Soderbergh is a wild man...

[Jannard]

I love Steven Soderbergh's style. He shoots "Guerrilla" with two RED beta prototypes, "Mars" and "Bombay", in the steaming hot jungles of Spain. He wraps and tells film "he has met someone". Then... he decides to be brave (once again) and shoot "The Argentine" in SoderScope. He is now using "Paris" and "Beijing", two of our 25 pre-production cameras, and shooting anamorphic. Who would have thunk it?

It turns out that Steven has so much confidence in RED resolution that he is using only about 2.4K's worth of RED... with a completely different look for each movie.

There aren't many Academy Award winning Directors with as big o' balls as Steven. Gotta love it. You heard it 1st on reduser.net.

Jim

[Elijah Kelley]

2.4K? Jim, does that mean he's shooting that amount of the sensor? Or am I missing something?

[Thom Steinhoff]

I think it means he's masking and only planning to use the center of the sensor.

Does this mean he'll be able to use the 72fps option? Is it possible, since the 2.4K is a bit more than 2K, to expand the resolution and lower the fps so you could set it to "Soderscope" and get, say, 65fps?

Exciting news! I can't wait to see the first trailers, clips and through-the-camera stills.

[dvpixl]

Soderscope? huh? confusion!

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I hope he's got a good Behind the scenes documentary for the dvd/Blu-ray disc revolving around this.

[Billy Summers]

Just means he's squeezing...me thinks?

[Jannard]

He is just using the center of the frame with an amamorphic squeeze. It is pretty awesome how many creative things can be done with plenty of pixels...

Jim

[dvpixl]

ah... he's taking advantage of the different looks you can achieve to tailor his artistic taste. I like that. Sorta like how the end of "28 days later" was shot in film.

[Elijah Kelley]

If he's shooting masked for Sorderscope that means he has to project in 2K then right. No upressing or future proofed 4K? That's interesting and interesting. I'm sure he knows what he's doing. I'm very interested in the "LOOK" afterwards.

[Peter McCully]

If he's using anamorphic then he would only have use for an approx 4x3 aspect ratio hence the 2.4k.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

He is just using the center of the frame with an amamorphic squeeze. It is pretty awesome how many creative things can be done with plenty of pixels...

Jim

That sounds an awful lot like the Viper method to me.

[dvpixl]

the point is... he has choices. and he's using it.

[Jannard]

That sounds an awful lot like the Viper method to me.

Do that with a Viper and you would be shooting 1K! :-)

Jim

[jbeale]

2.4k's worth of Red, hmm. So it is being cropped at each side from 4096 pixels wide down to about 2458 pixels, which gets us from the current default 2:1 aspect ratio down to a 1.67:1 ratio, which could also be written as a 5:3 aspect ratio- is that Soderscope (?)

[Jannard]

2.4k's worth of Red, hmm. So it is being cropped at each side from 4096 pixels wide down to about 2458 pixels, which gets us from the current default 2:1 aspect ratio down to a 1.67:1 ratio, which could also be written as a 5:3 aspect ratio- is that Soderscope (?)

I think that is pretty close... maybe not quite that many pixels wide.

Jim

[Tom Lowe]

A reduser forum member summed it up best regarding cropped vs scaled...

"Crop is Crap"

lmao

[Jannard]

A reduser forum member summed it up best regarding cropped vs scaled...

"Crop is Crap"

lmao

That doesn't appear to be the case here... SoderScope.

Jim

[ChrisLyon]

I'm a scope maniac. I love scope.

[gdv]

He is just using the center of the frame with an amamorphic squeeze.

Jim

Is it an anamorphic squeeze or is it a crop? If you are squeezing you need an anamorphic lens. If that is possible, to mount an anamorphic lens, shoot squeezed 4:3 at 4K and then project it anamorphic? That will be crazy it will give the options to shoot at any aspect ratio that was available in the history of film making and there more than hundred

[Jannard]

Soderbergh is shooting Panavision C-Series anamorphic lenses...

Jim

[David Mullen ASC]

It sounds like he's using a standard 2X anamorphic cine lens on the camera, which means that he will have to crop in post on the sides to get the image back to the standard 2.39 ratio.

If the sensor is capturing at 16x9 (1.78) then the unsqueezed image would be 3.56 : 1 if left uncropped -- and if the sensor is capturing at 2:1, then he would get a 4:1 image when unsqueezed.

So wasting the sides of the captured image in post is necessary to return the width back to a standard 2.39 ratio for release. With a 2X image squeeze, you only need an approx. 1.19 : 1 pixel ratio on the original to get a 2.39 : 1 image.

[Sanjin Jukic]

I love Steven Soderbergh's style. He shoots "Guerrilla" with two RED beta prototypes, "Mars" and "Bombay", in the steaming hot jungles of Spain. He wraps and tells film "he has met someone". Then... he decides to be brave (once again) and shoot "The Argentine" in SoderScope. He is now using "Paris" and "Beijing", two of our 25 pre-production cameras, and shooting anamorphic. Who would have thunk it?

It turns out that Steven has so much confidence in RED resolution that he is using only about 2.4K's worth of RED... with a completely different look for each movie.

There aren't many Academy Award winning Directors with as big o' balls as Steven. Gotta love it. You heard it 1st on reduser.net.

Jim

I like Soderbergh style, it has touch a bit of the best European films and NY avant-garde from the 60's. Also I have almost all his movis on DVD in my collection.

[Jannard]

It sounds like he's using a standard 2X anamorphic cine lens on the camera, which means that he will have to crop in post on the sides to get the image back to the standard 2.39 ratio.

If the sensor is capturing at 16x9 (1.78) then the unsqueezed image would be 3.56 : 1 if left uncropped -- and if the sensor is capturing at 2:1, then he would get a 4:1 image when unsqueezed.

So wasting the sides of the captured image in post is necessary to return the width back to a standard 2.39 ratio for release. With a 2X image squeeze, you only need an approx. 1.19 : 1 pixel ratio on the original to get a 2.39 : 1 image.

Steven is shooting the center of the frame only, which then expands. He is thrilled with the tests and started shooting this Monday.

Jim

[Dale Launer]

If Steven merely cropped the top and bottom out of an S35mm frame to get 2:40 - wouldn't he be getting more resolution that using anamorphic lens?

[Jannard]

If Steven merely cropped the top and bottom out of an S35mm frame to get 2:40 - wouldn't he be getting more resolution that using anamorphic lens?

That is the 1st question I asked him... and the answer is yes. But he is going for a different "look" to this film. I was skeptical at 1st, but when I saw the tests... it occurred to me why he is the director and I am the camera builder. :-) The footage looks awesome, even though it technically is less resolution. From what we have seen of "Guerrilla" and what he is doing on "The Argentine", I guess my second-guessing Soderbergh days are over.

The good news is that our camera seems to be very versatile. Ask it any question and it gives you the answer you are looking for.

Jim

[dino g]

All Great News Great News!!!! Love The 72fps...love It Love It...cant Wait To Shoot The Kings When They Get Back From Europe...

[Deanan]

The true 2:1 anamorphic lenses produce stunning images when used by a talented cinematographer like Steven.

It's easy to obsess about resolution or sharpness (been guilty of that myself quite often) but it's just one piece of the story telling puzzle.

[David Mullen ASC]

His other anamorphically-lensed movie (as a DP/director) was "Solaris", which was some of his best work photographically.

Of course, I'd still love to see someone make a set of 1.33X anamorphic lenses for use on 16x9 sensor cameras...

[explosive]

His other anamorphically-lensed movie (as a DP/director) was "Solaris", which was some of his best work photographically.

Of course, I'd still love to see someone make a set of 1.33X anamorphic lenses for use on 16x9 sensor cameras...

Solaris looked GREAT.

That being said, what are the advantages of using anamorphic glass over regular cine glass?

Once projected, what qualities does it bring to the image over regular glass?

[David Mullen ASC]

The main advantage in 35mm is that you use a larger negative area than Super-35 cropped to 2.39, so the image is finer-grained and more detailed on the big screen, all else being equal (same stock, same exposure, etc.)

Optically, though, anamorphic lenses are more distorted than spherical lenses and produce artifacts that increase the more wide-open you shoot them (stopping down increases depth of field, which then hides a lot of the anamorphic lens oddities.) Out-of-focus backgrounds get more than the 2X compression so look skinny, stretched, and as you rack-focus, you can see the optical compression/squeeze change, creating "breathing." Out of focus points of light become ovals instead of circles. Bright lights hitting the lens will create a blue horizontal flare.

Though most of these artifacts are common to prime anamorphic lenses below 200mm, which normally have a large cylindrical anamorphic element in the front; zooms and telephotos tend to be adapted spherical lenses with a small cylindrical anamorphic element in the back, so you don't get the breathing or the blue flare or the ovals... but out of focus lights can become square-shaped sometimes.

Also, there is less depth of field with anamorphic photography since the 2X squeeze makes all lenses behave more like wide-angle lenses (a 40mm anamorphic lens "sees" the same horizonally as a 20mm spherical lens) and thus you typically use longer focal lengths in anamorphic photography (you'd use a 40mm lens in anamorphic versus a 20mm lens in Super-35 cropped to 2.39).

Here are two shots from a movie I shot in anamorphic called "Akeelah and the Bee" that show some of the lens flare characteristics of anamorphic lenses:

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

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

Here is a frame from "Logan's Run" that also shows an anamorphic lens flare:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/logansrun1.jpg

Here is a frame from "Bringing Out the Dead" which shows the points of out of focus lights becoming ovals instead of circles:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/bringoutdead1.jpg

[David Mullen ASC]

Digging through some old frame grabs, some more examples of the sort of soft, stretchy background of low-light anamorphic photography:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/apocalypse3.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/snowfalling1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/snowfalling4.jpg

[explosive]

David - wow. Thanks for that response, it was great.

So a hard source of light in the background willl warp due to the particular properties of the lens.

What about more diffused light from a non-point source. Obviously the effect will not be as obvious as a point source, but will that light achieve a different, altered look?

