Should lots of anamorphic lens breathing in a film be looked down on as poor filmmaking?

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

Here is an example of anamorphic lens breathing from the Indiana Jones movie with the time machine in it.

An example of anamorphic lens breathing D.D.Teoli Jr. A.C. : D.D.Teoli Jr. A.C. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I had never noticed anamorphic lens breathing before seeing that film. The anamorphic lens breathing was constant throughout the movie. There was lens breathing even in the special features. Once I knew what it was, I noticed some lens breathing here or there in other movies. But they were nothing like this movie. 

Should lots of anamorphic lens breathing in a film be looked down on as poor filmmaking? Or in this day and age it does not matter?

I'm thinking the old timers would never go for that crap. (But not sure.)

Greta Garbo 'Camille' (1936)

DDTJRAC

<><><><>

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Small Gauge Film Archive

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Advertising Archive

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. VHS Video Archive

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Popular Culture Archive

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Audio Archive

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Social Documentary Photography

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

It's distracting. I would avoid it. And what's with the vignetting? That's distracting too. Good grief.

[Brian Drysdale]

This may explain the breathing on Panavision lenses.

https://uk.panavision.com/highlights/highlights-detail/the-five-pillars-of-anamorphic-disproportionate-breathing

[Dom Jaeger]

I think you’re noticing the breathing here because it’s a Panavision anamorphic lens, and they breathe differently to other lenses, including other anamorphics. The breathing is only in the vertical plane, which complements the way the bokeh (out of focus elements) also stretches vertically, but it’s not what you are used to with other lenses.

Spherical lenses tend to breathe uniformly, which mimics the effect of a zoom. Some breathe more than others (zooms more than primes), and most modern sphericals are pretty well corrected for breathing.

But pretty much all anamorphics breathe quite noticeably, and they tend to breathe more horizontally than vertically, the opposite of Panavision. (This is due to the Panavision design which has a mechanism to maintain the 2x squeeze).

Here’s an FX grid test of Cooke anamorphics showing how much horizontal breathing they have (and how some of these “defects” can be corrected out in post or matched with cgi elements: 

Here’s a couple more tests, showing similar horizontal breathing in Hawks and Kowas:

So it’s very common with anamorphics.  I think most DPs know how to mask it with camera movement or an empty background, or just by avoiding big static focus pulls. But you can often find examples in all sorts of movies.

Speaking of old timers, here’s something I found discussing the anamorphic breathing in “The Innocents” from 1961, shot on CinemaScope lenses:

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think the anamorphic breathing in "The Innocents" was just due to following focus on the actors, I don't think it was part of the design of the photography.

Anamorphic prime lenses all breathe so you take a moment to discuss with the focus puller when to pull or not because it won't be hidden unless the camera is also changing background/subject in a move during the pull. You can't, for example, "ping-pong" the focus as multiple people are talking in a group shot.

The breathing is more subtle at deep stops only because there is less of a visible shift in detail, fewer "bokeh balls" to draw the eye.

As a teenager, I first noticed anamorphic breathing in "Star Wars", "Close Encounters" and "The Empire Strikes Back" because I saw them so many times in theaters!

I'm surprised that the old CinemaScope lenses breathed that much; I thought part of the Panavision solution to the "mumps" problem was that to maintain the same 2X squeeze on the subject as it got closer, the background ended up with more than a 2X squeeze, making it look skinny (and making the breathing more obvious during a focus rack). The scope projection lens was always a constant 2X un-squeeze so the problem with old CinemaScope camera lenses was that as the lens focused closer (like on a face in close-up), it would get less than a 2X squeeze but still be stretched back out later by 2X, making faces look fat ("mumps").

[Jon O'Brien]

Sometimes (often) in creative fields it's worthwhile to stop at a certain point of technical and/or gear development and go with the 'imperfections' at an earlier period of development. If we don't, things can get too technically perfect to the point of losing artistic value. Two examples: imagine the Mona Lisa (or Van Gogh's works) painted with an airbrush. Textureless. They would lose so much. Another: gut strings and using no shoulder rest can complexify the sound of a violin, making it more interesting to listen to (as long as the technical difficultites appropriate to that level of development are mastered sufficiently). And so, I feel it's the same in cinema. With perfect modern lenses and pristine digital image acquisiton we can lose a lot. In art you often need to be on the knife's edge between a type of perfection, and disaster. If things are too much in the perfect camp you risk making whatever you're making too boring. That's how I see it.

[Karim D. Ghantous]

If there is something distracting about the image, that's not character. YMMV. But, I have never felt the need for the sharpest lenses I can buy. As long as the image can 'breathe' (figuratively only!) it's good.

Focus breathing and distortion distract, vignetting suffocates, and pointless LUTs ruin the interplay between lens, capture medium, and light.

[Jon O'Brien]

Well, not many hold to what I think. I find myself walking alone with a lot of my ideas in art. Very few get what I mean. it's just I know I'm right 😉 

[Jon O'Brien]

I don't mind a bit of focus breathing if it somehow seems to work. I like it in Star Wars. What I detest is colour abberation but I think everyone dislikes that.