Weird optics in 'Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny'?

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

Did anyone else notice that when they pulled focus in the film in a number of scenes the perspective of the scene changed in an ugly way. At first I thought they may have been trying to be artsy. But it happened here and there in the film for no reason, other than focus pulling. If you don't know what I'm talking about I will have to get a DVD from the library to break down to get some of the defective scenes. I watched the film on Blu-ray a couple nights ago. 

<><><><>

 

20x30 foot plan for 1943 victory garden.

Selection from Daniel D. Teoli Jr. WW2 Rationing Archive

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Small Gauge Film Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. VHS Video Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Audio Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Popular Culture Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Advertising Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Social Documentary Photography

[M Joel W]

Probably anamorphic mumps.

[Dom Jaeger]

No mumps with Panavision anamorphics.

This was shot primarily on T series with a bit of older C series, just like tons of other big budget movies. Big focus pulls with Panavision anamorphic lenses look different to spherical focus pulls, you get a vertical smearing of the out of focus areas. Other anamorphics can also have severe breathing, which can be even more distracting, but Panavision anamorphics have a mechanism inside that adjusts the squeeze while focussing to avoid mumps and reduce breathing. But a lot of filmmakers avoid big focus pulls with any anamorphic lenses because they can look a bit weird and pull you out of the movie. 

[M Joel W]

I did vfx on a show that was shot with C Series and remember there that the breathing wasn't consistent between horizontal and vertical axes.

We weren't provided with STMaps so I don't know for sure, but the image stretched more in one axis than in the other. (Which I took to be mumps.)

You would know better than I would, and it's probably that I was tracking the aspect ratio of the bokeh appearing to stretch the image vertically. But that alone didn't account for it, I had to use anamorphic bokeh and scale the image differently horizontally and vertically as well. It behaved a lot like mumps, but it sounds like it was vertical smearing.

Regardless, you can see the effect on the grid in the background here (during the C series test).

Edited February 9 by M Joel W

[M Joel W]

I can't believe I'm arguing with someone at Panavision about this, but if you refer to David's answer here it correlates with my personal experience:

https://www.cinematography.net/edited-pages/AnamorphicEntry.htm

"Panavision solved this by making the compression error occur in what's OUT of focus as you focus closer and closer, so the out of focus background gets compressed MORE than 2X, making it look skinny even after it's expanded by twice during projection. But I digress..."

I probably have the terminology wrong, but the image does breathe differently in X and Y axes in my experience. 

Also, not sure what accounts for this:

 

Edited February 9 by M Joel W

[Dom Jaeger]

No argument here, just discussing the weird world of anamorphic artifacts!

So mumps refers to the optical effect that used to happen with older anamorphics that would cause an actors face to appear wider than normal when filmed in close-up shots. It was due to the lens squeeze factor reducing below 2x as you focused closer, which meant when you unsqueezed the image the subject was wider than it should be. Panavision developed a mechanism to counter this back in the 50s, which is still used in their modern anamorphics today, albeit in a more refined way. The mechanism uses two counter rotating astigmatisers which manage to maintain a 2x squeeze through the focus range. One of the by-products of this mechanism is that Panavision anamorphics don't breathe much, as most other anamorphics do. You can see this in the test you linked to before, where the background doesn't expand or contract horizontally during a focus pull. You're only seeing the vertical smearing of the anamorphic out-of-focus areas, and maybe a little vertical breathing. The actor's face looks pretty consistent at different distances too.

Other modern anamorphics use different design tricks to overcome the mumps effect, but they still tend to breathe, in the sense that the focal length appears to change, the background field of view expands or contracts. 

Older Panavision anamorphics like the C series used a basic gear driven mechanism for the astigmatisers which wasn't able to customise the rate of squeeze variation, so there could still be a little variation, and close focus was limited. More modern lenses like the G and T series use a different mechanism that can customise the astigmatiser rotation which allows more fine tuning and better close focus. 

Regarding the squeeze discrepancy in La La Land .. well, it happens. Could be a C series was used at it's close focus limit, or had been customised to focus closer. Lenses get adjusted or modified and sometimes I come across one that has a slightly altered squeeze factor. Panavision customises lenses all the time. I suspect it was different focal lengths rather the same lens, but who knows. 

[M Joel W]

That makes sense, thanks! I'm still not clear on if there is vertical breathing in the out of focus areas or just exaggerated vertical anamorphic stretch, but it would explain a lot as the C Series do not behave like the Kowas I've seen or Lomo (square front) I own.

Years ago I almost bid on that set of Auto-Panatars on eBay btw....

Edited February 9 by M Joel W

[Mark Dunn]

6 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

No argument here, just discussing the weird world of anamorphic artifacts!

So mumps refers to the optical effect that used to happen with older anamorphics that would cause an actors face to appear wider than normal when filmed in close-up shots. It was due to the lens squeeze factor reducing below 2x as you focused closer, which meant when you unsqueezed the image the subject was wider than it should be. Panavision developed a mechanism to counter this back in the 50s, which is still used in their modern anamorphics today, albeit in a more refined way. The mechanism uses two counter rotating astigmatisers which manage to maintain a 2x squeeze through the focus range. One of the by-products of this mechanism is that Panavision anamorphics don't breathe much, as most other anamorphics do. You can see this in the test you linked to before, where the background doesn't expand or contract horizontally during a focus pull. You're only seeing the vertical smearing of the anamorphic out-of-focus areas, and maybe a little vertical breathing. The actor's face looks pretty consistent at different distances too.