Sorry about the tangent, I've just never shot with anamorphics before and always assumed that it was to simply fit more into frame, I never thought to myself that there may be some sort of interestinf differences in the images produced!

edit - your next lot of pictures answered my ill-stated follow ups :) hah.

edit #2 - why doesn't the foreground image warp at all? Or this property only in the highlights?

[ATF]

Hello,

Very cool, David. Thanks for putting those messages together.

Best,

ATF

[Brandon Fraley]

AWESOME! well this closes the discussion started months ago about whether or not we can use anamorphic lenses. I'm psyched! :)

[Milan Nikolic]

Thanks David I am learning a lot from you!

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Jim,

So it did not take long for the 1st Panavised RED.

Stephen

[Till Beckmann]

Will there be an option to only record the center part of the image, to lower the data rate?
And maybe even a setting to squeeze the image for monitoring?
Just thinking out loud.

[Keith Nealy]

Thanks for taking the time, David. Very informative. I learn something new every day.

aloha,

Keith

[Ruairi Robinson]

Soderbergh is shooting Panavision C-Series anamorphic lenses...

Jim

So hold on a sec... the camera has been panavised...? is that a permanent irreversible change, or can you switch back to PL mount?

[Dean Bull]

It's amazing soderberg is even working in hollywood. By definition he should have been crushed by the machine long ago.

[Jason Murphy]

It's amazing soderberg is even working in hollywood. By definition he should have been crushed by the machine long ago.

Maybe, but Soderbergh is smart. He brings his films in fast and under budget, and he directed Ocean's 11-13, all of which made lots of money. And Hollywood loves money. So who cares if he's a little experimental? All of his experiments (Schizopolis, Full Frontal, Bubble) cost almost nothing, relatively. And his experiments help him to pioneer new ways of working on the bigger films. It's a good thing he has going.

[Mardi_Gras]

I personally subscribe to Soderbergh's guerilla, ad hoc and experimental shooting style. Besides being fully and truly independent, his vision as a director and auteur are never compromised as a result of his not doing things by the book. I love it!

I think all aspiring filmmakers should take a page from his book. There's a lot of learning there...

[Kevin Halverson]

So hold on a sec... the camera has been panavised...? is that a permanent irreversible change, or can you switch back to PL mount?

So I am guessing that a PV mount must have been made since the difference in FFD is too small for a physical adapter to work (57.15 mm vs 52mm).

[jaadgy akanni]

So, Soderbergh and his crew get a budget approved to make these movies. There's lot's of cash allocated for Camera rentals and all kinds of necessary gear. Now that Soderbergh is shooting with the RED and the production cost is therefore considerably lower, who pockets that "surplus" money, who's got a big grin on his/her face?

[yevlar]

Is it too much to hope that he may actually make "Son of Schizopolis" with the added cost savings of shooting Red? ;)

[Matt Uhry]

So hold on a sec... the camera has been panavised...? is that a permanent irreversible change, or can you switch back to PL mount?

Once "Panavised" you can change back any time you want, but you can never leave.

Did Red cook up an electronic de-squeeze for the LCD / EVF ?

Matt Uhry

[David Mullen ASC]

why doesn't the foreground image warp at all? Or this property only in the highlights?

The first anamorphic lenses for CinemaScope had a problem; when you started to focus close, near minimum, the amount of squeezing looked less than 2X -- but since anamorphic projection has a constant 2X unsqueeze, the result was that these close-focus shots (usually close-ups of actors) looked slightly fat, stretched horizontally. They called it the "anamorphic mumps".

Panavision solved that problem by some clever gearing inside the lens so that as you focus closer, rather than have the subject in-focus not get enough squeezing, it remains constant -- but the compromise is that what goes out of focus (the background) gets too much squeezing, more than 2X. So with the constant 2X unsqueeze of projection, now the out of focus background looks slightly skinny.

The more light you use and stop down the lens, the more depth of field you have, which means the background goes less out of focus and therefore looks less squeezed. This is why some people say that you should try and shoot at an f/4 at least in anamorphic.

[David Mullen ASC]

So, Soderbergh and his crew get a budget approved to make these movies. There's lot's of cash allocated for Camera rentals and all kinds of necessary gear. Now that Soderbergh is shooting with the RED and the production cost is therefore considerably lower, who pockets that "surplus" money, who's got a big grin on his/her face?

Generally, no one "pockets" the savings. It just goes elsewhere, whether it means renting a camera crane more days or getting a more expensive location or having more extras in your crowd scene or hiring an extra camera crew for an extra day of second unit shooting, or building another set, buying more costumes, getting more digital efx in post, etc. There is always some department that can use the extra cash.

[liquidigital]

Jim, can we see some of Soderbergh's footage? Just kidding. Well, not really. Yeah, I'm kidding.

[Michael Schrengohst]

Jim, can we see some of Soderbergh's footage? Just kidding. Well, not really. Yeah, I'm kidding.


Sure, when those movies hit the screen the studios will be glad
to take your $7-$12

[liquidigital]

Sure, when those movies hit the screen the studios will be glad
to take your $7-$12

I'm going to Arclight for the RED. $14 for the weekends I think. :)

[M Most]

So, Soderbergh and his crew get a budget approved to make these movies. There's lot's of cash allocated for Camera rentals and all kinds of necessary gear. Now that Soderbergh is shooting with the RED and the production cost is therefore considerably lower, who pockets that "surplus" money, who's got a big grin on his/her face?

Without even looking at or being familiar with the budget on this particular picture, I can pretty much guarantee that Soderbergh didn't choose to shoot with Red for monetary reasons. The amount of money allocated to the camera department - and film stock, for that matter - represents a very small part of the overall budget. The production cost is not "considerably lower" on a studio picture, or even a decently budgeted independent production, for that matter.

[yevlar]

The first anamorphic lenses for CinemaScope had a problem; when you started to focus close, near minimum, the amount of squeezing looked less than 2X -- but since anamorphic projection has a constant 2X unsqueeze, the result was that these close-focus shots (usually close-ups of actors) looked slightly fat, stretched horizontally. They called it the "anamorphic mumps".

Panavision solved that problem by some clever gearing inside the lens so that as you focus closer, rather than have the subject in-focus not get enough squeezing, it remains constant -- but the compromise is that what goes out of focus (the background) gets too much squeezing, more than 2X. So with the constant 2X unsqueeze of projection, now the out of focus background looks slightly skinny.


So, in a lens flare, is the flare actually occurring behind the anamorphic element, to account for why lens flares in anamorphic films are always 2x wider than they are tall when projected/unsqueezed?

[Roxco]

So, in a lens flare, is the flare actually occurring behind the anamorphic element, to account for why lens flares in anamorphic films are always 2x wider than they are tall when projected/unsqueezed?

Yes that is a correct way to describe it. And why to avoid it unless you want it to be that wide.

Rosco

P.S. Mr. Mullen continues to make this forum a must read...

[sress]

one point about anamorphic hasn't really been made... and i consider it the true greatest advantage of the format... it just simply looks amazing (usually). that whole 'suspension of disbelief' thing that film seems to do better than video, probably because it's less representative of real life and more stylized in a (usually) pleasing way. and anamorphic is even more stylized. i can't imagine 'apocalypse now' would have been as effective or immersive if shot spherically. though for some reason the DP (Storaro) now won't shoot anamorphic, preferring a cropped alternative for wide screen.

david m, love your idea of there being 1.33 anamorphics!

another reason folks recommend that you shoot f4.0+ with anamorphic is that the lenses tend to be wildly inconsistent. many are quite old (especially those panavision c-series), and tend to be weaker or have soft spots when shot wide open. most c-series are a bit funky even with film, so i'm curious to see how they look with less-forgiving HD (though the handful of good c-series lenses are among the best anamorphics ever made). and also curious about how they viewed the takes on set. panavision, which i guess owns several Red cameras now, does have on-board SD monitors that unsqueeze.

[Daniel Reichenbach]

RED is on the track, Soderbergh gives the rhythm. And I hate to wait.

[Scott Murphy]

David M.--

Thanks so much for taking the time to post. With so much conjecture going on, it's great to have a bonafide ASC giving examples and throwing down some knowledge.

Please keep posting!

[David Mullen ASC]

As these frames from "Logan's Run" show, you have two anamorphic flares, the flattened red oval, which is actually a circular red ring around one of the uncoated spherical elements in the lens (it's only an oval because the image was stretched 2X horizontally for correct viewing -- on the negative, it's a circle but the image contents look stretched vertically), and the blue horizontal line, which is due to the light spreading across the curved surface of the cylindrical (barrel-like) anamorphic front element. The red ring is less common these days due to modern lens coatings internally.

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/logansrun8.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/logansrun9.jpg

The anamorphic lenses used in "Logan's Run" were Todd-AO 35mm anamorphics made by Dr. Richard Vetter; my impression is that a lot of the elements were made in Japan, maybe by Shiga (anamorphic elements) and Nikon (spherical elements).

All of this does bring up the question: which anamorphic lenses are Soderberg using? PL-mount anamorphics like by Hawk, JDC, Technovision, Elite? PV-mount anamorphics by Panavision?

[Eryc Tramonn]

The main advantage in 35mm is that you use a larger negative area than Super-35 cropped to 2.39, so the image is finer-grained and more detailed on the big screen, all else being equal (same stock, same exposure, etc.)

Optically, though, anamorphic lenses are more distorted than spherical lenses and produce artifacts that increase the more wide-open you shoot them (stopping down increases depth of field, which then hides a lot of the anamorphic lens oddities.) Out-of-focus backgrounds get more than the 2X compression so look skinny, stretched, and as you rack-focus, you can see the optical compression/squeeze change, creating "breathing." Out of focus points of light become ovals instead of circles. Bright lights hitting the lens will create a blue horizontal flare.

Though most of these artifacts are common to prime anamorphic lenses below 200mm, which normally have a large cylindrical anamorphic element in the front; zooms and telephotos tend to be adapted spherical lenses with a small cylindrical anamorphic element in the back, so you don't get the breathing or the blue flare or the ovals... but out of focus lights can become square-shaped sometimes.

