luck with making that look genuine...

Tom - As mentioned before you very much hit the nail on the head. And I very much agree with your insight into framing for aspect ratio's in production... From you Matt and Rob have said I think lenses is very much the way forward. Seems like a much less finicky workflow.

I'm glad you share the notion of not taking the easy route out for a cheaper, faster and in the end lesser quality effect. I know it'll be tricky and frustrating but as you said the knowledge gained will be worth it rather than the energy saved only having to drag the alex-4d letterbox matte over my timeline. I'll be looking into the ag-la7200 as well as renting anamorphic lenses.

Once again, thank you all, and also, feel free to get in touch if your London based as I rent lenses and kit for dirt cheap. I'll beat any price and you don't need a reference from another rental company, letterheads or any of that malarky. Equipment listed below! Olly@NostroModo.net

Best

PRODUCTION:
X1 CANON 7D
X1 11-16MM 2.8 TOKINA
X1 16-35MM 2.8 L CANON
X1 30MM 1.4 SIGMA 
X1 70-200MM 2.8 MARK II SIGMA

X1 ZOOM H4N + SENHEISSER HD25 HEADPHONES
X4 7D BATTERIES
X2 32GB 60MB/S CF CARDS
X1 FOLLOW FOCUS + X4 RINGS + CRANK
X1 LCD VIEWFINDER
X1 DSLR BACKPACK
X2 CLAPPERBOARD
X1 MULTI-CARD READER
X1 MONOPOD/QUICK RELEASE PLATE
X1 OPTEKA SHOULDER MOUNT/COUNTER BALACNCED/QUICK RELEASE PLATE
X1 TRIPOD/QUICK RELEASE PLATE
X1 GENUS WIDE MATTEBOX
X4 4X4 TIFFEN FILTERS - O.6 ND GRAD, O.6 ND, SUPERMIST BLACK 1/8, SKINTONE ENHANCER
X1 500W SITE LIGHT
X2 135W SOFTBOX W/ STANDS
X1 18" MULTI SURFACE REFLECTIVE RING

POST
X1 27" IMAC (3.4GHZ 8GB, 2TB, 2GB graphics card) with the latest versions of FCPX, Compressor 4, Motion 5 installed.
X1 Dell XPS 420; 2.4Ghz Quad core, 3gb, 750gb
X1 G-SAFE 2TB RAID1 HARD DRIVE
X2 KRK ROKIT8 MONITORS
X1LACIE RUGGED 500GB
X1 OPTOMA HD230X 1080p PROJECTOR
X1 DURONIC 2X2 METER PROJECTOR SCREEN

SOFTWARE:
X1 FINAL CUT 10.0.7
X1 MOTION 5.0.2
X1 COMPRESSOR 4.0
X1 FINAL DRAFT

12 years, 4 months ago - Olly Ginelli

No I wont be cropping the image? Anamorphic is squeezing the image so I will be un-stretching it to a smaller aspect.
APS-C isn't a small censor its crop factor is the next down from 35mm, micro 4/3 is a small sensor.

But anyway I didn't post this question for opinions on post vs anamorphic workflows, but thanks for your time.

12 years, 4 months ago - David Palmer

Olly, Paddy is correct. You will be cropping the sides of your sensor to achieve a 1:1.2 ratio image that will then be unsqueezed to the 1:2.39 anamorphic widescreen. Have you considered the Vantage blue streak filters? They can give quite nice results on spherical lenses...

12 years, 4 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Hope it goes well and that you get the support/answers you're after :)

12 years, 4 months ago - Robert McGowan Camera-operator-london.co.uk

I shot this with an anamorphic lens,
https://vimeo.com/52681695
the Kowa 8Z,
and this with a century optic:
https://vimeo.com/52852080
which fits in front of my Nikon primes, you have to unsqueeze in post afterwards, shooting is quite tough having to control 2 lenses for focus, gotta be nimble with those fingers... I always wanted to shoot a promo with it but nothing suitable ever came up so just experimented in the end

12 years, 4 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

I would say 'why anamorphic?'

If it's the 2.35 aspect ratio you want, frame and crop for it. Distorting the image with an expensive lens just leaves you post production headaches, especially as you want a digital workflow so aren't projecting anamorphic format.

12 years, 4 months ago - Olly Ginelli

Framing and cropping doesn't achieve the bokeh or lens flare that anamorphic can create when done correctly. Anamorphic is a completely different aesthetic to cropping. Shooting anamorphic on a digital camera allows more pixel/light ratio as the camera is seeing less image with the full use of the censor. Personally I wouldn't trade convenience over style or execution. (Sorry if that sounds arsey but I didn't know how else to phrase it).

Anamorphic projection is a different a completely different kettle of fish. It used to be a workflow for projecting film. not an aesthetic choice. It eventually turned into that however. Theres probably about 10 film projectors left in the country anyway ;)