Other modern anamorphics use different design tricks to overcome the mumps effect, but they still tend to breathe, in the sense that the focal length appears to change, the background field of view expands or contracts. 

Older Panavision anamorphics like the C series used a basic gear driven mechanism for the astigmatisers which wasn't able to customise the rate of squeeze variation, so there could still be a little variation, and close focus was limited. More modern lenses like the G and T series use a different mechanism that can customise the astigmatiser rotation which allows more fine tuning and better close focus. 

Regarding the squeeze discrepancy in La La Land .. well, it happens. Could be a C series was used at it's close focus limit, or had been customised to focus closer. Lenses get adjusted or modified and sometimes I come across one that has a slightly altered squeeze factor. Panavision customises lenses all the time. I suspect it was different focal lengths rather the same lens, but who knows. 

Thanks for the detailed explanation. This would be why anamorphics can be a bit huge.

Those of us with prescription spectacles and slight astigmatism can demonstrate the effect to ourselves by removing our specs and rotating them. If you're fortunate enough not to need them, maybe ask an astigmatic friend, one who won't think you're weird.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

17 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

No mumps with Panavision anamorphics.

This was shot primarily on T series with a bit of older C series, just like tons of other big budget movies. Big focus pulls with Panavision anamorphic lenses look different to spherical focus pulls, you get a vertical smearing of the out of focus areas. Other anamorphics can also have severe breathing, which can be even more distracting, but Panavision anamorphics have a mechanism inside that adjusts the squeeze while focussing to avoid mumps and reduce breathing. But a lot of filmmakers avoid big focus pulls with any anamorphic lenses because they can look a bit weird and pull you out of the movie. 

 

That is a good description of it, Dom. Being professionals, you would think they would know better. Unless they figure the audience does not care. A neighbor lady was watching it with me and did not notice it until I pointed it out. It is very distracting and sticks out like a sore thumb every time I see it. And I'm not watching the movie to nitpick the techniques, I'm just watching a movie for entertainment. 

The late Robby Müller used to talk about having technique and camera work invisible. That crew should listen to some of his old interviews. It is ugly camera work.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

Dial Destiny Jones : D.D.Teoli Jr. A.C. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Here is an example. Should I call it an example of lens breathing to name it properly? If not, what should it be called.

See the effects in the window shade when focus is pulled. Lots more of thse lens effects in the movie, but no time to watch the whole film again to cherry pick them. Also, the effects seem more prevalent in Blu-ray, but can't say for sure. I'm just working from memory. This sample is from a DVD and slowed down about 20% to show it better.

Edited February 18 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes that is anamorphic lens breathing which is a bit different-looking than spherical lens breathing due to the change in compression/squeezing to the background as it goes out of focus, but there’s also probably a bit of traditional breathing (focal length shift) mixed in with that.

Anamorphic mumps as with CinemaScope is an entirely different issue, that’s when as you follow-focus to a face getting closer, the squeeze starts to become less than 2X, so during consistent 2X unsqueezing during projection, the face starts to look fatter.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

6 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Yes that is anamorphic lens breathing which is a bit different-looking than spherical lens breathing due to the change in compression/squeezing to the background as it goes out of focus, but there’s also probably a bit of traditional breathing (focal length shift) mixed in with that.

Anamorphic mumps as with CinemaScope is an entirely different issue, that’s when as you follow-focus to a face getting closer, the squeeze starts to become less than 2X, so during consistent 2X unsqueezing during projection, the face starts to look fatter.

Thanks David! I will label it as anamorphic lens breathing.

Do you have any clips of anamorphic mumps? Or can you suggest any content where I look for such a clip?

[David Mullen ASC]

Read this:

https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/mumped-mump-monks-exist/

[Steve Switaj]

On 2/8/2024 at 5:02 PM, M Joel W said:

I did vfx on a show that was shot with C Series and remember there that the breathing wasn't consistent between horizontal and vertical axes.

We weren't provided with STMaps so I don't know for sure, but the image stretched more in one axis than in the other. (Which I took to be mumps.)

Well, don't forget that anamorphic lenses actually have two focal lengths, one in the horizontal axis and one in the vertical axis.

The mumps effect and bokeh smearing and general weirdness that you sometimes see when there's a strong focus pull is largely the result of one lens trying to be a 35 in the horizontal plane and a 70 in the vertical plane. 

 

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

12 hours ago, Steve Switaj said:

Well, don't forget that anamorphic lenses actually have two focal lengths, one in the horizontal axis and one in the vertical axis.

The mumps effect and bokeh smearing and general weirdness that you sometimes see when there's a strong focus pull is largely the result of one lens trying to be a 35 in the horizontal plane and a 70 in the vertical plane. 

 

Thanks, didn't know that.