Also, there is less depth of field with anamorphic photography since the 2X squeeze makes all lenses behave more like wide-angle lenses (a 40mm anamorphic lens "sees" the same horizonally as a 20mm spherical lens) and thus you typically use longer focal lengths in anamorphic photography (you'd use a 40mm lens in anamorphic versus a 20mm lens in Super-35 cropped to 2.39).

Here are two shots from a movie I shot in anamorphic called "Akeelah and the Bee" that show some of the lens flare characteristics of anamorphic lenses:

Here is a frame from "Bringing Out the Dead" which shows the points of out of focus lights becoming ovals instead of circles:




Damn David, your posts are so friggin' intelligent. I love reading what you have to say about cinematography, and find myself ferreting out your comments here. I've always been fascinated by camera technique, and would like to learn more, but quite honestly, your level of knowledge and experience is intimidating. :) The second I start to feel like I know what's going on, I only need read your posts...then it's back to crying silently in my darkened room.

E

[Robert Sanders]

So is the Panavision C-Series lens using an adapter that allows the lens to focus on a smaller spot because of the reduced height of the sensor?

[Rocco Schult]

The true 2:1 anamorphic lenses produce stunning images when used by a talented cinematographer like Steven.

It's easy to obsess about resolution or sharpness (been guilty of that myself quite often) but it's just one piece of the story telling puzzle.

Quote of the thread. At least for me.


Digging through some old frame grabs, some more examples of the sort of soft, stretchy background of low-light anamorphic photography...

And pics of the day. Thanks David.

[David Mullen ASC]

So is the Panavision C-Series lens using an adapter that allows the lens to focus on a smaller spot because of the reduced height of the sensor?

I'm not sure I understand the question -- when using 2X anamorphic lenses on the RED, you'd use the full height of the sensor, you just don't need the full width. I'm guessing the whole (enabled) portion of the sensor is being recorded but that it's being cropped on the sides to get back down to 2.39, probably in post, I'm not sure you can pick how much of the sensor to record.

I just caught the post I missed by Jim that Soderberg was using C-Series Panavision lenses -- so I guess he must have installed a PV lens mount on the RED?

[David Mullen ASC]

For those interested, here are some old diagrams I drew of the anamorphic camera gate, and the difference between 4-perf Super-35 and anamorphic (the blow-up steps for Super-35 were written back when it was done optically, not using a D.I.)

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/anamorphic2.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/anamorphic3.jpg

The main reason I'm showing this is for people to get a clear idea that 2X anamorphic photography only uses/needs a squarish target area, since the image has a 2X squeeze.

[David Mullen ASC]

I also recommend people spend some time wandering around the American Widescreen Museum, especially the chapter on CinemaScope for info on anamorphic:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcs1.htm

[Shawn Nelson]

David,
I think I understand the difference. Do you have any examples of the same shot (or very similar shots) done spherical and anamorphic?

[Rocket]

So are we going to see a set of Red anamorphic primes anytime soon?

[David Mullen ASC]

David,
I think I understand the difference. Do you have any examples of the same shot (or very similar shots) done spherical and anamorphic?

It would be hard to find a movie where the same set-up was shot twice in two formats. The next best thing is to compare movies with sequels that changed formats - for example, "X-Men 1" was shot in anamorphic, but the next two X-Men movies were shot in Super-35. At least you'd see the same sets shot in different formats.

All of the "Star Trek" features were shot in anamorphic except for "Star Trek 6", the only one shot in Super-35. I found a frame from each that are similar enough to see the difference in how the background goes out of focus in anamorphic (Star Trek 5) versus spherical (Star Trek 6):

Anamorphic:
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/startrekfive4.jpg

Spherical:
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/startreksix3.jpg

[Álex Montoya]

Wow. Thanks, David.

[damonbots]

I also recommend people spend some time wandering around the American Widescreen Museum, especially the chapter on CinemaScope for info on anamorphic:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcs1.htm

I clicked on the site to take a quick peek and ended up reading all 8 pages!
Fascinating stuff. I especially liked the part about having to pull focus on both the original anamorphic adapter and prime lens simultaneously. That must have been a fun job! Thanks for your contributions, David!

[number6]

I also recommend people spend some time wandering around the American Widescreen Museum, especially the chapter on CinemaScope for info on anamorphic:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcs1.htm

David, thanks for this link. History is fantastic stuff and it makes me wonder if those of us involved as customers may not be able to tell others that we remember 'this feature being enabled' or 'that upgrade being developed' when the RED museum recounts all that has happened with this camera.

On the other hand, I have to go back and correct some misinformation I posted previously, and that your link has made clear. (John Wayne was later killed by cancer from working on the "Conqueror" movie... not "The Searchers"):blush:

[Brandon Rice]

It would be hard to find a movie where the same set-up was shot twice in two formats. The next best thing is to compare movies with sequels that changed formats - for example, "X-Men 1" was shot in anamorphic, but the next two X-Men movies were shot in Super-35. At least you'd see the same sets shot in different formats.

All of the "Star Trek" features were shot in anamorphic except for "Star Trek 6", the only one shot in Super-35. I found a frame from each that are similar enough to see the difference in how the background goes out of focus in anamorphic (Star Trek 5) versus spherical (Star Trek 6):

Anamorphic:
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/startrekfive4.jpg

Spherical:
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/startreksix3.jpg

David, all of your posts in this thread have been extremely educational, thanks... Great stuff, and I learned something new!

Now, I take it if you shoot digital with anamorphic lenses, opposed to cropping the SUPER 35 frame, it will exhibit similar characteristics as the examples you've posted?

[Deanan]

It has the same effects.

[Brandon Rice]

Cool, got it. Interesting stuff.

[David Mullen ASC]

Don't think anamorphic is a walk in the park -- there are a lot of downsides, which is one reason it has been in decline over the years. There are fewer anamorphic lenses in existence, in fewer styles and focal lengths and special features.

They tend to be physically larger & heavier in general.

Many are not faster than f/2.8 and many aren't particularly sharp at f/2.8 -- most anamorphic zooms, for example, are nearly f/5.6 at the fastest.

Many don't focus very closely -- some of the longer anamorphic lenses won't focus closer than 7 feet, which is annoying for ECU work.

The wider-angle lenses all tend to have some barrel-distortion problems.

They breathe when you rack-focus, which is distracting enough that you have to think about why and when you rack-focus during dialogue because it's not invisible.

They are more expensive to rent.

And the main reason that anamorphic has been on the decline whereas Super-35 has been on the rise is the depth of field issue -- the anamorphic format in general has less depth of field because the focal lengths used in general are nearly twice as long. So pulling focus on a close-up in anamorphic at f/2.8 is harder than shooting a close-up at f/2.0 in spherical, because you're likely to use a 135mm in anamorphic when you'd use a 75mm in spherical.

I love the anamorphic format but producers have heard enough horror stories over the years that you have a big selling job to convince them to use it, and focus-pullers generally hate the format.

My general rule for 2.39 movies has been that if a movie will mostly be made up of day exteriors and day interiors, and very little night work, then I will advocate anamorphic -- but if the movie has little day work but a lot of interiors and low-light night exterior work, I will advocate Super-35.

Unless for stylistic reasons, you want that super-shallow-focus, swimmy, flarey, distorted look of anamorphics shot wide-open. Then they are great. Otherwise, their big advantage, at least in 35mm, is for landscape movies shot in daylight.

[sbaechler]

Hi

Here is a nice flare test with a direct comparison between anamorphic and spherical lenses:

http://www.claudiomiranda.com/Alpine.html

Claudio's site is well worth looking at for anyone interested in cinematography.

[David Mullen ASC]

This is a more subtle example, but you can see the barrel distortion of a wider-angle anamorphic lens (probably a 40mm E-Series, a guess) in this frame for "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade". Since the scene was lit to a very high f-stop, the focus is pretty deep, which is not typical of anamorphic:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/lastcrusade1.jpg

Some frames from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (probably a 40mm C-Series):

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/raiders1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/raiders2.jpg

[liquidigital]

David, I was going to say if you write a book, I would buy it, but then I googled and realized you already did. :)

[jbeale]

All of the "Star Trek" features were shot in anamorphic except for "Star Trek 6", the only one shot in Super-35. I found a frame from each that are similar enough to see the difference in how the background goes out of focus in anamorphic (Star Trek 5) versus spherical (Star Trek 6):
Very interesting example! Is it my imagination or is Spock's face actually wider on the anamorphic shot? I thought the later generation lenses didn't suffer from "anamorphic mumps" ?

[David Mullen ASC]

He might have been a little heavier-set in "Star Trek 5" for all I know; also, it's a wider-angle lens shot closer to his face than the example in "Star Trek 6".

[Spike Baumann]

Getting back to the topic, if others decide to jump in as fast as he did and continue to use the RED, you will probably get a technical award Oscar in a few years.

[Brandon Fraley]

Hi

Here is a nice flare test with a direct comparison between anamorphic and spherical lenses:

http://www.claudiomiranda.com/Alpine.html

Claudio's site is well worth looking at for anyone interested in cinematography.

those are BOTH anamorphic lenses

[David Mullen ASC]

"Heat" is a good example of an anamorphic movie with a lot of low-light night exterior scenes; those interested should check it out:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/heat2.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/heat3.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/heat4.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/heat5.jpg

[Mark K.]

"Heat" is a good example of an anamorphic movie with a lot of low-light night exterior scenes; those interested should check it out:


God that looks so much nicer than Miami Vice.

[Daniel Gourley]

Thank You David. A Pleasure As Always!

[damonbots]

A couple other movies some might remember that just wouldn't have been the same without anamorphic lenses...

Sorry 'bout the crap quality. Where can you find good frame grabs anyway?

[Robert Sanders]

I'm not sure I understand the question -- when using 2X anamorphic lenses on the RED, you'd use the full height of the sensor, you just don't need the full width. I'm guessing the whole (enabled) portion of the sensor is being recorded but that it's being cropped on the sides to get back down to 2.39, probably in post, I'm not sure you can pick how much of the sensor to record.

