What Anamorphic Lens?

[JohnF]

I'm asking around myself but I'm wondering what or if any RED fans are thinking about shooting anamorphic and if anyone has some thoughts on what would be the most appropriate lens(s)?

I'm looking for true 2.35to1 type panoramic wide shots @4k for landscapes and cloud/skyscapes...

Any thoughts?

JohnF

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Er.... Wouldn't you just use some really wide glass. Like the rectilinear Arri Ultra Prime 8R and then crop the top and bottom of your image in post to get the 2.35:1 aspect?

Does anyone actually make a 35mm PL mount "Anamorphic" lens that does horizontal compression? And if they did, what would be the purpose when shooting 4K. You wouldn't gain anything horizontally, but would rather be required to scale the image down vertically before cropping. ...I suppose you could stand to gain extra vertical resolution for film out to 65mm or IMAX formats by scaling the 4K image horizontally beyond 4K. Wow. Hmmm..

[M Olsen]

Better mark up the aspect ratio in post, staying with spherical glass means more lens options, cheaper, faster and more depth of field... remember anamorphic is double the focal length of 35mm to achieve the same angle of field of any given focal length.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

No suitable lenses exist at this moment as the Red sensor is a different shape to a 35mm film frame. The standard stretch for film anamorphic lenses is 2:1.

The reason people shoot anamorphic is to use the full negative gaining resoloution and smaller grain. Cropping an image reduces the resoloution, so that's not an ideal solution.

Stephen

[Kenn Christenson]

They crop the image all the time, in film, to get 2:35. Of course there's the old Technoscope (where they cropped a standard 35mm frame)- think Spaghetti Westerns and THX-1138 up to The Lord of the Rings - shot in Super35 and cropped and then there are the two latest Star Wars films - cropped high def.

Yes, you lose resolution, but then, you lose resolution with anamorphics, (compared to spherical.)

Note: Canon does have an anamorphic adapter for high def cams - so you can use the full height of your CCDs. I'm pretty sure it's in a B4 mount so you'd end up with a cropped CMOS sensor if you used it on the Red, anyway.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I guess the way I'm looking at it is this... If you shoot with anamorphic glass on RED, to 4K at 4096x2305, you then have two possible options to get to 2.35:1 aspect while retaining as much quality as possible:

1> Up-scale the horizontal resolution, preserving the 2305 vertical res. You would be working in greater than 4K.

2> Keep the 4096 frame width, but scale down the vertical resolution to get the proper pixel aspect. You won't be gaining any resolution, but there may be some added detail that transfers through the vertical scaling.

Both options seem a little curious given the available formats to shoot in and that most 2.35:1 features are cropped as it is. If we were dealing with a 4:3 3K * 2K sensor and we wanted to get a full 4K * 2K out of it (16:9) the best option would be be to shoot with anamorphic glass and scale horizontally to 4K. Preserving the vertical resolution... Without anamorphic glass, you would have to crop to 16:9 and lose a lot of detail.

Since we're already shooting 4K 16:9 on RED, I would really like to know what the perceived benefits of shooting anamorphically would be. I can see applications for film outs and post processes at greater than 4K res or larger than 35mm transfers. Since we're already working in 16:9, I would think an anamorphic lens that compresses the image vertically would be more applicable. Then the 4K horizontal resolution would be preserved, but the vertical would be condensed and then could be scaled up to make a 4:3 type aspect for film out to larger formats like IMAX as that would be better than cropping the sides of our 16:9 footage to fit or letterboxing 16:9 onto the 4:3 IMAX frame.

So yeah, I'm just wondering what the perceived application and advantage of anamorphic glass for the RED would be? ...I can think of a few things that may be nifty for FX shots though.

[M Olsen]

We have all made assumptions on JohnF's end user requirements. My suggestion of doing the top and bottom crop in post was based on an assumption of him wanting a simple widescreen look for general distribution and being able to use the full sensor width to do that with a racking ability and black top and bottom.
Jeff K has raised the bar with possible options for a projected widescreen. All involve compromise.
My anamorphic operating has been 2.25:1 framing but even dating from "Willow" in the 80s we allowed safety outside this for video.
Lord of the Rings was the same we used combi ground glasses and key framed for 2.25 even though we shot spherical.
My point being it is all a compromise. As a DOP I had to do a shoot for a specially constructed wide screen theatre, the best option was to shoot S35 and blow up the print to Cinemascope.
It almost seems that every situation is different and this will hold true to the Red fraternity.
What awes me is the technical knowledge some of you have and the fact that we can all submit and get an opinion.. this is what I like about Red. Makes a change from DPs giving each other the "hairy eyeball" across the bar !

