2.37:1 aspect ratio & RED

[roryhinds]

Can RED record in 2.37:1 aspect ratio?

[Graeme Nattress]

No, you've got to crop down from 16:9, which is what they did for Crossing the Line. It came in handy to have the slop top and bottom for re-framing and stabilisation though.

Graeme

[Stephen Williams]

Can RED record in 2.37:1 aspect ratio?

Hi,

It's a 16x9 sensor, so unfortunately it's letterbox time until the new Dalsa Anamorphic lenses are available.

Stephen

[roryhinds]

Hi Graeme

Do you know anything about the Viper and how it can do 2.37:1 using Thompsons DPM technology?

Thanks
Rory

[Kenn Christenson]

Even with anamorphic, you're probably better of cropping. Anamorphics add yet another layer of difficulty, especially for effects shots, not to mention low light (open apertures,) where they have problems with focus plus, the loss of resolution because of the giant astigmatism you're shooting through.

[Graeme Nattress]

Viper uses funky pixels that are either made up or 3 or 4 subpixels or something, so you've basically got an anamorphic squash on the sensor. There was a thread on this on CML last month I think.

Graeme

[Stephen Williams]

Viper uses funky pixels that are either made up or 3 or 4 subpixels or something, so you've basically got an anamorphic squash on the sensor. There was a thread on this on CML last month I think.

Graeme

Hi Graeme,

That's basically correct. I startedthe thread on CML, was I was having problems with noisy 2.35, due as it turns out to very old software.

Stephen

[d. sweetman]

Even with anamorphic, you're probably better of cropping. Anamorphics add yet another layer of difficulty, especially for effects shots, not to mention low light (open apertures,) where they have problems with focus plus, the loss of resolution because of the giant astigmatism you're shooting through.

Kind of ironic with your signature...which reads..."if it's not difficult, why do it?"

For me the artifacts and extra resolution would be worth it if I was committed to a scope image.

[Kenn Christenson]

There are two kinds of difficulty - one gets you a better result - the other forces you to pull your hair out. I prefer the former, if you don't mind.

Plus, who said anything about a resolution gain. At best you'll probably break even.

[Häakon]

Even with anamorphic, you're probably better of cropping. Anamorphics add yet another layer of difficulty, especially for effects shots, not to mention low light (open apertures,) where they have problems with focus plus, the loss of resolution because of the giant astigmatism you're shooting through.
This is so true; couple it with the fact that you've got 4K worth of resolution to play around with and you really aren't losing anything by cropping. I'm surprised anamorphic has as many followers as it does, to be honest.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Yeah, Even if your shooting 1080p I think your better off cropping.

It just makes things easier in post.

[David Mullen ASC]

In 35mm, anamorphic for 2.39 makes a lot more sense -- almost twice as much negative area compared to cropping Super-35 to 2.39, since the anamorphic frame uses almost the full aperture height of 4-perf 35mm.

[Häakon]

David,

You're absolutely right - I was just thinking more along the lines of how it relates to RED, et al. :-)

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, I'm not sure with a 4K camera how necessary anamorphic lenses are, since even 4K projection just reduces the height to show 2.39 images, so you might as well just shoot in the pixel ratio used for projection.

Generally with anamorphic lenses on digital cameras (compared to cropping 16x9 to 2.35), the increase is more in pixel resolution but not optical resolution, so the results are not necessarily sharper but smoother from the more effective use of pixels. I think that for 2K cameras, there is still an argument for anamorphic, especially if the sensor is closer to 4x3 in shape.

[Graeme Nattress]

Yup, anamorphic only really makes sense with anamorphic projection, and digital projection is all flat.

And yes, for 2k, where you have to blow up to 4k or 35mm for projection, anamorphic makes sense if you have the right sensor aspect to use standard anamorphics. Doing these new half-way-house anamorphics is going to please nobody, not the anamorphic lovers who love that really eliptical bokeh and lens flare, nor the VFX crew who love flat....

Graeme

[Brook Willard]

The only thing I love about anamorphic is the lens flare... and there are options to emulate that... (http://www.vantagefilm.com/en/news/index_28.shtml)

[Häakon]

The only thing I love about anamorphic is the lens flare...
You'll love the new Transformers movie then... I think I counted around 73 of them in the trailer (before I gave up) - and that doesn't include the faux-anamorphic renderings they did on the CG logos at the end. :)

[Chris Kenny]

Still would be neat to have a 4520x1892 (or so) mode, to get 4.5K when shooting 2.39. It's less pixels than 4096x2304, after all.