I just caught the post I missed by Jim that Soderberg was using C-Series Panavision lenses -- so I guess he must have installed a PV lens mount on the RED?

Is the height of the sensor the same height as 35mm?

[Christopher Barry]

Out-of-focus backgrounds get more than the 2X compression so look skinny, stretched, and as you rack-focus, you can see the optical compression/squeeze change, creating "breathing."

Now I understand why in the movie 'Identity', the scene where Rhodes (Liotta) approaches Paris (Peet) by the vending machine, the CU rack-focus breathes substantially. This has been on my mind for a long time. It was by no means a bad choice of lens on a big budget movie.

Thanks for the education and examples David.

[Ruairi Robinson]

A couple other movies some might remember that just wouldn't have been the same without anamorphic lenses...

Sorry 'bout the crap quality. Where can you find good frame grabs anyway?

From the dvd...

[Ruairi Robinson]

God that looks so much nicer than Miami Vice.

Jesus yeah - so much for "progress" eh?

And to the red team - I'm gad you get now why we want to use anamorphic lenses so much. It's certainly not to make our lives "easier"

R.

[Paris Remillard]

Not to hijack the thread, and I'm sure I've seen it asked before, but since we're on the subject...How hard/expensive/inconvenient would it be to cut the Mysterium in a full height 4:3 aspect ratio to make a version of the camera for use with 2x anamorphics?

I'm sure that there'd be some intrest for it, especially at rental houses that are buying multiple cameras.

[Ruairi Robinson]

Not to hijack the thread, and I'm sure I've seen it asked before, but since we're on the subject...How hard/expensive/inconvenient would it be to cut the Mysterium in a full height 4:3 aspect ratio to make a version of the camera for use with 2x anamorphics?

I'm sure that there'd be some intrest for it, especially at rental houses that are buying multiple cameras.

I've asked that question a bunch of times.





*crickets*





While big directors are using these lenses to shoot BIG movies (Transformers is about as big as it gets!) I think you'd be crazy to dismiss the idea.

[doondoon]

His other anamorphically-lensed movie (as a DP/director) was "Solaris", which was some of his best work photographically.

Of course, I'd still love to see someone make a set of 1.33X anamorphic lenses for use on 16x9 sensor cameras...


He also did "Bubble" anamorphically. He shot that on an F-900... i'm not sure if he just cropped the image or what, but it looked pretty good.

[David Mullen ASC]

The RED sensor should be similar in size to a 3-perf 35mm frame, which is also 16x9. What this means is that a 40mm anamorphic C-Series lens on the RED camera is slightly more telephoto than on a 4-perf 35mm camera, more like the view of a 50mm anamorphic lens once everything is cropped on the sides back to 2.39.

Truth is that the trend is away from 1.33 4-perf 35mm photography except for anamorphic photography, which maybe constitutes a quarter of all 2.39 movies made, and those constitute about half of the Hollywood product (and much less of the indie features.) Many features and most TV shows using 35mm are using 3-perf, which is native 16x9.

So building a 4x3 sensor camera just to accommodate anamorphic photography (and blow-ups to IMAX maybe) seems to be catering to a niche. As for 4x3 standard def TV, cropping the 4K sensor from 16x9 to 4x3 is more than enough resolution to work with. High-end commercials, for example, still shoot 4-perf 35mm but they don't need 4K resolution for the final end product if destined for NTSC/PAL (and if destined for theatrical and HD projection, they don't need 4x3).

4x3 sensors would be nice... but it makes more sense to start building 1.33X anamorphic lenses to cover those owners who want to fill a 16x9 sensor with a 2.39 image.

And even cropping the 4K 16x9 sensor to 4x3 just means that you're working with essentially a 3K Bayer-filtered camera, which some might not think is the end of the world.

[sress]

I'd heard that Panavision bought something like 5 Red cameras, so perhaps Soderbergh is simply using some of the Panny cameras. though they will, on occasion, adapt a camera for a director or cameraman who has brought them much business over the years. david lynch owns a Mitchell Mark II which, when he does a Panavision movie, Panavision will change out the mount to accept their lenses. it only gets used for effects shots and some 2nd unit.

David, maybe you know more about this... some years back (12 or so?) i was working as an AC and a cameraman told me that several companies... i remember it being Panavision and Kodak but i could be wrong... had a screening of a test comparing anamorphic to super 35 for a large group of cameramen and directors. at that time almost everyone was shooting super 35, mostly i think because of the influence of vittorio storaro and tony scott. the test was to show the difference in quality between anamorphic and POST-OPTICAL super 35... the optical being necessary at the time in order to squeeze the film so as to be projected with anamorphic lenses. apparently the optical lessened the quality so much that it was extremely clear that anamorphic was the better format. that started a huge trend back to anamorphic, but panavision and other rental houses weren't ready for it. the lenses were old and poorly maintained, and there just weren't that many in existence. which is why, i think, that now that you can skip the optical and do a much higher-quality DI to squeeze the image, the trend is back to super 35.

[Ruairi Robinson]

The RED sensor should be similar in size to a 3-perf 35mm frame, which is also 16x9. What this means is that a 40mm anamorphic C-Series lens on the RED camera is slightly more telephoto than on a 4-perf 35mm camera, more like the view of a 50mm anamorphic lens once everything is cropped on the sides back to 2.39.

Truth is that the trend is away from 1.33 4-perf 35mm photography except for anamorphic photography, which maybe constitutes a quarter of all 2.39 movies made, and those constitute about half of the Hollywood product (and much less of the indie features.) Many features and most TV shows using 35mm are using 3-perf, which is native 16x9.

So building a 4x3 sensor camera just to accommodate anamorphic photography (and blow-ups to IMAX maybe) seems to be catering to a niche. As for 4x3 standard def TV, cropping the 4K sensor from 16x9 to 4x3 is more than enough resolution to work with. High-end commercials, for example, still shoot 4-perf 35mm but they don't need 4K resolution for the final end product if destined for NTSC/PAL (and if destined for theatrical and HD projection, they don't need 4x3).

4x3 sensors would be nice... but it makes more sense to start building 1.33X anamorphic lenses to cover those owners who want to fill a 16x9 sensor with a 2.39 image.

And even cropping the 4K 16x9 sensor to 4x3 just means that you're working with essentially a 3K Bayer-filtered camera, which some might not think is the end of the world.


Yeah, it's the struggle between asking for something that's technically archaic, and balancing that would the LOOK, which, flaws and all, is attractive enough to make it worth the extra grief for focusing etc.

You have any idea if a set of 1.33:1 anamorphic lenses can retain this look? (specifically the 2:1 vertical stretch in defocused bokeh...?)

Using scope lenses with Red seems pointless to me, if you can't use the full width of wide angle lenses.

R.

[Ruairi Robinson]

I'd heard that Panavision bought something like 5 Red cameras, so perhaps Soderbergh is simply using some of the Panny cameras. though they will, on occasion, adapt a camera for a director or cameraman who has brought them much business over the years. david lynch owns a Mitchell Mark II which, when he does a Panavision movie, Panavision will change out the mount to accept their lenses. it only gets used for effects shots and some 2nd unit.

David, maybe you know more about this... some years back (12 or so?) i was working as an AC and a cameraman told me that several companies... i remember it being Panavision and Kodak but i could be wrong... had a screening of a test comparing anamorphic to super 35 for a large group of cameramen and directors. at that time almost everyone was shooting super 35, mostly i think because of the influence of vittorio storaro and tony scott. the test was to show the difference in quality between anamorphic and POST-OPTICAL super 35... the optical being necessary at the time in order to squeeze the film so as to be projected with anamorphic lenses. apparently the optical lessened the quality so much that it was extremely clear that anamorphic was the better format. that started a huge trend back to anamorphic, but panavision and other rental houses weren't ready for it. the lenses were old and poorly maintained, and there just weren't that many in existence. which is why, i think, that now that you can skip the optical and do a much higher-quality DI to squeeze the image, the trend is back to super 35.


Michael Bay shot Bad Boys 2 in super35, and hated it so much, he's gone back to anamorphic lenses on every movie since.

[John Cordell]

And even cropping the 4K 16x9 sensor to 4x3 just means that you're working with essentially a 3K Bayer-filtered camera, which some might not think is the end of the world.

Also note that the surface area (or number of pixels) that is used is the same if you're ending up with 2.39 aspect ratio. Shooting anamorphic you give up about 25.2% of the sensor by not using the right and left edges of the sensor. Shooting standard you give up about 25.6% by not using the top and bottom of the sensor. Basically a wash.

Currently, because Red is capturing only a 2.0 aspect ratio (4K x 2K), shooting anamorphic to end at 2.39 means giving up a fair amount of resolution, but that will change once the camera allows recording to a 1.78 aspect ratio.

Edit addendum:

Quick correction after reading a little about anamorphic lenses: Since 2x squeeze is what these lenses typically do, the aspect ratio used on the sensor when shooting anamorphic would be 1.19 (not 1.33 as presumed above). Given that, shooting anamorphic on a Red will be giving up about 10% resolution as compared to non-anamorphic shooting (once 1.78 aspect ratio recording becomes available).

[David Mullen ASC]

I've heard rumors that Panavision is building a set of 1.33X anamorphic lenses, but they are putting the anamorphic element in the back to keep the size of the lenses down -- unfortunately (for some), this eliminates the artifacts of front-element anamorphic prime lenses (the stretched background lights, the blue horizontal flare, etc.)

Dalsa is building a set of 1.22X anamorphic lenses for their cameras, with front anamorphic elements -- judging by the one lens they built so far (a 50mm I think) it exhibits classic anamorphic attributes but just a lot more subtle, less distorted.

Joe Dunton talked about building a set of front-element 1.33X anamorphic lenses (he thought Panavision's idea of putting the anamorphic element in the back was a mistake), but now that he's been bought by Panavision, I don't know what will happen to that plan.