[Stephen Williams]

They crop the image all the time, in film, to get 2:35.

Hi Ken,

Yes it's done & it looks nothing like anamorphic. Do you want the anamorphic look or just a letterbox?

An anamorphic film with a conventional finish will far out resolve the best 4K ever done.

Stephen

Edit:- The Technicolor process is no longer available, shooting 2 perf today does not look as good as it did 30 years ago. It does look better than 16mm blown up,but that's all.

[Evin Grant]

2.35:1 will look very good on the extracted from Red 4K but SW is right, it won't look anamorphic. Highlights, flare and Bokeh have a very distinct look in Ana. Even whhen I was shooting a horror film and used a DVX100 with the Panasonic Anamorphic adapter it had a certain feel that was just more cinematic. There is a set of filters out there that are supposed to replicate the look on spherical lenses, kind of like streak filters but more specific to the anamorphic feel. Either way a nice comprimise would be a 1.85:1 anamorphic lens set like the DVX but high quality of course. This gives you right about 2.35:1 from the 16:9 sensor.

[Zack Birlew]

I remember the thread where a guy put the anamorphic adapter on his HVX200. Must admit, the stills he posted looked pretty darn cool.

[JohnF]

An interesting set of responses, thanks folks!

LOL Turnover "Makes a change from DPs giving each other the "hairy eyeball" across the bar !"

I'm interested in anamorphic for landscape type shots to maximise the resolution of small objects at infinity on the chip, therefore image, so as to not miss a trick or rather capture as much detail as possible.

Yes, I can do this with a more traditional aspect ratio but, and here's the subjective part, I love the anamorphic look I think cinema has gone backward in dropping the use of technicolour and anamorphic. For instance I totally agree with Stephen Williams point about "shooting 2 perf today does not look as good as it did 30 years ago."

My approximate thinking around shooting 2.35:1 with RED @4k was that by simply telling whatever edit software I was using that the pixel aspect ratio was 2.35:1 (rather than square or 16:9) that this would not effect data rates . Though it might well throw up other workflow issues!

What do people think of Evin Grant's suggestion of an anamorphic adapter on the front?

As a note of further discussion I've also seen old Russian (Soviet era) anamorphic lenses on the market for a few hundred dollars...


JohnF

[Jeff Kilgroe]

What do people think of Evin Grant's suggestion of an anamorphic adapter on the front?

As a note of further discussion I've also seen old Russian (Soviet era) anamorphic lenses on the market for a few hundred dollars...

Evin brought up a few good points. Image properties like bokeh being effected for example, I hadn't thought of that...

An anamorphic adapter on the front could make sense. I used an anamorphic adapter with my DVX100 to get proper 16:9 out of 720x480 and it worked very well, but it did have some distortion at the wide end. You will lose about 1 stop by adding the extra glass, shouldn't be an issue if you plan accordingly and do some tests. A lot will depend on what lens you would be putting the anamorphic adapter in front of and how you would attach it.

If you can pick up one of those Russian lenses for a couple hundred $$ and they have a usable mount, they may be worth playing with, even for stylistic purposes.

[M Olsen]

Digressing slightly.. In the 80s I shot an anamorphic tourism promo and we used the Technovison ( ?) system from the UK. Main lens was a Cooke 5-1 with anamorphic rear element. Projected dailies were terrific. Alas the end use was VHS tapes in travel agent offices and on planes. As an aside are Technovision still in business ?

[Dominic Jones]

Yes, Technovision are still in business, but they're not a British company - they're based in Rome, Italy. They may have had a UK office, but not one I'm aware of that's still in existence.

As for using anamorphics on Red for the true 'scope look, the best bet would probably be to shoot with standard 2:1 optics and centre-crop the frame to 1.17:1 to get the correct image size, then print for anamorphic distribution (assuming a 35mm distribution). If you want a 2.35:1 ratio, barring new 1.5:1 optics of a good quality, then you need to crop the image somehow - either vertically using sphericals or horizontally using anamorphics, and with 4K resolution you'll get a perfectly good print out of either method, it just depends on the look you want (and if you don't mind the extra hassle of shooting with anamorphic glass).

There are, as someone mentioned, filters for emulating the look of anamorphic glass (or at least the blue horizontal flares, I doubt the bokeh differences can be emulated satisfactorily), but I haven't tried them so I don't know how effective they are. I'm shooting an HD movie which will be cropped to 2.35:1 soon, so I may test them for that - I'll let you know what I think if I do...

