Anamorphic - Bang for the Buck?

kjones

kjones

Greetings-

Assuming a good story and solid production values, would shooting with anamorphic lenses for the 2.35:1 screen ratio provide a big "bang for the buck," specifically in terms of marketing?

I really like the looks of it and may be doing pre-pro for a teaser soon, so doing some research. In this case, would the anamorphic look increase the odds of attracting interest (and maybe some financing) on a kickstarter or indiegogo campaign?

Any thoughts greatly appreciated!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Important cinematic decisions including lensing should be decided on in regards to what serves the story best, no what serves the marketing best.

If the story is kickass, the images are beautiful and it's shot on anamorphics, I'm sure you'll gather a lot of interest - but then you would even if shot with standard spherical lenses.

If the story is poor, images are average and you're shooting anamorphics, the lenses are going to save interest in the film.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
Important cinematic decisions including lensing should be decided on in regards to what serves the story best, no what serves the marketing best.

If the story is kickass, the images are beautiful and it's shot on anamorphics, I'm sure you'll gather a lot of interest - but then you would even if shot with standard spherical lenses.

If the story is poor, images are average and you're shooting anamorphics, the lenses are going to save interest in the film.
Click to expand...

I do agree, the story is king.

Now you've got me thinking about exactly what genre/type of stories are best suited to the anamorphic. Westerns come to mind, sci-fi too. Seems family dramas or others with lots of interiors aren't suited as well.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm a lover of anamorphic aspect. But most people don't even imagine what it means. If you say "we will use anamorphic lenses", well it's not a useful information to your audience. I don't believe it will increase the "marketing value" just telling this idea in the crowdfunding project - even because the ordinary audience normally hates what they call "black bars" on footage.

The good point is that anamorphic image really can tell to the people's unconscious that your film is something they can't do at their home with their cameras. Your film is quite different from what they could do with a dslr and a normal lens. In my opinion this is one of the many ways to increase the value of a independent movie.

But keep in mind that anamorphic lens are not simple to use. Mainly if you intend to use a anamorphic lens attached to a normal lens.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
kjones said:
Now you've got me thinking about exactly what genre/type of stories are best suited to the anamorphic. Westerns come to mind, sci-fi too. Seems family dramas or others with lots of interiors aren't suited as well.
Click to expand...
I think anamorphic lenses work well with stylised pieces. You may not want to use anamorphics for say a period piece or hyper realistic drama. But, it fits well with sci-fi and westerns. One of thew major things I noticed about the look of Argo was their use of anamorphics. I think it comes down to a very personal decision. You're really looking at that elongated/oval type bokeh rather than that perfectly round bokeh of spherical lenses. Anamorphics also obviously flare more (apart from the new Zeiss anamorphics), but in Argo there wasn't the flare that I'd normally expect from an anamorphic movie. They certainly give a different look, and it's up to you as the DP to make that decision about what suits the story better.

If you look at some examples, comparing say Super 8 to the Social Network. Super 8 was heavily stylised and certainly had that flare theme running through it and so seems like a natural fit for anamorphics. Social Network is almost like a hyper-realistic drama and I think it suits the Master Primes perfectly, because it does feel much more like you're actually watching the events unfold, rather than a heavily stylised movie about what happened.

FernandoAndre said:
The good point is that anamorphic image really can tell to the people's unconscious that your film is something they can't do at their home with their cameras. Your film is quite different from what they could do with a dslr and a normal lens. In my opinion this is one of the many ways to increase the value of a independent movie.
Click to expand...
I disagree. How many people look at narrative television and think they can do it at home? TV aspect is standard 1.77/16:9, just like everyone's handycam. Anamorphic frame size isn't what sets a movie apart, it's everything else. It's the Production Design and the lighting, and the sound and sound design, and the costuming and the acting and everything.

But keep in mind that anamorphic lens are not simple to use. Mainly if you intend to use a anamorphic lens attached to a normal lens.
Click to expand...
Not if you're using a real anamorphic lens, and not just some adapter. Real anamorphics don't tend to work well wide open, however. You kidna don't want to open past f/4.0ish. Anamorphics also breath a hell of a lot when focus pulling, as you can probably tell if you've watched any recent anamorphic film, so you and yoru focus puller start to have to think about exactly what to have in focus, as you don't really want to be pulling back and forth from one person to the other in a standard dialogue scene like you might with a spherical.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
I disagree. How many people look at narrative television and think they can do it at home? TV aspect is standard 1.77/16:9, just like everyone's handycam. Anamorphic frame size isn't what sets a movie apart, it's everything else. It's the Production Design and the lighting, and the sound and sound design, and the costuming and the acting and everything.

Not if you're using a real anamorphic lens, and not just some adapter. Real anamorphics don't tend to work well wide open, however. You kidna don't want to open past f/4.0ish. Anamorphics also breath a hell of a lot when focus pulling, as you can probably tell if you've watched any recent anamorphic film, so you and yoru focus puller start to have to think about exactly what to have in focus, as you don't really want to be pulling back and forth from one person to the other in a standard dialogue scene like you might with a spherical.
Click to expand...

I mean the anamorphic look can be one of the characteristics which can bring visual value to the film, not the only one or even the main. Yes you need all of this things we know that makes a good movie, but this things don't contradict the possibility of the anamorphic aspect bring value too. Each attribute have it's own importance.

There are a lot of real anamorphic lenses that will still need an adapter. I don't know which camera he intend to use, and how much money he intend to spend. Depending on this, maybe he needs the adapter system and in this case is important to study the limitations and all the stuff to make it works.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FernandoAndre said:
I mean the anamorphic look can be one of the characteristics which can bring visual value to the film, not the only one or even the main. Yes you need all of this things we know that makes a good movie, but this things don't contradict the possibility of the anamorphic aspect bring value too. Each attribute have it's own importance.

There are a lot of real anamorphic lenses that will still need an adapter. I don't know which camera he intend to use, and how much money he intend to spend. Depending on this, maybe he needs the adapter system and in this case is important to study the limitations and all the stuff to make it works.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with your points, and am studying up on the various adapters and lenses available. Might rent the lenses if that's the way we go.

Thanks!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
kjones said:
Thanks for your advice and thoughts. --BTW, I have a hacked GH2.
Click to expand...
I assume you'd be using a straight lens adapter a lomo's or kowa's rather than an anamorphic adapter on top of another lens?


kjones said:
@jax_rox
Can you tell me why a period piece might not work, and/or an example?...

Thanks for your thoughts, I'm anxious to see Argo!
Click to expand...

Argo is great!

It's not that a period piece wouldn't necessarily work - Argo is somewhat of a 'period' piece, just that the period is the late 70s/early 80s.

I don't think it would work for something like Jane Eyre because it's not screaming out for stylised flares and interesting bokeh.

At the end of the day, it comes down to your decision as DP. It depends on the look you're going for. The look of anamorphics is something you may want, and it's something you may not want. Deakins, for example, doesn't shoot with anamorphics at all just as a personal preference.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
I assume you'd be using a straight lens adapter a lomo's or kowa's rather than an anamorphic adapter on top of another lens?
...
I don't think it would work for something like Jane Eyre because it's not screaming out for stylised flares and interesting bokeh.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts, jax_rox. I'm thinking the lomo on my GH2, but I'm a newbie on anamorphics and it will need to be something I can afford to buy or rent. Was thinking of buying Andrew Reid's e-book (http://www.eoshd.com/anamorphic-guide) to help get me going.

Think I understand what you mean, it's as though the flares/bokeh/format are so special that they must fit organically with a particular story or genre, or it won't work. Yup, another decision!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Assuming a good story and solid production values, would shooting with anamorphic lenses for the 2.35:1 screen ratio provide a big "bang for the buck," specifically in terms of marketing?
Click to expand...

When was the last time you went to a particular movie because it was 2.35:1?

Even if you answer yes. What was the last film you watched in 2.35:1? I'm sure you'll get a lot of blank faces from your non-filming friends.

I don't think a lot of people would know, of even care. If this is the case, it'd gain no real marketability from using it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sweetie said:
When was the last time you went to a particular movie because it was 2.35:1?
...
I don't think a lot of people would know, of even care. If this is the case, it'd gain no real marketability from using it.
Click to expand...

I hear you, Sweetie, but don't you think it can be *part* of the mix, of the look and feel of watching certain movies? I'm not saying the 2.35:1 format is the be-all, end-all of a film.

Do think you're on target in one respect: while watching a movie, I point out "insider" film stuff to my wife and her most common reaction is, "huh, didn't notice." HOWEVER, it may be part of her film experience she's unaware of, yet really likes. Even if the audience doesn't pick up on it consciously, that's part of the art of film don't ya think, those things that help make certain films so engaging and watchable?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
kjones said:
Think I understand what you mean, it's as though the flares/bokeh/format are so special that they must fit organically with a particular story or genre, or it won't work. Yup, another decision!
Click to expand...

It's not that it's more 'special', just that it's a different kind of look, and it also presents different kinds of challenges when using them, not the least of which being you'd need a decent amount of light to keep them at around their ideal f/4.0-f/11.0 operating range.

That's assuming using real anamorphics vs. cropping in post - 2.39:1 vs 1.85:1 is a whole different argument, and again is really determined by the story: are you shooting intimacy? Are you shooting vast landscapes? Are you shooting both?

But, if it's the look you want then go for it. It's also not the only aspect to the look and to the movie. As with any one part or decision, that single thing isn't what's going to make the difference, it's that part combined with all the other parts and decisions you make that will bring the end look and result.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Dude, I finally got my Isco 2x, and as you asked to back to show some work, here I am. This is my first video with Ana.

Very hard to use. This is an optical language completly different from anything you can imagine, from anything you have used before. Without an external monitor which shows the footage already distorted to the anamorphic aspect, you have to practice a lot in order to be able to identify it with your eyes. What appears on the camera LCD can easily fool your eyes, and that's why I missed a lot of angulations. For example, the image with the girl is very wrong.

But still amazing! Specially for those who love the old soul of Cinema. It's an inexplicable characteristic, the anamorphic have it's own life. I'm realizing a dream. :)

https://vimeo.com/55272622
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
@FernandoAndre

Nice! I noticed something that came in your variety of subjects: Seemed to me the most "cool look" shots were those with the simplest compositions and least action. If the frame was full of people or business, the look wasn't as noticeable (again, to me). Can certainly see the utilitarian purpose of using anamorphic in those shots, too (for example, showing more space/area to the side of the soccer players).

Thanks for posting, looooove that look!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top