So my guess is 1.33X front-element anamorphic lenses will be mildly less distorted than 2X anamorphic lenses, but also that shooting them more wide-open will probably get you enough of that distortion -- in other words, if you like the distortions of a 2X anamorphic lens at T/2.8 (which can already be pretty obvious) then I'm sure that using a 1.33X anamorphic lens at T/2.0 will be similar in distortions, just maybe not quite so skinny in the b.g. But in general with an anamorphic lens, the distortions keep increasing the more you open up the lens.

You have to understand that creating a front-element anamorphic prime lens basically doubles the size & weight of a spherical lens, which is why Primo anamorphics and the new V-Series Hawks are so large, and the Arriscopes. JDC keeps the size of their anamorphic lenses small by working with the old S2/3 Cookes as a starting point. Using a modern Zeiss Master Prime as a starting point would create a giant anamorphic prime lens if you put the anamorphic element in front, since the anamorphic elements therefore have to be bigger than the front spherical elements.

Hawk though has some design that involves putting the anamorphic element closer to the middle, though I don't know how that works.

[Robert Sanders]

Damn this thread is FASCINATING!

I absolutely adore the look of old-fashioned anamorphic photography. To me, the older lenses look the best even though they're technically the worst. Odd, isn't it?

I have to admit, though, that it would be hard giving up the ability to reframe the shot in the post. It certainly puts more pressure on the operator to get the shot right on set, doesn't it?

[David Mullen ASC]

Unless you're doing an action movie where uncontrolled things happen in front of the camera, framing a shot properly at the time of shooting is not the hardest thing in the world to do... movies have managed to do that for over 100 years for the most part.

I've shot four features in anamorphic and never particularly had to reframe a shot, other than on one film where the editor added a few slow digital creep-ins that worked OK. If the mic dips in, you do another take.

[Bruce Allen]

Do that with a Viper and you would be shooting 1K! :-)

Jim

No, you wouldn't. Read their PDF.
http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/docs/DataSheets/cameras/viper/viper_ds.pdf
The way the sensor is configured you can do real 2.37:1 without losing much resolution at all. They have THREE 9 megapixel sensors, Jim, not one! You're drinking the kool-aid of your own Red specs page. It just means they do a 3:1 oversample instead of a 4:1 oversample. I'll readily admit that it doesn't look quite as good as it should, though.



Dalsa is building a set of 1.22X anamorphic lenses for their cameras, with front anamorphic elements -- judging by the one lens they built so far (a 50mm I think) it exhibits classic anamorphic attributes but just a lot more subtle, less distorted.

Dalsa had the 50mm T1.4 at CineGear. I was pleasantly surprised to see it had a nice anamorphic look to the bokeh despite the lower stretch:
http://www.boacinema.com/projects/misc_photos/dalsa_anamorphic_out.jpg
(please note that that's just a low-res preview from the monitor to give an idea of the bokeh - looking through the optical viewfinder it seemed tack sharp and all)
Here's an exterior:
http://www.boacinema.com/projects/misc_photos/dalsa_with_anamorphic_50_14.jpg
I played around with it - breathing (or lack thereof) seemed really nice.

If I were shooting anything with a Red I'd want to rent that lens set for sure. Hey nice Dalsa folks who lurk here, any news on how the set is going?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Jannard]

Bruce...not exactly what I was saying. If you take any sensor configuration, including a three chip 2/3" sensor block that records 1080P (1920x1080) and lop off the sides for an anamorphic the way Soderbergh is shooting with RED, you would end up using about 1080x1280 from the viper. That sounds like roughly 1K resolution to me. If the Viper can record 1080x2559 as it sounds like you are suggesting, then I am completely mis-informed and apologize.

With RED, SS is using about 2048x2400 after he lops off the sides, which I called 2K. I don't think I included Dalsa in my example... if I did, I shouldn't have.

If you are comparing the difference between a 3 chip sensor block vs. a single bayer, that is a different discussion.

I don't like kool-aid.

Jim

[Bruce Allen]

If the Viper can record 1080x2559 as it sounds like you are suggesting, then I am completely mis-informed and apologize.

Yep, the Viper has three 1920x4320 16:9 sensors. The sensor sites are rectangular. A bit like the way the old Nikon D1X had rectangular sensor sites.

To make a 16x9 1920x1080 image, they average four sensor sites per color channel (scaling three 1920x4320 images down to a 1920x1080 RGB image).

To make an 2.37:1 image 1920x1080, they discard the top and bottom lines, giving an active sensor resolution of 1920x3240 per R,G,B channel. They then scale this down to 1920x1080 (three sensor sites per pixel per color channel).

Here's a quote from Fincher:
“Plus, we wanted this to be a widescreen movie, and Viper has a nice way of dealing with anamorphizing the 16×9 pixel array to give us full use of 1920/1080p across the 2.37:1 anamorphic aspect ratio. We really wanted to get as much resolution out of it as we could, since I did not want to crop the frame top to bottom. Why start out with a 2K image, and then throw a third of the frame away?”
(from this article:
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/videoedsys/revfeat/video_going_tapeless/ )

That said, I don't think the quality of the individual sensor sites on the Viper are that high but then they don't advertise it as a 27 megapixel movie camera. When you use the info from 9 of them per pixel at 1920x1080 (or 12 if you're doing 16:9) you get something quite nice and smooth, which is why Zodiac looked decent, if a little soft.

Imagine if they'd gotten clever and done something like your REDCODE RAW when their camera first came out? They missed a major opportunity, methinks... but I agree that 1CCD is also the way to go eventually. Oh, and a great price :) And a great, friendly, communicative attitude. Not that they aren't nice people but it's not like all the people in charge of making the Viper are posting on viperuser.net ;) Red will crush / is already crushing them...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Jannard]

My error... thanks for correcting me.

Jim

[Deanan]

No, you wouldn't. Read their PDF.
http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/docs/DataSheets/cameras/viper/viper_ds.pdf
The way the sensor is configured you can do real 2.37:1 without losing much resolution at all. They have THREE 9 megapixel sensors, Jim, not one! You're drinking the kool-aid of your own Red specs page. It just means they do a 3:1 oversample instead of a 4:1 oversample. I'll readily admit that it doesn't look quite as good as it should, though.

Apples and Oranges. We're talking about shooting real 2:1 anamorphics and not shperical 2.35/7/9. The viper is shooting spherical lenses and sampling at 3:1 compared to their normal 4:1 oversample. So since it's using fewer samples than their normal HD mode, the gain is really in maximizing the use of the 1920x1080 in HDSDI. It's basically still cropping out of a 16:9 and using fewer vertical samples at the same time.

If you wanted to do the same on RED with spherical lenses, you'd be at 4096x1743 (or even more later but I don't want to speak until we know the exact numbers for sure).

3x 9mp sensors and it's still a mushy image (in my opinion). Must be lime flavored kool aid :)

[Bruce Allen]

3x 9mp sensors and it's still a mushy image (in my opinion). Must be lime flavored kool aid :)

Totally agree, Deanan. I did say that in both of my posts -
post 1: "I'll readily admit that it doesn't look quite as good as it should, though."
post 2: "Zodiac looked decent, if a little soft").

Also agree that if you want that sweet anamorphic bokeh, Viper is a bad option, because the pixels are rectangular in the wrong way for that. If I re-read the whole set of posts, it's now pretty clear that's what Jim was talking about... sorry, just haven't been checking Reduser on a daily basis due to changing countries ;) So, sorry, Jim! Apologies are on me.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Mardi_Gras]

Again, Bruce, with all due respect, I wouldn't be rushing to discount Jim's assertions as a "Kool-aid high" until the RedOne, which is a 4K camera by the way, is fully enabled and been on the market for a while before comparing with a 2K camera like the Viper.

My 2c...

[Bruce Allen]

Again, Bruce, with all due respect, I wouldn't be rushing to discount Jim's assertions as a "Kool-aid high" until the RedOne, which is a 4K camera by the way, is fully enabled and been on the market for a while before comparing with a 2K camera like the Viper.

My 2c...

Totally agree again that the Red is way superior, although simply saying it's better because it's "4K vs 2K" does the Red a great disservice IMHO. There's no need to wait for "fully enabled" or "on the market for a while" before proclaiming this. The writing has been on the wall for a few years now and we all knew they would deliver... You seriously misread me, buddy. Good night!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[baro]

To make a 16x9 1920x1080 image, they average four sensor sites per color channel (scaling three 1920x4320 images down to a 1920x1080 RGB image).www.boacinema.com

Resolutionwise this is equvivalent to having 1920x1080 sensors. As opposed to reading out all 9 million pixels and doing a downscaling with a nice algorithm in post processing.

The 9 million pixel is only good for having the equvilant of 1920x1080 pixels in the 2.35:1 mode as well.

[Mardi_Gras]

Totally agree again that the Red is way superior, although simply saying it's better because it's "4K vs 2K" does the Red a great disservice IMHO. There's no need to wait for "fully enabled" or "on the market for a while" before proclaiming this. The writing has been on the wall for a few years now and we all knew they would deliver... You seriously misread me, buddy. Good night!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Bruce, if you're referring to my post above, I definitely wasn't insinuating a "4K vs 2K" debate - what do I know about these things? :) , neither was I trying dumb down the debate. But then again, if you now agree with the whole premise of the original argument, instead of going back and editing your post and confusing the topic in the process, I suggest you make such amendments in subsequent posts. Good day!

[Bruce Allen]

Resolutionwise this is equvivalent to having 1920x1080 sensors. As opposed to reading out all 9 million pixels and doing a downscaling with a nice algorithm in post processing.


I agree with you again. That's why I said "Imagine if they'd gotten clever and done something like your REDCODE RAW when their camera first came out?" at the end of my post.


But then again, if you now agree with the whole premise of the original argument, instead of going back and editing your post and confusing the topic in the process, I suggest you make such amendments in subsequent posts. Good day!

