Advice on anamorphic

[F Bulgarelli]

Hello everyone,

 

I'm getting ready to shoot a project on anamorphic and wanted to ask for any advice that you guys could give me as far as your experiences with the format and what to watch for. I'm aware of the issues with the lenses as far as Depth of field and fall off is concerned. It'll be my first anamorphic project and I'm looking for all the advice I can possibly obtained.

 

Thanks a lot,

 

Francisco

[Christian Appelt]

Do you plan to rent lenses, do you want to buy lenses, or do you already have your equipment?

 

My recommendation for first time use of anamorphic would be doing tests.

Personally, I believe that anamorphic shot wider open than f2.8 to f4 tends to look unpleasant unless the staging is adapted to that kind of shooting, but others will like the flat look.

 

Do some tests with different f-stops (of the same subject, at least one medium shot, long shot, close up) to find out which opening gives you the look you like best.

(I like the range of f4 to f8, if you want to emulate the deep-focus 1960s studio look, it might even be higher.) Choose a film stock sensitive enough to keep you out of the wide-open f-stop range.

 

Pulling focus is much more noticeable in most anamorphic lenses, so make sure it is done with great precision.

 

Most people will tell you that longer focal lengths are standard in anamorphic. I do not agree on that, because in the best classic anamorphic films, many wide angle shots (35mm, 40mm) are used to great advantage. Look at some vintage anamorphic films like THE HUSTLER, THE APARTMENT, THE FORTUNE COOKIE, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK to see what special spatial rendition wide-angle anamorphics can give you. Many newer anamorphic films use very shallow depth of field, it is all a matter of personal taste.

[Jarin Blaschke]

I've shot the format once, for something finishing to video. The majority was around wide-open, from a T2 to 2.8 with the Primos - I liked that shallow look for the particular project - I also had a focus puller that could keep up. I was very pleased with the footage, but I will never see it projected, so I can't say if any serious abberation or 'curved focus' took place. On video it looked great with soft, vertically stretched backgrounds. That's what says 'anamorphic' to me - I happen to like all it's artifacts and "flaws" when it suits the subject.

 

If you're using the Primos, your camera will be quite unweildy and front-heavy. I know some that use a 1000-foot rear-mounted mag for balance in those situations, despite the added weight. Using the Director's finder is a bit awkward as well.

[Christian Appelt]

On video/TV this sure is a nice look because it makes the image clear and "easy to read", but on a 50 foot screen wide open is IMHO often really painful to watch. I recall the opening scene of MISSION TO MARS. A long Steadicam shot through a garden party, shot a may 2 to 2.8 in anamorphic Panavision IIRC.

 

Seeing such footage on a huge screen is similar to what I being shortsighted with -3/-3.5 dioptries see when I take off my glasses. This is an extremely unnatural way of seeing, and it keeps reminding you that you are seeing a film. Anamorphic is much more than just a number of cute artifacts! ;) (But I like them, too!)

 

BTW, Jarin, what's the title of that film you mentioned? Just curious...

[Jarin Blaschke]

It was a spec music video called "I Miss You" - I think it can be found online under a google search of my name.

 

Anamorphic has a character all it's own and to me, it's uniqueness seems to diminish once you stop down quite a bit. At T11, it starts to look like a very clean spherical format, unless you are shooting with the 35mm and its barrel distortion and have sources of light flaring in the frame.

 

Still, I would agree that wide shots need more stop in anamorphic than the close-ups, when fine resolution of detail is more critical. There are few things more disapointing than soft wide shots - something I criticize super35 2.4:1 for. Unfortunately and ironically, higher light levels for wide shots is much more difficult to obtain.

 

I also have a shoot in and around Vegas this summer - anamorphic with great amounts of desolate night driving shots and night exteriors, supplementing existing lighting. If I get a 2.8, I'll be happy. Wish me luck!

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

If this is for film finish, try not to shoot below a T4 or above a T8. The sharpness and contrast of the lens deteriorates noticelably, though it does depend on the lenses being used. In my opinion, a matched set of Panavision C series is the best you can do, though they are very hard to get. I have not shot with the Primos, only tested them so I can't speak about them from experience. I can say that I was bench testing them with Dan Sasaki, Panavision's lens guru, and he was quick to show their drawbacks particularly in distortion and soft corners.