Not a huge deal, though. With resolutions this high you don't have to worry about every pixel.

[Graeme Nattress]

Chris - we've thought about that internally and once we've got the basic 16:9 modes working and locked in, we'll take another look at this. No promises, but it's on the agenda to be looked at.

Graeme

[David Mullen ASC]

I'd point out that the beautiful 5-perf 65mm Super Panavision / Todd-AO format used for movies like "2001" and "Lawrence of Arabia" was only one-perf taller than 4-perf 35mm, but twice as wide, to get a 2.20 : 1 aspect ratio with spherical lenses and no cropping. So if the resolution starts out high enough, all you have to do is reduce the height to get a wider aspect ratio but keep the quality level up.

Unless your goal is to get the unique distortions of anamorphic photography, in which case that's more elaborate than simply adding a blue horizontal lens flare.

Now there may or may not be some benefit from using the full 16x9 sensor height to get scope images, but it would have to be tested. Like I said, I suspect you'd see smoother images more than sharper images from using anamorphic lenses instead of cropping.

[casey warren]

What exactly is the cause of the blue lens flare in anamorphic?

It does look really cool, but also something that looks better when added in post, so you can control it and place it exactly where you want it.

I'm not sure if they used anamorphic in CRASH, but the lens flares throughout the movie looked stunning.

[Deanan]

Now there may or may not be some benefit from using the full 16x9 sensor height to get scope images, but it would have to be tested. Like I said, I suspect you'd see smoother images more than sharper images from using anamorphic lenses instead of cropping.


I would suspect the same. Adding more glass for the anamorphic
and the additional non power of two scale up (or down but people seem to be talking about more resoultion so scale up assumed) adds more softening
up until the point where you add significantly more pixels that
would otherwise have been lost in the crop. My guess is that
2.37 anamorphic to 4x3 would be worthwhile and 16x9 would
really need to be tested.

4096x2304 (1.78:1)
4096x1728 (2.37:1 extraction)
=576 vertical pixel gain shooting anamorphic 2.37 in 1.78

For the NZ stuff which was shot at 2:1, it's a 320
pixel vertical gain which doesn't seem at all worth it
after an uneven scaling back to square (the scaling
seems much more troublesome than the additional glass
assuming it's done right).

Deanan

[David Mullen ASC]

Anamorphic lenses have vertical cylindrical lens elements that squeeze the image horizontally. A bright light hits that cylinder and spreads horizontally across the surface of the cylinder. I think it's the lens coatings that give it the blue color cast.

Personally, I prefer real lens flares if you want them -- generally lens flares added in post look like... well, lens flares added in post. It's sort of an oxymoron to "control" a lens flare too carefully, because a flare suggests something out-of-control, an optical accident. So flares added in post tend to look non-organic to the scene. Sometimes they work, but half the time I see one in a trailer or movie and it looks like something you'd see in a CGI feature or a computer game, not something a lens would create.

[John Allardice]

Personally, I prefer real lens flares if you want them -- generally lens flares added in post look like... well, lens flares added in post. It's sort of an oxymoron to "control" a lens flare too carefully, because a flare suggests something out-of-control, an optical accident. So flares added in post tend to look non-organic to the scene. Sometimes they work, but half the time I see one in a trailer or movie and it looks like something you'd see in a CGI feature or a computer game, not something a lens would create.


Oh , tell me about it, we went through a good number of man weeks getting the flare recipes right for this...
http://www.johnallardice.com/hyundai.html
...we based the look off the old Russian, Square-Front Lomos, really soft and organic, with a lot of vignetting and more than a little CA at the perimeter of frame.
The flares were all hand built from individual elements in Nuke, BTW.

[casey warren]

Yeah, I do agree, especially if the post lens flare doesnt work within the scene. But when it does, and if it looks real then its pretty nice. I think real lens flares look amazing, but more power to the VFX people when they can make truly realistic and vivid faux lens flares.