I DID apologize in the subsequent post. I don't think I edited anything substantial in my earlier post either. You are weird and nasty. Good day to you too. I'm going to go back to sleep and try to fight my jet lag now.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Mardi_Gras]

... You are weird and nasty...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Wow! Thanks for been such a bonafide jerk, Bruce. How much more personal, wierd and nasty can one get than your quote above. The jet lag doesn't even explain this off.

[I Bloom]

but I agree that 1CCD is also the way to go eventually.

In order for RED to use a CCD like Dalsa, they would have to incorporate a mechanical shutter. Otherwise their options would be limited: they could either use a Frame-transfer CCD (way expensive and probably none exist that match Mysterium on grain and overall image quality) or they will suffer from vertical smear using a normal CCD without a shutter.

The CMOS chip has only one disadvantage that I can see and that's the frame split artifact with strobes and gunfire. Since this issue is limited to only a few scenarios and can sometimes be prevented with genlock, I'd say the advantages of the CCD are limited.

What I would like to see is a modified RED, or even a specialized front mount that incorporates a mechanical shutter (just a flat one, not a mirror). The shutter will sync with the genlock and protect the chip during readout, smoothing out frame splits. If you know you are going to be shooting with uncontrolled strobes or blanks, you just rent this mount or camera for that day of shooting.

Ian

[donatello b]

"the Viper has three 1920x4320 16:9 sensors"

i see in the viper pdf ( page 2) they call the vertical 4320 "sub pixels" and the 1920 horizontal "pixels" ... how are sub pixels different then pixels ?

http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/docs/DataSheets/cameras/viper/viper_ds.pdf

[Bruce Allen]

"the Viper has three 1920x4320 16:9 sensors"

i see in the viper pdf ( page 2) they call the vertical 4320 "sub pixels" and the 1920 horizontal "pixels" ... how are sub pixels different then pixels ?


They're not accessible to the end-user (no RAW equivalent). You can only see them after they're averaged together. Like early Nikon DSLRS.

But please note that I was a confused jetlagged fella when bringing this up and failed to note that Jim was talking specifically about getting nice Anamorphic bokeh - which you can't do with the Viper. The Viper shoots good 2.35 aspect ratio stuff but it is done with spherical lenses. Anyone who wants to flame me for being stupid about this please do it via PM because I think everyone would much rather talk about anamorphic lens options, frame grabs, etc here ;)

That said, anyone tried those Hawk / Vantage filters that are supposed to make anamorphic horizontal blue streaks on spherical lenses? I'd love to know how they compare to real anamorphic streaks:
http://www.vantagefilm.com/en/news/news_2005-09_01.shtml

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[John Allardice]

Jim, are there any plans for 2764 X 2304 windowed mode,for shooting with 2X anamorphic?... This would obviously extend recording time considerably...and if so, is the current hardware capable ( with appropriate firmware) of unsqueezing the lcd/evf, image?

[Jannard]

Jim, are there any plans for 2764 X 2304 windowed mode,for shooting with 2X anamorphic?... This would obviously extend recording time considerably...and if so, is the current hardware capable ( with appropriate firmware) of unsqueezing the lcd/evf, image?

I think a specific anamorphic mode is in our future...

Jim

[Robert Sanders]

I think a specific anamorphic mode is in our future...

Jim

NICE!

[Ruairi Robinson]

I think a specific anamorphic mode is in our future...

Jim

Glad to hear it.

But will it be enough to stop me SCREAMING about this? Will we lose a chunk of image from wide angle lenses?

R.

[Pol Turrents]

what about 1.6x anamorphic lenses or adaptors?

[David Mullen ASC]

What would a 1.6X anamorphic be used for?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Must be lime flavored kool aid :)

Haha. :) Although, a number of Viper people tend to like that green tint right out of the camera.


I think a specific anamorphic mode is in our future...

Cool. Could this also mean a possibility for anamorphic glass from RED?

[I Bloom]

I think a specific anamorphic mode is in our future...

Jim

Awesome. I hope that means the camera will correct for the lense in the view on the various monitors. Any ideas how Stephen is handling that problem?

Ian

[liquidigital]

I think a specific anamorphic mode is in our future...

Jim

This makes me happy.

[Pol Turrents]

What would a 1.6X anamorphic be used for?

Sorry... I made a mistake!
I meant a 0.33x anamorphic, thinking in a 16:9 sensor.

[filip kovcin]

...
Of course, I'd still love to see someone make a set of 1.33X anamorphic lenses for use on 16x9 sensor cameras...

David,
can yo kindly explain me how to acheive 1:2,39 proportion when using 16x9 sensor and set of 1.33 anamorphic lenses? i am calculating and getting 1:2,36 instead of 1:2,39. where is the trick? is that 1:2,36 image little croped later or what? i simply do not understand this.

thank you,

filip

[David Mullen ASC]

OK, 1.34X...

It doesn't have to be exact.

[car3o]

I'm pretty lost. So I'm going to give myself a shot and see if maybe I got it.

You shoot with a certain part of the sensor. Then the anamorphic lens stretches it 2x's and then you stretch the rest in post? What is the advantage? Just to be able to use an Anamorphic lens? And why can't you use the anamorphic lens any other way?

[Jeff Brue]

Hmm lime flavored or brackish water kool aid (bayer pattern). Come on guys the Red just has the wonderful luxury of end users never seeing what its raw bayer pattern actually looks like. Its the advantadge of a data workflow over a video workflow which is the way it should be done. Really with a good modern DDR system you never have to look at what the camera is actually recording and thats exactly what Graeme has developed with Redcode RAW.

As far as the lime flavored Koolaid lets see where the red one is in 6 years and see how many released features it has under its belt ( a lot i hope) and then I'd say compare it to the viper.

[Bruce Allen]

I'm pretty lost. So I'm going to give myself a shot and see if maybe I got it.

You shoot with a certain part of the sensor. Then the anamorphic lens stretches it 2x's and then you stretch the rest in post? What is the advantage? Just to be able to use an Anamorphic lens?

Yes. I think you got it 100%. Let me ATTEMPT to redeem myself with this post...

You put an anamorphic lens on the Red. This projects a squashed image onto the sensor (the left and right parts of the 16:9 image recorded by the sensor are black).

EDIT: Uh, they're not actually black, it's just that the info there can't be used unless you're planning to project at 3.5:1 ultra-widescreen or somethin' (thanks Mr Mullen)

The advantage is that you get the anamorphic look. Eg:
1. cool oval bokeh (oval out of focus highlights) instead of round bokeh (very, very difficult to fake this in post)
2. cool oval lens flares and blue streaks (can be faked in post and the streaks can be faked with a filter, but it's nicer to do them in camera, right?)

The Viper has what people (like me, confusingly and rather erroneously for this context ;) call an anamorphic mode because it outputs 2.35 to HD-SDI in a squashed way to maximize 2.35 detail BUT, as Deanan pointed out, these modes use spherical lenses. So you don't get the cool bokeh, flares, etc. I thought this was what Jim was talking about when he talked about anamorphic on a Viper because even if you wanted to (and you wouldn't, because the resolution loss would be too great), you can't use 35mm cine anamorphic lenses on a Viper (or an F900, or F23 or Varicam) because they don't 35mm sensors.

In theory, anamorphic would be a weak spot of a 16:9 digital camera such as Red, especially when comparing to full-aperture 35mm film. While film cameras shoot anamorphic partly to increase recorded resolution by spreading the image across the whole full-aperture piece of film, with 16:9 digital you are decreasing recorded resolution, because you're only throwing your image onto the middle of your sensor. It's the opposite of the film process.

So what Jim's excited about is that Soderbergh is confident enough in the resolution of the Red that he feels that he'd prefer to shoot with the Red "at its worst", rather than 35mm "at its best".

Also note that Soderbergh could have used, say, the Arri D20 (which has a 4:3 sensor designed for anamorphic), if he wanted to stay digital and if he was concerned about the quality of the Red with anamorphic lenses. But he didn't because it seems that even a fraction of the Red sensor is good enough.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[I Bloom]

I'm pretty lost. So I'm going to give myself a shot and see if maybe I got it.

You shoot with a certain part of the sensor. Then the anamorphic lens stretches it 2x's and then you stretch the rest in post? What is the advantage? Just to be able to use an Anamorphic lens? And why can't you use the anamorphic lens any other way?

Hey, welcome.

The anamorphic lense squeezes the image into a square. In post you stretch it out to a wide rectangle (1x2.40) or in the case that you are making a film print you just leave it squeezed and crop off the sides.

You aren't gaining much technically by doing this on RED, versus just cropping to 2.40. You are just trading horizontal rez for vertical. But anamorphic lenses have certain optical properties, a certain look, certain kinds of flare, a special way of going out of focus, and they render out of focus lights as ovals. I think that is why Soderberg is making the choice to use them.

Check out one of my favorite movies, Heat by Micheal Mann DP Dante Spinotti, to get an idea what that look is all about.

Cheers,
IBloom

[David Mullen ASC]

You just stretch it out for viewing purposes in post -- what you'll send out to 35mm film will still be squarish with a 2X squeeze.

However for home video and digital projection versions, you'll convert it into an unsqueezed image, probably letterboxed for 16x9 and 4x3 home video.

Right now, I don't think you are cropping the sensor in-camera; the anamorphic lens' projected image has a 2X squeeze and probably covers most of the sensor, maybe with some slight vignetting on the wilder angle lenses (maybe not) -- either way, you can't use all of the projected image onto the full sensor because the aspect ratio is too widescreen. You have to crop it so that the normal unsqueezed image is 2.39 : 1.

[John Cordell]

...with 16:9 digital you are decreasing recorded resolution, because you're only throwing your image onto the middle of your sensor.

With 16:9 you aren't actually decreasing resolution that much when choosing anamorphic, only about 10%. Red's current aspect ratio of 2:1 is what makes for the great sacrifice in resolution when going anamorphic, to the tune of about 30%.

[Bruce Allen]

With 16:9 you aren't actually decreasing resolution that much when choosing anamorphic, only about 10%. Red's current aspect ratio of 2:1 is what makes for the great sacrifice in resolution when going anamorphic, to the tune of about 30%.