 

All that being said, it's always possible to make great images with any lens, you just have to know it's strengths and it's weaknesses.

[Jarin Blaschke]

Speaking to Panavision, I came to understand that our only shot at anamorphic during our shooting period would be either highspeeds or Primos. Cs and Es are booked, although I think I can get an E 180. From what I've been told (pretty sure it was Dan), Cs really need to be shot 2 stops in (approaching 5.6) to get a really good image. I also heard that the wider lenses drop off light near the edges. Primos seem my best option as low light lenses, as I don't see myself shooting deeper than 2.8 1/2.

 

I have no problem with barrel distortion, I just hope that the plane of focus isn't curved.

[F Bulgarelli]

Thanks everyone,

 

 

I'll be using the Hawk lenses from Clairmont. These lenses are very good, there is no way for me to compare them with the Panavisions but I feel confident they will perform well. They have minimal breathing and have good resolution. Definitely I can see how those wide lenses might need a higher stop.

"Trainning Day" was shot with Hawks and looks very nice.

 

Shooting Plus-X (ASA 64) on day interiors I'm a bit concerned about getting the stop (T5.6) but the look calls for a good amount of light anyway.

I'll be doing some tests. Do you guys have any experience using filtration for B & W film. You know? Red, green, yellow filters and the like.

 

Any recent anamorphic films films you would reccomend watching?

 

Thanks

 

Francisco

[John Pytlak RIP]

Filters for B&W:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...ilterP.shtml#bw

 

Generally, a yellow filter (Wratten 12) will darken the sky somewhat, making clouds more apparent. Moving to a red filter, a cyan sky gets very dark, so clouds look dramatic.

 

Using a deep blue filter with panchromatic B&W film simulates the blue-sensitive film of the early silent days.

[Mitch Gross]

"Trainning Day" was shot with Hawks and looks very nice.

Nothing against the Hawks, but Training Day was shot with the JDC anamorphics.

[David Mullen ASC]

I keep meaning to light everything to T/4 on this anamorphic shoot I am on, but I've been shooting in this high-rise hotel room and the city lights in the background just don't register well unless I'm shooting near wide-open.

 

Tomorrow I'm outside in daylight so getting a decent stop shouldn't be too hard.

 

It's a little frustrating to be so rushed every day while shooting anamorphic when you should be taking more care with everything.

 

Last night I went back to the set during lunch to work on the next set-up by myself, only to screw up my lower back moving sandbags. Serves me right I guess, touching grip equipment...

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Recently used the new Hawks on a commercial and discovered much more edge distortion than I had planned on getting. Resolution is good, watch the distortion.

[F Bulgarelli]

Interesting that you say that MItch.

I work for Clairmont and saw those Hawks going out on Trainning Day.

 

Maybe we are talking about the same lenses.

 

Francisco

[F Bulgarelli]

Hi Eric

 

On which lenses did you notice the distortion?

 

hi David,

 

When you say the city light weren't registering well, what exactly do you mean?

 

Thanks

 

Francisco

[Mitch Gross]

I work for Clairmont and saw those Hawks going out on Trainning Day.

 

Maybe we are talking about the same lenses.

Interesting. They are most definitely not the same lenses. Perhaps both sets were used. It has been widely reported that the JDC anamorphics were used.

[David Mullen ASC]

I meant that the city lights were dim enough that they did not read as bright as I would like them to unless I shot the scene at a wide enough f-stop.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Hi Eric

 

On which lenses did you notice the distortion?

They were the new series, the 50 and under. Couldn't believe I was seeing it on the 50. Actually one of the agency people pointed it out before I noticed it, but to be fair, on the 50 it was only noticeable against vertical lines.

 

You at Clairmont LA? I live 2 minutes from there.

[GregIrwin]

From what I've been told (pretty sure it was Dan), Cs really need to be shot 2 stops in (approaching 5.6) to get a really good image. I also heard that the wider lenses drop off light near the edges. Primos seem my best option as low light lenses, as I don't see myself shooting deeper than 2.8 1/2.

 

I have no problem with barrel distortion, I just hope that the plane of focus isn't curved.