However, I think that in many case they add to much flare throughout the scene. I mean one really well done and well placed one looks great, but if you have redundant use of flares, then they become majorly distracting.

[Brook Willard]

Too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Like Michael Bay's approach to anamorphic flares. :)

[casey warren]

Too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Like Michael Bay's approach to anamorphic flares. :)

haha, agreed.:ninja:

[kmikami]

You'll love the new Transformers movie then... I think I counted around 73 of them in the trailer (before I gave up) - and that doesn't include the faux-anamorphic renderings they did on the CG logos at the end. :)

Hahaha, I just rewatched it and you weren't exaggerating!

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, but what if your budget doesn't include vfx and you want flares? Wouldn't it just be easy to get them on the set, plus be more realistic since they are real?

I did a film called "Akeelah and the Bee" and there was no D.I., finished photochemically, so there were only a couple of digital efx in the budget. I shot the movie in 35mm anamorphic so at the end of the movie when she competes in the National Spelling Bee, I could create a sense of chaos as she is surrounded by media lights.

The first shot there is a Steadicam move that goes past dozens of lights randomly flaring the lens -- I lined up a bunch of Dedolights and Tweenies and just pointed them at the camera. Since the camera moves, the flaring is very interactive (plus I used a GlimmerGlass diffusion filter.)


http://www.davidmullenasc.com/akeelah6.jpg


http://www.davidmullenasc.com/akeelah7.jpg

[John Allardice]

Yes, but what if your budget doesn't include vfx and you want flares? Wouldn't it just be easy to get them on the set, plus be more realistic since they are real?

Oh definitely...the only reason we didn't shoot those flares was that the spot was 100% CG, even the factory environment.

I'm a sucker for anamorphic bokeh and short DOF. I'm definitely going to be testing out the anamorphic/side-crop method with the Red in 6 weeks or so.



The first shot there is a Steadicam move that goes past dozens of lights randomly flaring the lens -- I lined up a bunch of Dedolights and Tweenies and just pointed them at the camera. Since the camera moves, the flaring is very interactive (plus I used a GlimmerGlass diffusion filter.)

What lens package were you using on Akeela? PV?

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, Panavision -- Primo anamorphics, except for the Steadicam shots, which were C-series (a 40mm and a 60mm.)

[Gavin Greenwalt]

A really great lens flare is perhaps one of the most difficult of black arts. Adding a lens flare digitally is one thing. Selling it is like an acting performance of subtlety and grace. I rarely see a compositor deliver an oscar winning performance. I do see it happen naturally all the time.

Anyway back to the topic at hand I'm trying to remember but isn't the dalsa chip 2:1? Won't their anamorphic lenses still require a crop? And a follow up question: will RED support non-spherical lenses with adjustable unconstrained viewfinder scaling?

[casey warren]

Yes, I loved the lens flares in Akeelah and the Bee, the movie rocked, nice work. The flares really added a nice effect in those shots.

[dalemccready]

If the goal is to get the distinct anamorphic flares of the Primos and such, why not shoot with them anyway on the red and crop out the sides?

If you really want them for an effect, like for a music promo or something you could do an unsqueeze then crop in post. Could be fun, and there are enough pixels to play with

[Häakon]

There are enough pixels to play with
That's essentially my feeling, too. People are going to put out quality material even in the 2K mode with this thing. Shaving off a few rows on the top and bottom isn't going to make enough of a difference to matter.

This is all talking resolution, of course; certainly the proper way to get the elongated bokeh and horizontal flares is by shooting anamorphic... but that comes down mostly to subjective/artistic preference.

[casey warren]

Throughout the movie, I loved the shots where she was at the mic and the camera twirled around her. Very nice.

did you use a Steadicam for these shots?

http://homepage.mac.com/mindcastle/akeelah.jpg

[David Mullen ASC]

That scene had a 180 degree dolly move on track and at the final spelling bee, there was a 360 degree dolly combined with a zoom-out, again on track.

[Brook Willard]

Since the topic has run its course and shifted subject, I'm gonna bump this over to OT.

[casey warren]

David: nice, thanks for the insight, its not often you can directly ask a DP how he filmed something.


Brook: Sorry about taking it OT, just keepin ya on your toes.

But honestly, it must be hard to moderate these forums, do you get any sleep? I've been on these alot lately, but I cant even keep up.