Ohh... sorry, have been away, hadn't noticed the whole 2:1 thing on the Red.com page.

So, the Dalsa anamorphic lenses would be a perfect fit then, because they are designed for their 2:1 sensor?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[John Cordell]

The 2:1 aspect ratio on Red is temporary. The sensor itself is 16:9, and 16:9 4k recording will likely be enabled soon.

[Mardi_Gras]

... As far as the lime flavored Koolaid lets see where the red one is in 6 years and see how many released features it has under its belt ( a lot i hope) and then I'd say compare it to the viper.

Exactly what I suggested that got a me a cheap jab that has since morphed into a flip-flopping debacle:wink:

[Bruce Allen]

Hmm lime flavored or brackish water kool aid (bayer pattern). Come on guys the Red just has the wonderful luxury of end users never seeing what its raw bayer pattern actually looks like. Its the advantadge of a data workflow over a video workflow which is the way it should be done. Really with a good modern DDR system you never have to look at what the camera is actually recording and thats exactly what Graeme has developed with Redcode RAW.

As far as the lime flavored Koolaid lets see where the red one is in 6 years and see how many released features it has under its belt ( a lot i hope) and then I'd say compare it to the viper.

Agreed, and agreed again. Again, have no idea how this relates to original kool-aid reference which was about anamorphic on the Viper being 1K. But that's fine because I think we have moved on and the many flavors we now have are pretty funny.


Exactly what I suggested that got a me a cheap jab that has since morphed into a flip-flopping debacle:wink:

Mardi Gras, if you still feel angry, PM me some more. But try to read my original post again and understand it so you can respond properly instead of going off on a tangent.

I stand by my original statement that suggesting the Viper can do anamorphic at "1K" is drinking kool-aid.

Viper does not do: "true anamorphic" at 1K. You can't even stick a 35mm anamorphic lens on a Viper. I didn't think Jim was talking about this at first because, quite frankly, it doesn't make sense.

Viper does do: "anamorphic" at 1.9K. They call it anamorphic because it squashes the 2.35 image to fit the 16:9 signal. Fincher calls it anamorphic because it does 2.35. But as pointed out by Deanan, that is using a spherical lens. So no cool bokeh.

Viper could also do (if you wanted to make it look bad): 2.35 cropped out of 16:9, giving 1920x817, which equals 1.5K, and the Viper isn't exactly the sharpest thing on the planet so its effective resolution might be a little lower. That's what I thought Jim was talking about (since it's the only combination of the words "viper" "anamorphic" and "crop" that makes any sense).

You seem to want to make it look like I was suggesting that:
a) the Viper is better than the Red (it's not, Red beats it in almost every way)
b) the Viper will shoot more films than Red within first 5 years or whatever (it won't, Red will crush it)
c) I would ever use a Viper (wrong, I'd use a Red)

On a positive note, we now have some pretty funny definitions of kool-aid (brackish is my fave and lime-colored is a pretty apt one for the Viper). And if anyone ever actually does get "1K" anamorphic footage out of the Viper (maybe sticking on that old 16:9 Century Optics adapter you have back from the DV days might work ;) send us a screenshot and I'll send you a photo of me drinking spherical or anamorphic kool-aid of your choice.

Jim is really nice and has apologized when he shouldn't have had to. I've apologized and I'm happy to do it again.

Okay, I'm going to get back to trying to carve oval aperture discs for my Lensbaby in order to get that oval bokeh now...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[number6]

Bruce, it takes a big man to apoligize.... LOSE SOME WEIGHT!:usd:

[car3o]

Hey, thanks ibloom. I appreciate it. So basically it's about the look SS desires.
-Rh


Hey, welcome.

The anamorphic lense squeezes the image into a square. In post you stretch it out to a wide rectangle (1x2.40) or in the case that you are making a film print you just leave it squeezed and crop off the sides.

You aren't gaining much technically by doing this on RED, versus just cropping to 2.40. You are just trading horizontal rez for vertical. But anamorphic lenses have certain optical properties, a certain look, certain kinds of flare, a special way of going out of focus, and they render out of focus lights as ovals. I think that is why Soderberg is making the choice to use them.

Check out one of my favorite movies, Heat by Micheal Mann DP Dante Spinotti, to get an idea what that look is all about.

Cheers,
IBloom

[vidalsosa]

Hi Jim,

This has probably been discussed before, so pardon me if it has... is there any chance of Red making its own set of anamorphic lenses? I think it'd be great if you did.

[Shawn Nelson]

It would be hard to find a movie where the same set-up was shot twice in two formats. The next best thing is to compare movies with sequels that changed formats - for example, "X-Men 1" was shot in anamorphic, but the next two X-Men movies were shot in Super-35. At least you'd see the same sets shot in different formats.

All of the "Star Trek" features were shot in anamorphic except for "Star Trek 6", the only one shot in Super-35. I found a frame from each that are similar enough to see the difference in how the background goes out of focus in anamorphic (Star Trek 5) versus spherical (Star Trek 6):

Anamorphic:
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/startrekfive4.jpg

Spherical:
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/startreksix3.jpg

Hey David, thanks again for the explanations. I was watching 'Alien' for the first time in years and didn't know the tech specs. But as I was watching one of the opening pans of the empty Nostromo spaceship I saw the distortion in the ship and the lens flares and immediately exclaimed to my wife "That was shot anamorphic!" (she was, perplexed). Anyhow, after watching I checked and it was just cool to be able to pick that out like that, after your lessons here.

[dvpixl]

yeah. I saw it in Blade Runner too.

[Brandon Fraley]

anamorphic is sweet, or at least has it's place. I'm glad it will be an option for those that really want it... like me :)

[Felipe Jaco]

I have seen lot of movies that were shoot with Sony Cine Alta and it has much less resolution and they cropped image for anamorphic size, and in the movie theatre it looked ok. So cropping of RED images isn't going to create any problems in terms of loss of resolution.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Cropping isn't really the issue, I think people just want to have the animorphic look coming from their red camera.

[Daniel García]

What a nice thread I seem to have missed! ...at least before it became a kool-aid battle.:sad:


It would be hard to find a movie where the same set-up was shot twice in two formats.


I'm sorry i'm late for this discussion, but I just read the other day that the Japanese section of Babel had intercut spherical with anamorphic shots, particularly in the night interiors. I don't remember why, maybe something to do with not having enough light to stop down the anamorphic lens as much as they wanted? Ah, I'm not sure.:huh:

So now, everyone go grab the Babel DVD and post some comparison screengrabs!

A little OT:


Okay, I'm going to get back to trying to carve oval aperture discs for my Lensbaby in order to get that oval bokeh now...


Man that cracked me up... LOL!!!:usd:

[Alexander Nikishin]

Since an anamorphic mode is in the future for RED...

Will it be possible to have an anamorphic de-squeeze for the monitors and preview feeds?

Is Soderbergh shooting with a de-squeeze for his monitors and feeds or is he using a Pani monitor that does the de-squeezing?

As for the resolution he's shooting in ....... 2764 X 2304 ?

I would imagine the sides of the frame are being cropped in this mode when shooting with 2:1 anamorphics.....by how much, and what does that leave the effective resolution at?

[Omnius]

Thank you David Mullen.

You are truly a GOD.

I always enjoy reading your articles in various publications and on the message boards.

[Steve Freebairn]

I watched the Prestige again last night, I'm pretty sure it was shot with anamorphic lenses.

[JasonAvalos]

what the freak is soderscope? Just the center of the lens? not sure but hella interested!

[Florian Stadler]

What we really need here to unleash the potential of of a 2:1 sensor is a set of Anamorphic PL mount lenses with a 0.8333/1.2 (turn them 90 Degrees in the mount to get the 2 different squeezes) to get a full sensor 2.39 and when turned 90 Degrees full sensor 1.66 image. No wasting of pixel real estate required.

[Deanan]

What you gain in a mild squeeze you lose in resampling and additional optical elements. Is it worth the extra effort to creating new lenses for minimal resolution gain and minimal anamorphic look?

[David Birdy]

What you gain in a mild squeeze you lose in resampling and additional optical elements. Is it worth the extra effort to creating new lenses for minimal resolution gain and minimal anamorphic look?

Deanan,


Is it possible to use "Split Block" technology similar to the Way "Sy" and other camera makers use this to make the camera more mobile and compact?

The block and lens are separated from the camera housing, them an umbilical cord connects to the main body?

Thanks
Dave

[Florian Stadler]

And you have tested this Deanan? You had these lenses built and done a side by side comparison? Someone I know has with reportedly mind-blowing results (not on your sensor).
Calling 20% resolution gain minimal and dismissing the look of something you haven't even seen once in your life seems uninformed and compromising at the least. Are you saying this as a spokesperson of Red?
Please clarify your experiences and knowledge on this subject.

Thanks!

[Deanan]

Maybe you should state your affiliation with the unmentioned company and free equipment received in the past.

As for the facts, we're talking a 305 to 341 pixel gain vertically which is
15-16% depending on 2.39 vs 2.35.

[Florian Stadler]

I am a freelance Cinematographer striving for the best picture quality given each projects parameters and have no company affiliations whatsoever. My services are represented by the Stacy Cheriff Agency, Los Angeles. I have received free equipment for testing and Public Service announcements from many companies in the past including Keslow Camera, Clairmont Camera, Dalsa, Panavision, Kodak, Arri, Sony, Panasonic, Thompson and Otto Nementz to name a few.