As you all know, I shoot a lot of anamorphic. Shooting at a 5.6 is nice but not required for the C's. A good set of C lenses can handle a 2.8. I'm not a fan of the Primo anamorphics due to size, weight and various optical characteristics that the C's and E's do not sport.

 

You will have a curved plain of focus. That is a big part of anamorphic. Certain lenses can help flatten out an image at a wide stop over other similar lenses and testing is the only way to ascertain that. A deeper stop will help as well - ie. T4.

 

It's not just focus although it's a large part of a lens' performance. Stopping down a bit also helps with the contrast and "apparant sharpness" of the lens. Just by looking through the viewfinder and racking the iris from wide open to stopped down, you will see the blacks deepen and a sharper, contrastier overall image.

[Jarin Blaschke]

So, with a curved plane of focus - when the AC measures focus to a subject at the side of the frame, he/she should meausure from the gate to the subject itself instead of to the matching plane of space directly in front of the camera? Should all focus marks be set by eye in anamorphic?

[GregIrwin]

So, with a curved plane of focus - when the AC measures focus to a subject at the side of the frame, he/she should meausure from the gate to the subject itself instead of to the matching plane of space directly in front of the camera? Should all focus marks be set by eye in anamorphic?

Let's not complicate this any more than need be. Measure as you normally would - from the film plane. You deal with the curved plane of focus by lens selection and exposure. What I mean by lens selection is choosing a lens that is "flatter" than a different, similar lens. Each individual lens has its own characteristics. You want to choose based on sharpness, flattness, contrast and color.

 

The bottom line is deal with the anamorphic problems during prep and not on the set. You will have a much better anamorphic experience if you test and plan your lighting (in advance) around a much wider format.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Someone here mentioned how one shouldn't shy away from wide angle lenses in

anamorphic. The problem is that most wide angle anamorphics have so much

distortion and barreling going on, they take me right out of the picture. I think

the Royal Tannenbaums was shot on a 40mm exclusively, and as I recall it didn't

have severe barreling, but it was noticeable. But films like Luc Bessons and many

others look like freakshows many times (although I do like them very much in some

kind of twisted way) At the end of the day, it's down to personal taste.

 

On a most personal level, I think spherical lenses are quite hideous at very wide

focal lenghts too. I can't stand the 10, 12 and 14mm and I rarely use the 18mm.

North of 20mm something magic happens - everything just looks right. And that

goes for anamorphic for me as well: from 50mm and upwards they start to look

like lenses should..

[David Mullen ASC]

This is just a matter of taste. Ive been watching the new DVD of the Todd-AO "Around the World in 80 Days" which has a number of super wide-angle travelling POV shots for a pseudo Cinerama effect. Really distorted, but you also have to remember that this was projected on a very large curved screen. "2001" also has some really wide angle shots in it. I love the effect. Shooting on a 35mm anamorphic on really slow film in bright sunlight and moving the camera is the closest I'll probably ever get to that Cinerama look! Anyway, unless you only use medium focal lengths, you are stylizing the perspective whether you are using super wide-angle or super telephoto lenses anyway, so it's not like one is more realistic than the other.

[David Mullen ASC]

You have to consider that the widescreen revolution was started by Cinerama, which had a 2.66 : 1 aspect ratio and a total field of view of 146 degrees made from three 27mm lenses on three 6-perf 35mm frames. And this was projected on a very large, curved screen. You?d need something like a 15mm anamorphic lens in 35mm to achieve this field of view, which would be horribly barrel-distorted. Cinerama, in fact, did not really have barrel distortion (instead it had the distortion of joining three wide-angle images).

 

The first spherical lens made for Todd-AO (65mm 5-perf / 2.20 : 1) was near fish-eye to achieve the Cinerama look and was rejected as being too distorted. I think what they ended up with was around 24mm lens (I?m not sure since they labelled lenses by their degrees of field of view, not mm). Anyway, Panavision has a 19mm and 24mm ?fish eye? in their 65mm catalog along with a 24mm that is not labelled as fish eye. Later, a 150 degree lens was created for Todd-AO and the whole system was repackaged as Dimension 150. It was less distorted than the super wide Todd-AO lens originally but still had limited use (you can see it used on some shots in ?Patton? and ?The Bible.?)