[Kenn Christenson]

If you're really married to the "anamorphic look" at the expense of losing resolution by cropping, then I guess you could do it (use 2:1 optics.) Bearing in mind that in order to get the equivalent sharpness of sherical glass you're going to have to shoot around f4. Not to mention all the "fun" you're going to have in post. Check out Steve Wright's book about Digital Compositing to see the added complications anamorphic adds to FX work.

Also, read the reply by David Mullin in this thread: http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20GB/%5Bcml%5D%20Anamorphic%20or%20Super%2035.htm

Note: I'm not against the "idea" of shooting anamorphic, I'm just wary of the reality - having shot an anamorphic short in 16mm, I know the difference between what sounds cool in prepro and what turns out to be a royal pain in the backside during production.

[Dominic Jones]

Well, as I said, if you want the 2.35:1 ratio (and I for one far prefer the compositional possibilities it presents over 16:9, but that's a whole different argument - the point is people do want it, whatever their reasons), then with a 16:9 sensor you're going to need to crop and lose resolution either way - vertically with sphericals or horizontally with anamorphics - there's just no other option at present.

Everyone knows that anamorphic is more time consuming to work with as a format, but that's no different with digital than with 35mm - i.e. it's a long way from impossible. Ultimately it's a choice that each production needs to make based on look vs cost, and each project will have to have it's director, producer and DP choose wisely to get the best out of the budget, as ever it was!

I don't think you need to be "married" to a format to decide that it's right for a given project, and to be honest the difficulty in shooting anamorphic is a little over-egged sometimes, imho - it's not *that* much of a challenge! I don't tend to do stuff with a lot of VFX work in it, so I wouldn't want to comment there, but for general narrative work I don't find it that much of an additional strain on shooting schedules...

At the end of the day it's different strokes for different folks, isn't it?! If you're not comfortable with or not fussed about shooting anamorphically, don't. If you are and you are, then do!! It'll be nice to have a camera that can easily handle both situations and give cinematographers the same tools in the digital realm that are enjoyed in the film world.

That's my 0.02, at least...

[C.H.Haskell]

So its possible to put an adaptor on the front end of, lets say a Red lens? An adaptor that does not exist of course but I like the idea. Worked well back in the DVX days so I can only imagine an Ultra HD anamorphic adaptor will be produced for the 4k users of tomorrow.

[David Mullen ASC]

Front 1.33X anamorphic adaptors have been used by DV cameras, but the optical quality has never been high enough for 35mm photography, plus it would be a HUGE adaptor to cover a 35mm cine lens front anyway, less huge if you are talking about an SLR lens, but again, optical resolution loss negates the whole point of trying to avoid cropping pixels.

[Evin Grant]

So we would need a set of dedicated 1.33x anamorphics like the Dalsas then. David, have you used the Vantage film Blue-vision anamorphic flare filter?
Is it of any use in this regard?

[David Mullen ASC]

The blue flare filter from Vantage is only for creating that blue anamorphic lens flare artifact. No, I haven't used it.

The Dalsa anamorphic lenses will only have a 1.22X squeeze because the Dalsa sensor is 1.96 : 1, not 1.78 : 1 (16x9).

[Evin Grant]

Ah, thanks. In your opinion would there be any resolution advantage (Vs. asthetic) to a set of good 1.33x anamorphics for Red Vs. a center crop to 2.35:1?
My feeling was that the optics would take away more than they gave. But I have not shot anything anamorphic before.

[David Mullen ASC]

It makes more sense in film, where a 2X anamorphic means that you will use a lot more negative area than cropping to 2.35, if you are shooting 4-perf. There would even be some advantage for a 3-perf (16x9) negative with 1.33X anamorphics, to reduce grain mainly.

With a 4K digital camera, there is less advantage since you aren't dealing with grain. You'd probably get a smoother texture from using more pixels, maybe slightly less noise, but not really an improvement in sharpness. But then, since the lenses don't really exist, we don't know for sure what the improvement would be -- it depends a lot on the quality of the anamorphic lens, which is why I don't think simple anamorphic attachments to the front are going to cut it.

[Matt De Jesus]

How about getting a "Panavised" lens mount on the RED and using Panavision glass?

[Hans von Sonntag]

I never shot anamorphic but I like the wide screen. Apart form the optical looks aspherical lenses create I thought of a way I perhaps would go with RED:

1. Shoot 4k spherical with scope guide lines (cropped picture in VF / monitor)

2. Transfer in RED CINE to 2K anamorphic 2:1 (like conventional 35mm cinemascope 2K scans)

3. Print to film.

An thoughts?

