Another Anamorphic Newbie Question :)

[RJ King]

Usually, when a client wants that “Anamorphic” look they mean the aspect ratio and maybe some flares. So we just crop the frame to 2.40 and add some flares in post.

But.. lately people talk about losing vertical resolution and why using true anamorphic lenses are better (outside of artifacts and bokeh).

I can’t seem to wrap my head around this. If the frame was 16:9 and you crop the top and bottom, how does the image quality worsen?

Do they mean you can GAIN vertical resolution, but how much does that really impact the final image... because.. ultimately if you don’t crop the frame, its still the same resolution either way?

Confused.

[Shane Betts]

Shooting anamorphic, you use a maximum of the vertical frame, despite shooting a wide frame. When you shoot 4perf, you get to use the whole frame, stretched wide, when shooting a s35 sensor like Red, you get to use the whole vertical resolution but less of the horizontal res.

One of the nicest things about anamorphic for mine is the shape of the bokeh - you can't easily fake that. Round in focus, elliptical out of focus. Subtle but there.

[RJ King]

Hi,

Yes I like the bokeh as well. For those who are interested, here is a comparison of Anamorphic vs cropped spherical s35 that David Mullen kindly posted up:

Anamorphic (Star Trek 5)
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/startrekfive4.jpg

Super-35 (Star Trek 6)
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/startreksix3.jpg

Anyways, back to my original question. When you crop red footage to 2.40, is there going to be any noticeable image quality difference vs using true anamorphic lenses and getting more vertical resolution.

because im getting confused when they talk about that.

[Brennan Klensch]

You're not losing any picture when you shoot true anamorphic, when you just crop in 16 x 9, you are cropping what is, i'm assuming, a 1920 by 1080. By doing so you inevitably will be cutting off from the top and bottom which will bring down your "1080" number because you will literally be "cutting out" or "covering up" those pixels, so you end up with something more like 1920 x 815 or 1920 x 830, but the part of the picture that is uncropped remains unaffected including the quality

[JohnF]

IMO from an aesthetic point-of-view there are more benefits to shooting anamorphic than just flares and avoiding the reduction in vertical resolution of the original material.

Putting it very simply:

If a 50mm lens has a 2x "squeeze" then the image will have the horizontal FOV of ~25mm but the depth of field and perspective characteristics of a 50mm. This can be used to fantastic effect.

Another, though less important, benefit is when delivering at 16:9 an anamorphic image (~2.40:1) has to be shrunk to fit within the 16:9 frame this can have the effect of reducing visible noise/grain in the image. So whilst the image will have a smaller vertical size it will appear cleaner and can, ironically, give the impression of being higher resolution (a psycho-optic effect).

JohnF

[Joe G.]

Personally, I love when there is movement at the sides of the frame. It looks more pronounced than movement in the center. Walking along walls and tunnels is more movie-like, and engrossing than standard optics.

[Harry Clark]

Hoping that someday there will be more high-res 4x3 electronic camera choices... Monstro?
I have used the Hawk 1.3X squeeze V-Lights and they are really nice. You get some of the anamorphic effects, but more subtle.
I agree that there is a more "cinematic" feel with anamorphics, probably a combination of bokeh, the flares, highlights, and the disparity of DOF between the vertical and horizontal.
Too bad we rarely get to use it in the world of commercials and corporate film. You feature guys out there have all the fun!
Cheers,
Harry