 

When CinemaScope followed Cinerama the next year, it was limited to a 50mm lens I believe, which was used to shoot all of ?The Robe.? So CinemaScope had nowhere near as much wide-angle photography as Cinerama and Todd-AO.

 

Anyway, I?m neither a wide-angle or telephoto sort of shooter. I tend to look at the space and see what focal length makes it most interesting (of course, in a small space, you may be stuck using wider-angle lenses anyway.) Sometimes compression of perspective is interesting and sometimes stretching it is. For example, at the Waterworks plaza near the river, with a 35mm or 40mm, I not only got the Greek temple-like buildings in the background but the rocky hill behind them with the Art Museum on top and the Sckuykill River to the side. With a longer lens, even backing up, I?d just get the pillars of the temple looming behind the actors (and backed up much more, and I?d be in the river or on the freeway across from it.) I actually did one scene like that with a 400mm lens with Sterno underneath the lens for a heatwave effect. The same thing happened in Montana with ?Northfork?. A longer lens would make the mountains look bigger and a wider-angle lens made the prairies look bigger, so I?d use either depending on what I thought was more interesting.

 

For interiors, a 50mm anamorphic is almost the perfect lens for having no barrel distortion yet seeing the space naturally (since it has a 25mm spherical view horizontally.) Between the 50mm, 75mm, and 100mm, you?d pretty much be able to cover a scene with a very natural-looking perspective on everything. But obviously some spaces are too small even for a 50mm anamorphic. I did one scene in a bathroom where I had to use the 40mm just to get a medium 2-shot. And yes, there is some curvature on the sides of the frame. But that?s not where your eye goes, which is the main issue when framing. You don?t want the center of your attention to be right next to something that is barrel-distorted like a column. But if your eye is supposed to be looking at one thing and over on the edge, something is bending, it?s not so bad. And like I said, there?s something almost ?classic? optically about the barrel distortion (we had this discussion earlier when talking about Kubrick?s use of a 9.8mm Kinoptic in ?Clockwork Orange? and ?The Shining?.)

 

However, it would be nice once to do a film that has been art directed and location scouted to allow mostly long-lens anamorphic shooting, ala Kurosawa. You can see it in something like ?A Bridge Too Far? or other war films. Right now, ?Gods and Generals? is playing on TV and it looks like many wide shots were done with long anamorphic lenses to compress the space and make the armies and tents on the hillsides loom in the background.

[Christian Appelt]

Someone here mentioned how one shouldn't shy away from wide angle lenses in anamorphic. The problem is that most wide angle anamorphics have so much

distortion and barreling going on, they take me right out of the picture.

 

Adam, I see what you mean when you talk about Luc Besson, who obviously likes the distorted look. But he often brings his actors very close to the camera, which is one way of using wide angle anamorphics, but not the only one.

I like the discrete use of 40mm Panavision lenses in films by Billy Wilder, John Sturges and (sometimes) John Carpenter. Their shots do not necessarily look distorted, but they sometimes create a special look without looking "obviously wide-angle".

 

Right now I am shooting a movie mostly with 35mm and 50mm primes (Russian Lomo lenses), and what I really miss is a 40mm lens.

 

I remember that the DoP of CHINATOWN said in an interview that he checked on a Panavision zoom which focal length matched what the bare eye saw, and that he came out with 43mm lens as looking most natural.

 

David, I greatly share your feelings about the 50mm anamorphic, in fact I shot a whole film with a 50mm, but on that project the setup and staging was with that lens in mind. However, in doing retakes for that film, we are using some 35mm and a lot of 80mm (for close ups) very carefully so the shots will fit the original footage.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Of corse it's a matter of taste, I didn't want to suggest anything else.

 

I've shot quite a bit with the Lomo's and I like them (haven't got much to compare

to except the older Lomo's). The 35mm is hideous, though. Check out the last image from the gallery at this link, it was a completely square cutout of a wall we were

traveling through, but as you can see the're isn't a straight line in the frame.

 

Various focal lenghts

 

I also tried a one-of-a-kind 22mm anamorphic Lomo lens years ago and boy, did

that bend!!

 

But as David said, you can basically shoot an entire movie with the 50mm, 75mm and

the 100mm.