Hans

[David Mullen ASC]

Panavision anamorphic lenses have the standard 2X squeeze, so on a 16x9 sensor (1.78 : 1) you'd end up with a 3.56 : 1 aspect ratio. By the time you were done cropping the sides to get to 2.39 : 1, you wouldn't be any better off than cropping normal 16x9 to 2.39 vertically.

As far as filming-out to 35mm anamorphic from normal RED photography, just as with any spherical photography, you'd frame for cropping to 2.39, but you'd save the crop & stretch to 2X anamorphic for the laser recorder step.

From your full-frame 16x9 master, you'd make any full-frame, letterboxed, and pan & scan versions for home video submasters. For digital projection, you'd make a version that was cropped to 2.39 (probably something around 2048 x 857 for 2K projection and 4096 x 1714 for 4K projection.)

[Jim Zhang]

There is a solution if someone wants to shoot 2:36:1 ratio on Red, the 1.33X anamorphic converter. Based on Red's format of 16:9 ratio, if you add a 1.33X anamorphic in front of the lens, you will get squeezed image on horizontal, which means that you will keep the field of view on vertical same and widen the field of view in horizontal by 1.33 times. The true ration will be 2.36:1 with 1.33X anamorphic converter.

[Jim Zhang]

There is a solution if someone wants to shoot 2:36:1 ratio on Red, the 1.33X anamorphic converter. Based on Red's 4K format is 16:9 ratio, if you add a 1.33X anamorphic in front of the lens, you will get squeezed image on horizontal, which means that you will keep the field of view on vertical same and widen the field of view in horizontal by 1.33 times. The true ration will be 2.36:1 with 1.33X anamorphic converter.

[Pol Turrents]

There is a solution if someone wants to shoot 2:36:1 ratio on Red, the 1.33X anamorphic converter. Based on Red's 4K format is 16:9 ratio, if you add a 1.33X anamorphic in front of the lens, you will get squeezed image on horizontal, which means that you will keep the field of view on vertical same and widen the field of view in horizontal by 1.33 times. The true ration will be 2.36:1 with 1.33X anamorphic converter.

And where we can found the 1.33x anamorphic adaptor?

[Michael Hastings]

I have two anamorphic adaptors made for some Fujinon lenses by Todd AO. They are very large and were on lenses with about an 80mm front end and the front of the adapters are about 6 inches across.

I think they are 1.5x but not sure.

I removed one of them from the lens it was on but don't really have the patience or the tools to work on them properly. I would be willing to sell them or work with someone to develop them into something useable if anyone is interested.



So its possible to put an adaptor on the front end of, lets say a Red lens? An adaptor that does not exist of course but I like the idea. Worked well back in the DVX days so I can only imagine an Ultra HD anamorphic adaptor will be produced for the 4k users of tomorrow.

[Pol Turrents]

2 years ago I made the first feature in real 2.35 using varicam and F900 (info (http://www.canon-europe.com/TV-Products/News/anamorphic_converter_story.asp)), so I've been researching different ways of doing the 2.35 picture.
Since I asked about the 1.33x anamorphic lenses I was wondering about if there's out any system. Well... EXISTS from an european company, and it's specially design for super 35, super 16, and of course is perfect to work with a RED. I've just tested the lens and I can't tell anything right now, but it works really really nice.
I can't wait to test with a RED.... 4k with anamorphic is going to have an incredible resolution!

[Pat Cooksey]

I
I'm looking for true 2.35to1 type panoramic wide shots @4k for landscapes and cloud/skyscapes...

Any thoughts?

JohnF
I am not sure you would gain anything from using an anamorphic lens. Anamorphic lenses are designed to squeeze a 2.35:1 to a standard 4:3 35 mm full frame. But this is not the super 35 mm frame which in film cameras (and RED) re-centers the lens and uses the extra space (like super 16) originally set aside for printing optical sound tracks.

I don't know if typical anamorphic lenses are capable of covering the full super 35 aperture.

Super 35 (though also almost a perfect 16:9 aspect ratio) is generally used in film as a less cumbersome way to achieve a 2.35:1 aspect ratio using standard cine lenses taking advantage of the extra real estate of the super 35 aperture. The negative real estate available is wider and so cropping for the format is less destructive than cropping a standard 35 aperture.

Pat Cooksey
DP Atlanta
Motion Visuals
www.motionvisuals.com.

[Øystein Mamen, FNF]

I've just tested the lens and I can't tell anything right now, but it works really really nice.


Hi, is this going to be released in the near future? I have a feature coming my way where it might be instrumental, and would love to have any more info on it.

Øystein