The Anamorphic format results in a 2.39 aspect ratio (usually called 2.40 for simplicity) and not 2.35. Checking my facts I discovered that the Red is natively 1.77 aspect ratio and not 2:1 as I mistakenly stated in my previous post. Is this correct? I might have gone on old information. Therefore the squeeze factor would be 1.33 to get to a full frame Anamorphic aspect ratio using the sensor's full potential. If you were to crop these pixels instead of squeezing the image optically, wouldn't you have to crop specifically 590 Pixels vertically rather than "305 to 341" (4,096 x 2,304 at 1:1.77 and 4,096 1,714 at 1:2.39)? Mathematically that would be 25.6% or ROUGHLY A QUARTER OF THE RESOLUTION. If a quarter of your bank account is insignificant to you, I'd like to have it ;)

Please correct me on the current dimension in use on the mysterium and its uncropped aspect ratio as I realize things change. I have 2 numbers at hand, the mentioned 4,096 x 2,304 and 4520 (h) x 2540 (v). Is the 2nd one taking into account the extra pixels used to see past the framelines in the viewing system? Thanks for the clarification.

[Fredrik Callinggard]

And you have tested this Deanan? You had these lenses built and done a side by side comparison? Someone I know has with reportedly mind-blowing results (not on your sensor).

I'm really interested in this. I would love to see some pics? Would it be possible for you to publish some? You see I, like Deanan, am sceptic to why you want to step away from it's original purpose, but if it still looks the same, well then why not.

(correction - don't take purpose literally. I don't need a page of lecturing, we've all seen that you've done your homework ;-) )

[laguun]

What you gain in a mild squeeze you lose in resampling and additional optical elements. Is it worth the extra effort to creating new lenses for minimal resolution gain and minimal anamorphic look?

For us its decided: we prefer working with regular glass.
Via 35mm film projection the bottleneck of the resolution is the projection anyhow, and for digital 4K projektion i dont know of -a single- 4k cinema in europe equipped with anamorphic lenses.

If a DP however wants to use a scope lens in order to get a certain look, i would also be not refusing that.

[Deanan]

4096 x 2304 is the recordable area. 4520x2540 is recordable + lookaround.

Developing a new anamorphic format solely because one manufacturer has a 2:1 sensor makes no sense to me. Support for 1.33x and 2.0x makes sense as they are available formats.

[Tom Lowe]

It would seem odd to me to use an analog/optical technology like an anamorphic lens with a digital chip. It seems random.

I for one have no interest. Resolution is not the problem with RED 4K. The only way to make significant resolution gains worth caring about, IMO, would be a 6K chip. In my opinion, the best bet would be a 6K chip the size of a 65mm negative, so you could downsample it to 4K and also gain dynamic range. Of couse, you would need all new 65mm glass for that! ;)

[Robert Sanders]

Again, it's not about the resolution or the "squeeze". It has very little to do with aspect ratio (as it's been proven that there a far better methods to create a 2.39 frame than using anamorphic lenses).

What it is about is the inherent characteristics that anamorphic lenses create that no amount of software or resolution or chips can emulate.

It's not for everyone. Probably not for most. But it's important to some of us.

[Obin Olson]

...the ones that love that 'look' ....count me in!

[chuckt]

did Jim finance all those Soderberg projects for publicity?

[Deanan]

did Jim finance all those Soderberg projects for publicity?

We didn't finance anything (or else why would they be selling their CF cards?).

[Stephen Williams]

(or else why would they be selling their CF cards?).

Hi,

To recoup some of the investment in soon to be obsolete CF cards. Assuming you are asking for a possible explanation!

Stephen

[Stephen Williams]

(or else why would they be selling their CF cards?).

Hi,

To recoup some of the investment in soon to be obsolete 8GB CF cards. Assuming you are asking for a possible explanation!

Stephen

[Jannard]

Steven is a RED ONE camera owner... you guys are too funny.

Jim

[J.D. Frey]

I don't think soderberg would barter his reputation for funding- I'm sure he can find money

[Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock]

We´re wittnessing be the final gasps of the "Its a scam" thought.

[raquez]

Has anyone read that Soderbergh will be doing DI at the end of each day of shooting? If you have a source for that information or know where I can read more about this online (or in print), please post here.

What would the advantage of doing this each night be over doing it at the end of post?

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see how anyone could afford to record out digital footage to 35mm film every day on a movie shoot. It costs around $50,000 to record a two-hour movie from digital to 35mm on a laser recorder, imagine what 20 or more hours of footage would cost over the course of a feature.

"Digital intermediate" is a term getting thrown around so loosely these days that for some people, they just mean electronic color-correction. Strictly speaking, at its narrowest definition, digital intermediate means "film->digital->film" where a digital stage replaces the traditional intermediate film post-production steps used on something shot on film for finishing and releasing a movie theatrically. The term sort has been expanded to include almost anything prepared digitally for theatrical release in both film prints and digital cinema masters. But nowadays, people are tossing term around to include simply color-correcting a movie digitally, or doing the work in a D.I. theater rather than a traditional telecine bay.

I wouldn't be surprised if Soderberg was looking at his RED footage now & then in a D.I. theater just to see it on a large screen, nor if he was occasionally having shots recorded out to film as tests. And he may be having his dailies color-corrected as well.

[lordtangent]

Has anyone read that Soderbergh will be doing DI at the end of each day of shooting? If you have a source for that information or know where I can read more about this online (or in print), please post here.

What would the advantage of doing this each night be over doing it at the end of post?

Well, it's common for video dailies to do what I've heard referred to as a "best light". It's something in between a "one light" and a supervised transfer. Basically, the colorist does quick scene to scene corrects to make the shots look "good"

When shooting film the idea can backfire since then the DP has no idea what is actually on the film.

Since when working with Red the you must process the footage to look at dallies anyway, (unless you are recording the rec 709 from the video out as your dailies) SOME sort of color correct is indicated at that stage even if it's a simple one analogous to a "one light" in film. Basically, just a single LUT you use as your standard LUT for making dallies. But if you have someone who is skilled enough doing the dailies processing I guess they could spin the balls and make it look a little less raw in the process. But there seems to be very little point in it. At best they could only really attempt to make each scene look consistent take to take, but it's not going to save much time on the final color grade. Also, the colorist might hide mistakes made by the DP from the DP by "fixing" them. I think most DPs would rather see the equivalent of a "one light" to have a better base line for checking their work.

The one advantage I can think of (and it not a big one) for making stuff look good as you go is that you could show works in progress that look less rough to a lay-audience. It might also make studio execs feel more confident also (if stuff just looks more polished straight out of the camera) But in that case it would still be more efficient to just go though and do a quick color grade on the EDIT you intended to show. A good grading system can conform back to a revised edit anyway, so none of the grading work would be totally lost if the edit changed. It would simply be added to if required and re-rendered/re-conformed.

Now, perhaps the edit and grade are happening AS Soderbergh is still shooting? He could have his editor finish reels or sequences as they are shot and the colorist working on them as they come out of edit. That kind of makes sense depending on the arrangement with the post house and how much time/money you want to spend there.

[Pol Turrents]

there are rumours that the first movie, guerrilla, will be shown at the cannes film festival.

[Robert Sanders]

Soderbergh personally edits his footage every night. He's probably doing some basic color correction while he's editing. Probably getting the "look" close to where he wants it.

But I'm pretty sure he'll do a high-end grade in a full service shop before the theatrical mastering/film out.

[Álex Montoya]

When will the first trailer appear?

[Jannard]

From what I understand, Steven cut both of them on FCP and is finishing on Scratch. I think he did do filmouts along the way to make sure he knew where he was with the footage.

Steven is very smart... much more than normal, IMHO. Not because he is shooting RED. He just is.

He told me he will shoot "The Informant" starring Matt Damon... all RED again. He seems to be very happy with the images he is getting.

Jim

[Sanjin Jukic]

Soderbergh was always a wise man.

[Robert Sanders]

Very cool. I cannot wait to see his anamorphic footage. I'm extremely smitten with the concept of shooting anamorphic with the RED.

[Michael Booth]

I don't see how anyone could afford to record out digital footage to 35mm film every day on a movie shoot. It costs around $50,000 to record a two-hour movie from digital to 35mm on a laser recorder, imagine what 20 or more hours of footage would cost over the course of a feature.

Apologies to all for going off-topic, but where are you able to get digital to 35mm for $50,000?

For 1920x1080 HD to 35mm using Arrilaser we were recently quoted an estimate of £300,000 (UK pounds sterling) for a 100 minute feature, here in the United Kingdom.

Any pointers on good post-houses (worldwide, we will travel) that do this for around $50,000 would be VERY much appreciated David ;)

[David Mullen ASC]

Apologies to all for going off-topic, but where are you able to get digital to 35mm for $50,000?

For 1920x1080 HD to 35mm using Arrilaser we were recently quoted an estimate of £300,000 (UK pounds sterling) for a 100 minute feature, here in the United Kingdom.

Any pointers on good post-houses (worldwide, we will travel) that do this for around $50,000 would be VERY much appreciated David ;)

$300,000 is usually more the cost of a feature-length D.I., which is more than just the laser recording costs.

But if this was simply the cost of a film-out alone -- no scanning, no color-correcting, no conforming, no dust removal, no effects or transitions added, etc. -- then you are being overcharged. An Arrilaser recorder transfer of a 100 minute HD-shot movie is generally around $70,000-80,000 at the high end (at a place like EFILM) and more like $50,000 at smaller houses (Alpha Cine in Seattle for example, or Digital Film Lab in Copenhagen, if they still exist.)

[Stephen Webb]

Costs are more expensive here in the UK, but £300,000 for an HD film-out is way overpriced. Last time I checked a 4K film-out for a 2 hour feature was around £250,000 - and even then it was a load cheaper to get it done in the States.

[Michael Booth]

$300,000 is usually more the cost of a feature-length D.I., which is more than just the laser recording costs.

But if this was simply the cost of a film-out alone -- no scanning, no color-correcting, no conforming, no dust removal, no effects or transitions added, etc. -- then you are being overcharged. An Arrilaser recorder transfer of a 100 minute HD-shot movie is generally around $70,000-80,000 at the high end (at a place like EFILM) and more like $50,000 at smaller houses (Alpha Cine in Seattle for example, or Digital Film Lab in Copenhagen, if they still exist.)

Many thanks indeed David that is most helpful (and to you Stephen as well). I'll pass that on to the powers that be. Damn, we could make another film for £300,000!