Thread: I'm probably foolish for asking this...

Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1 I'm probably foolish for asking this... 
    Senior Member Nick Junkersfeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    146
    ... but are we well past the point that we may ever see additional anamorphic support for DSMC cameras? I'd love 1.5x & 1.8x options considering the various lens choices that are becoming available for sensors just like Dragon (PS-Technik, Cooke etc.). And of course there are many many DSMC cameras out there working, that will continue to work for years to come.
    cinematographer/filmmaker
    nickjunkersfeld.com

    Epic-M CF #00288
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member David Collard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    572
    Don't hold your breathe. I believe it all comes down to sensor size, particularly the vertical, with regards to support for anamorphic 2x, 1.8x, 1.5x.
    The reason for the 1.5x is mostly to accommodate 16:9 size sensors, whereas the 1.8x variety has the same sensor philosophy in mind while retaining more of the wide character and with less resultant clipping on the left and right in post.

    Ideally, it would be cool to have a sensor that is dedicated to the anamorphic formats, but that presumably would mean shooting with a Monstro sensor. (Haven't)

    Some other sensors also make accommodations for the anamorphic format in 4:3 and 6:5 modes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Tom Gleeson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,312
    Nick,

    No its a good question and I have a project coming up and I was keen to try some of the new 1.8X glass. I reached out to Red and asked the question specifically if the 1.8X squeeze will be supported and was told it was on the radar but there was no definitive commitment to adding support at this stage. I suspect if more people ask about alternate anamorphic squeezes this will move the question up the priority list. In reality the 1.8X lenses are only just becoming available but Arri is already supporting the format and as a professional Cinema camera supplier Red will hopefully follow
    Tom Gleeson
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Nick Junkersfeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    146
    Thank you Tom - I just sent a feature request to Red about adding both 1.5x and 1.8x modes to DSMC cameras. I would encourage others to do the same. With various 1.5x and 1.8x lens options either recently available or coming soon, I'd say it's a fairly big deal if we can't use them on DSMC Red hardware without inconvenient work arounds.


    Here's the link to Red's Feature Request page if anyone else wants to do the same: https://support.red.com/hc/en-us/com...eature-Request
    cinematographer/filmmaker
    nickjunkersfeld.com

    Epic-M CF #00288
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,798
    Of course it will be added eventually

    Question is when
    JAKE WILGANOWSKI
    Director of Photography / Filmmaker
    CINE-AUTOMATIC.COM
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member Zack Birlew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California and Las Vegas
    Posts
    884
    1.5x and 1.8x are fairly unusual choices for anamorphics, normally it's 2X for 4:3 or 35mm full frame format or 1.33x for 16:9 or 35mm Widescreen (Super 35) format. All ratios have had their day in some form or another if you look at the history of anamorphics, particularly on 8mm and 16mm, but the gold standard is 2X anamorphics for the complete anamorphic look and effect. These days people are looking at 1.5x for the Iscorama lenses which are typically 1.5x and there's 1.8x with Letus' adapter and certain projector anamorphics, those will produce perfectly fine anamorphic looking footage but for camera support it's a little above and beyond as higher budget anamorphic use will be 2X or newer 1.33x options. Realistically, if RED adds support then it will be a definite bonus for inexpensive anamorphic users and win them kudos but otherwise it shouldn't be expected unless there's enough demand. I've heard the new Panasonic S1H has various anamorphic options so that alone could spur more interest, however, most of the newer stuff is still 1.33x or 2X save for a couple of new 1.8x lenses coming down the line. If you need something to help you when filming anamorphic, your best bet is to look for an external monitor with various anamorphic viewing features. I have a cheap Feelworld LCD that has 2x, 1.5x, and 1.33x which is nice although I know it would be more convenient to have it all stretched out already in-camera.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member Nick Junkersfeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    146
    Don't forget the PS-Technik Technovision line of 1.5x primes and zooms. Those are the primary modern 1.5x anamorphics on my radar that would be a great fit for the Dragon sensor. The zooms in particular are light and perfect for handheld work. It seems the number of 1.8x lenses will continue to grow as well.
    cinematographer/filmmaker
    nickjunkersfeld.com

    Epic-M CF #00288
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member Satsuki Murashige's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    548
    I’m curious what the benefits are of shooting with 1.8x glass, given the minimal difference in look and sensor crop compared to traditional 2x? It seems to me that 1.8x glass would be mainly to make full use of 1.33:1 (4x3) camera formats (1.33x1.8=2.39). Unless people are perhaps targeting wider aspect ratios?

    Re: non-traditional squeeze ratios

    I would like to see this be a user customizable function, just like custom frame guides. I shoot with an Iscorama quite a bit and personally use a 1.4x de-squeeze ratio to avoid the mumps at normal working distances. Currently, I have to do on set preview de-squeezing through monitoring, but it would be nice to have it be done by the camera and included in the metadata. There are also other oddball squeeze ratios around like the 1.25x Ultra Panavision lenses and 1.6x Ultra Vista Panavision lenses that this feature could service.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member David Collard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    572
    Quote Originally Posted by Satsuki Murashige View Post
    Im curious what the benefits are of shooting with 1.8x glass, given the minimal difference in look and sensor crop compared to traditional 2x? It seems to me that 1.8x glass would be mainly to make full use of 1.33:1 (4x3) camera formats (1.33x1.8=2.39).
    My understanding of the 1.8x anamorphic is to make full use of the sensor size/vertical resolution most common in today's sensors. So in effect, instead of losing 10% on the right and left in post production, 1.8x allows the "full" anamorphic frame that you envisioned on set without compromise in post.

    There are several other sizes like PS Technik 1.5x, 1.3x etc. and all of these allow more of your wide view within the frame. Cooke Optics has used their 1.8x as a benchmark in their marketing citing that anything lower than 1.8x loses the anamorphic characteristic look. However, not everyone cares as much about the "look" and will still benefit from the vertical and horizontal ratio derived from 1.5x etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member Nick Junkersfeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    146
    From the Cooke Chairman, “If you do the math, to get 2.39:1 desqueezed from a 1.5:1 Full Frame image, you’d have a 1.6x ratio. But to us, that’s not a very interesting anamorphic look. It’s like being half pregnant. The classic oval bokehs are missing.

    “If we did a traditional 2x squeeze, there would be a lot of wasted space and pixels lost in cropping (1.5:1 x 2 = 3:1). So we arrived at 1.8x, which keeps the classic look and oval bokehs. Also, a 2.39:1 image squeezed to 1.8x benefits from covering over 90% of the Full Frame sensor area.”
    cinematographer/filmmaker
    nickjunkersfeld.com

    Epic-M CF #00288
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts