cinematography Is their any reason to use anamorphic lenses other than widescreen footage?

[harmonica44]

A lot of aspiring filmmakers are all about getting anamorphic lenses. I have watched a lot of footage on them but I don't really see much of a difference between the image compared to regular DSLR lenses. Am I missing something? A lot of videos do not show a direct comparison though. I have to watch the picture, and then try to imagine what it would look like with regular DSLR lenses, and I am not seeing anything unique that I can spot, really.

In order to get widescreen, I have been shooting in regular 16:9, and then cropping the footage down to 2.40:1., so far. However, I was told that doing it this way is wrong, because when you do it that way, you do not have 1920 x 1080 pixels in your image, since the top and bottom quarters are being cropped off... cause you loose some of those pixels of course.

I was told that with anamorphic, it will shoot at 1920 x1080, and then by squishing the image, you can squish it down to 2:40:1 around, and still have all 1920 x 1080 pixels, full HD, in your squished images, rather than cropping pixels off. Is this true? Is anamorphic really worth it for this alone, and it makes that much of an impression with people when they judge your demo reels and short films?

It seems that this and getting good bokeh, but it seems the bokeh that comes with DSLR prime lenses is fine, and pretty good. Does anamorphic make all the difference? Or is their another reason why anamorphic is so popular that I am missing?

Thanks.

 

[cheeseandachallenge]

Yes it is true. I don't know if it's worth it for you. I don't consider it worth it for my current work - though I think if I were working with bigger budgets I would, simply because it makes it easier to frame the image for 2.40:1 (rather than using tape on the screen to estimate what it would look like).

They also create different flares to regular lenses (some people prefer the anamorphic flares).

I think they might also create a smaller DOF (which based on your threads, you wouldn't want) - though I am unsure.

This article has a few comparison images between regular and anamorphic lenses: http://petapixel.com/2014/05/07/shooting-anamorphic-lens-dslr/

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I never really considered myself much of a flare guy per say though, I mean lots of big budget movies do not use many flares and they are still considered cinematic.

Also even if you wanted better looking flares, wouldn't a star filter get you pretty good ones instead of buying anamorphic? Also wasn't Ben Hur shot with anamorphic lenses, cause that movie has a lot of deeper depth of field shots, so how did they do it, if it causes shallower DOF?

 

[cheeseandachallenge]

A star filter gives a certain effect, as does an anamorphic lens. You may prefer one over the other.

I don't particularly like flares either, but there are valid reasons to use them. No one said that flares make a film cinematic. Using them doesn't make a film not cinematic either. They're just a tool.

From that article I posted:
Anamorphic flare vs Regular flare

As I said, i'm not a fan of flares, but if the film needed such a lighting set up, the anamorphic flare looks better and is less distracting to me. But perhaps the story calls for the uglier "ring" flare - in that case a regular lens is more suitable.

I'm not arguing for or against flares. They are just one of the tools a filmmaker uses. Anamorphic lenses create different flares, and hence is one of the reasons someone may want to use an anamorphic lens.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. If I am completely satisfied with my regular lenses, and the star filter, is it still worth getting anamorphic to impress other people though to hopefully get gigs? I mean will people love your movie more if it's full 1920 x1080 squished down compared to pixels cropped off?

I watched the examples in this video by film riot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l7KTDHla5k

Now he says that one of the major issues with shooting anamorphic on a DSLR is the vignetting. I never really cared for vignetting either, and find that it comes off cheesy, unless you are doing a scene that calls for the effect such as a character looking through binoculars, to show his/her point of view. But if it's nothing like that, than I do not really care for vignetting. Can you shoot anamorphic on a DSLR without vignetting? He says you can if you choose a lens over 85mm but what if I want to shoot with a 24mm lens? Can you get anamorphic lenses and filters without the vignette on them or do they all come with that?

 

[chilipie]

A lot of aspiring filmmakers are all about getting anamorphic lenses. I have watched a lot of footage on them but I don't really see much of a difference between the image compared to regular DSLR lenses. Am I missing something? A lot of videos do not show a direct comparison though. I have to watch the picture, and then try to imagine what it would look like with regular DSLR lenses, and I am not seeing anything unique that I can spot, really.

"Imagining" a lens comparison!? A quick Google image search for "anamorphic lens test" found me this:


(Click to embiggen.)

In order to get widescreen, I have been shooting in regular 16:9, and then cropping the footage down to 2.40:1., so far. However, I was told that doing it this way is wrong, because when you do it that way, you do not have 1920 x 1080 pixels in your image, since the top and bottom quarters are being cropped off... cause you loose some of those pixels of course.

Yes, you will lose resolution if you crop to an aspect ratio that doesn't make use of the whole sensor. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if the different aspect ratio better conveys the story and mood you are trying to sell. Plot before pixels.

I was told that with anamorphic, it will shoot at 1920 x1080, and then by squishing the image, you can squish it down to 2:40:1 around, and still have all 1920 x 1080 pixels, full HD, in your squished images, rather than cropping pixels off. Is this true? Is anamorphic really worth it for this alone, and it makes that much of an impression with people when they judge your demo reels and short films?

This is largely true, yes. However, you will most likely end up with your desqueezed footage letterboxed inside a 1920*1080 frame - there may or may not be an appreciable increase in sharpness.

Is it worth it for that alone? No, probably not. Any theoretical increase in resolution is likely to be negated by the softness of a lot of old anamorphic glass (i.e. the stuff you'd be able to afford to buy) and the high compression and low effective resolution of most DSLRs.

Do you want people to hire you just because of the kit you own or because they like your work and enjoy working with you?

It seems that this and getting good bokeh, but it seems the bokeh that comes with DSLR prime lenses is fine, and pretty good. Does anamorphic make all the difference? Or is their another reason why anamorphic is so popular that I am missing?

Look at the image above and decide for yourself. Lens choice and filtration is largely a matter of taste.

I regularly work with one DoP who often chooses SuperSpeeds with a polariser to introduce some contrast; another tends to go for sharper modern lenses then adds Black Pro-Mist filters to reduce contrast and introduce highlight flares.

Both approaches are equally valid and while they may produce not dissimilar results these subtle differences do add up.

Also even if you wanted better looking flares, wouldn't a star filter get you pretty good ones instead of buying anamorphic? Also wasn't Ben Hur shot with anamorphic lenses, cause that movie has a lot of deeper depth of field shots, so how did they do it, if it causes shallower DOF?

A star filter does not flare like an anamorphic lens, but you can get filters which do such as the Optefex blue streak filters.

Which Ben Hur? The 1959 version was shot on 65mm; the 1925 film was shot in black and white and two-strip technicolor, the first experiments with anamorphic for cinema didn't occur til a few years later as far as I'm aware.

Want more depth of field? Add more light!

Okay thanks. If I am completely satisfied with my regular lenses, and the star filter, is it still worth getting anamorphic to impress other people though to hopefully get gigs? I mean will people love your movie more if it's full 1920 x1080 squished down compared to pixels cropped off?

No. And no.

Now he says that one of the major issues with shooting anamorphic on a DSLR is the vignetting. I never really cared for vignetting either, and find that it comes off cheesy, unless you are doing a scene that calls for the effect such as a character looking through binoculars, to show his/her point of view. But if it's nothing like that, than I do not really care for vignetting. Can you shoot anamorphic on a DSLR without vignetting? He says you can if you choose a lens over 85mm but what if I want to shoot with a 24mm lens? Can you get anamorphic lenses and filters without the vignette on them or do they all come with that?

It requires a lot of research and experimentation to find what combination will work for you from a technical point of view, as well as what is acceptable artistically (some people are happy with a certain amount of vignetting, others aren't bothered by corner softness etc.).

Shooting anamorphic on a DSLR will add another level (or two) of complication on set and in post-production as well as requiring a reasonable investment in new equipment.

You yourself have admitted you don't really see the benefits/can't tell the difference, so given the ever-growing list of other problems you seem to be having lately I would suggest not making the leap to anamorphic just yet.

 

[WalterB]

If the end product is shown in a 1920x1080 frame the technical difference is scaling vs cropping.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I meant the Ben-Hur from the 50s, I didn't know there was a 20s one, my bad. I looked up a list of anamorphic shot movies, and Ben Hur 1959) came up, which I saw. I remember it being deep focus though, so I used it as an example, since it was pointed out that anamorphic lenses may have a shallower depth of field. But as long as their is enough light of course, it seems to not be an issue.

"Imagining" a lens comparison!? A quick Google image search for "anamorphic lens test" found me this:


(Click to embiggen.)

However, I do not notice much difference between the two. For one thing, the first one is shot with a 40mm lens, and the second is shot with an 85mm. So it's hard to compare when both focal lengths are different. Or at least they look different cause the woman's face shows a little more barrel distortion in the first photo. I looked at a few different comparisons on google as well, but they are comparing an anormaphic lens of a long focal length, to a regular lens of a different focal length, so it's hard to compare unless both focal lengths are exactly the same.

 

[cheeseandachallenge]

Well the point is that you can get a similar FOV to a wide lens, with the DOF of a longer lens

 

[chilipie]

Okay thanks. I meant the Ben-Hur from the 50s, I didn't know there was a 20s one, my bad. I looked up a list of anamorphic shot movies, and Ben Hur 1959) came up, which I saw. I remember it being deep focus though, so I used it as an example, since it was pointed out that anamorphic lenses may have a shallower depth of field. But as long as their is enough light of course, it seems to not be an issue.

My mistake - it *was* shot anamorphic, but on 65mm film (so even shallower depth of field than normal).

However, I do not notice much difference between the two. For one thing, the first one is shot with a 40mm lens, and the second is shot with an 85mm. So it's hard to compare when both focal lengths are different. Or at least they look different cause the woman's face shows a little more barrel distortion in the first photo. I looked at a few different comparisons on google as well, but they are comparing an anormaphic lens of a long focal length, to a regular lens of a different focal length, so it's hard to compare unless both focal lengths are exactly the same.

If you honestly can't see much difference then I think you should perhaps leave the cinematography to someone with a better trained eye (and I'm not sure what you're seeing but I'm 99% sure you don't mean barrel distortion).

A 75mm anamorphic with a 2x squeeze has the same horizontal angle of view as a spherical 37.5mm lens, so this is almost a perfect comparison. For example a 50mm spherical lens shot from the same position as a 100mm 2x anamorphic would match very well; a 50mm anamorphic lens would look like a 25mm spherical lens and would create a very different shot.

 

[WalterB]

....................

If you honestly can't see much difference then I think you should perhaps leave the cinematography to someone with a better trained eye (and I'm not sure what you're seeing but I'm 99% sure you don't mean barrel distortion).

Indeed. Look at the background!
That's the only hint I'll give

A 75mm anamorphic with a 2x squeeze has the same horizontal angle of view as a spherical 37.5mm lens, so this is almost a perfect comparison. For example a 50mm spherical lens shot from the same position as a 100mm 2x anamorphic would match very well; a 50mm anamorphic lens would look like a 25mm spherical lens and would create a very different shot.

Simple math, once you get it

 

[sfoster]

Okay thanks. I meant the Ben-Hur from the 50s, I didn't know there was a 20s one, my bad.

The 20s one is extremely important from a historical sense.
If I remember this correctly.. they killed dozens of horses, did real crashes with them, etc and it was so bad that it prompted animal rights people injecting themselves into virtually every film using animals since.

I refuse to watch it just on principle

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

I actually think it was Heaven's Gate that prompted humane society oversight of film production - prior to that (~1980) I think it was pretty common for horses to get injured/killed in westerns, etc.

Dog Schidt Optics (http://dogschidtoptiks.co.uk/) has some interesting lens options if you're going for the anamorphic look but don't want to mess with anamorphic adapters - they can do elliptical apertures to create oval bokeh, add various tints to color your lens flare, etc.