das leben der anderen (the lives of others)

David Mullen ASC · May 29, 2007

* I just have to add, there was a very funny anamorphic artifact in several shots where just the top and bottom of the frame (1/8 of the frame, maybe) were much more out of focus than the rest of the image. (Imagine a slightly letterboxed image where instead of black bars, you have blurry "bars"!) Any idea what that might be from?

Probably some vignetting. When I did the D.I. for "Astronaut Farmer" I noticed that when you look at a full-frame scan of the negative, you sometimes see this vignetting or something at the top & bottom, usually just barely masked by the anamorphic aperture plate. We zoomed in slightly just to remove it when it was distracting.

Satsuki Murashige · May 29, 2007

Probably some vignetting. When I did the D.I. for "Astronaut Farmer" I noticed that when you look at a full-frame scan of the negative, you sometimes see this vignetting or something at the top & bottom, usually just barely masked by the anamorphic aperture plate. We zoomed in slightly just to remove it when it was distracting.

But wouldn't vignetting just make the top and bottom darker rather than blurrier? Or does vignetting also refer to blur around the image? Why does this happen?

Thanks David!

Edited May 29, 2007 by Satsuki Murashige

Max Jacoby · May 29, 2007

The breathing varies, depending on how big the focus pull is. Also a slow focus-pull done with feel is much less noticeable than a fast one, especially if they are done by remote focus.

You are right, the anamorphic zoom does not breathe.

All wide anamorphic lenses (50mm and below) have some barrel distortion. I found the 50mm V-Series to be okay in that aspect. If you have the camera levelled (i.e. not looking up or down) there is some barrel distortion, but it is not distracting or anything. I remember noticing some barrel distortion on the first shots, it was my guess that must have been a 40mm. But barrel distortion obviously is more noticeable if you have a lot of lines in the frame (which is often the case when you are shooting interiors). Outside it is much less of an issue.

The shots were the top and bottom was soft, were they wide or longer lenses? All anamorphic lenses have some sharpness fall-off towards the edge of the frame, but it is more pronounced with wider lenses. Stopping down usually helps.

Satsuki Murashige · May 29, 2007

The breathing varies, depending on how big the focus pull is. Also a slow focus-pull done with feel is much less noticeable than a fast one, especially if they are done by remote focus.

Cool, thanks Max! I just figured that maybe there was a difference in design between the V-Series and C-Series lenses because of the weight difference, with the C-Series having a more noticeable breathing due to the placement of the anamorphic lens element. The difference was akin to descriptions of lens breathing of square front Lomos vs. round front Lomos (and isn't V-Series design based on the round-front Lomo design?). Maybe Mr. Martin from Vantage will chime in here.

All wide anamorphic lenses (50mm and below) have some barrel distortion. I found the 50mm V-Series to be okay in that aspect. If you have the camera levelled (i.e. not looking up or down) there is some barrel distortion, but it is not distracting or anything. I remember noticing some barrel distortion on the first shots, it was my guess that must have been a 40mm. But barrel distortion obviously is more noticeable if you have a lot of lines in the frame (which is often the case when you are shooting interiors). Outside it is much less of an issue.

That's an excellent point, now that I think about it, I noticed the barrel distortion most on interiors with parallel lines on the edges of the frame. I think the shot you are referring to is the wide master in the suicidal director's office, it's very wide. I would have guessed wider than 40mm, but then I've never shot anamorphic so that's just a wild speculation on my part.

The shots were the top and bottom was soft, were they wide or longer lenses? All anamorphic lenses have some sharpness fall-off towards the edge of the frame, but it is more pronounced with wider lenses. Stopping down usually helps.

I don't remember exactly, but I believe it was on the longer lenses. It was part of that really grainy day exterior walk-and-talk scene in the park, so it might have been shot on the zoom lens. A poor quality rear-mounted 'scope adapter plus a wide open aperture might explain the strange artifact, I guess.

Christian Appelt · May 31, 2007

I did some frame grabs from the PAL DVD (about 1:08 hrs into the movie) to illustrate the strange focus problem. The camera moves back with the group of actors and there is some zooming in.

Free Image Gallery with PicTiger

Christian Appelt · May 31, 2007

****** Sorry for double posting, adding descriptions and © took so long I couldn't edit the original message any more. ******

I did some frame grabs from the PAL DVD (about 1:08 hrs into the movie) to illustrate the strange focus problem. The camera moves back with the group of actors and there is some zooming in.

This is where the effect became quite visible on a theatre screen, it could not have been the shallow DOF alone.

In motion, the head actors right and left began to move into the blurry top zone

Here the difference in resolution between mid-height and top area can be seen best.

As they walk on, the lens zooms into the longer focal length...

...and the heads of all three actors move into blurriness.

End position, watch the top frame edges and the tree patterns in the upper frame.

There is another, much shorter shot in TLOO with a similiar artefact, but I couldn't remember.

Edited May 31, 2007 by Christian Appelt

Peter Moretti · June 1, 2007

Christian,

Prehaps the actors are farther away from each other than it appears. Could have been done to hide height differences or make up for the low camera angle.

As for the trees in the bg, anamorphic lenses can exhibit elliptically shaped bokeh, maybe that's what causing them to look a little funky.

Satsuki Murashige · June 1, 2007

Yes, thank you Christian! That's exactly what I was talking about.

You know, come to think of it, it looks almost as if the DP had put an optical flat in the mattebox and rubbed Vaseline on the top and bottom of the frame. It COULD have been intentional, and not an anamorphic artifact at all! But if not, then I still stand by my "rear 'scope adapter + wide open zoom lens" hypothesis. :)

P.S. I don't think it has anything to do with elliptical anamorphic bokeh, especially since you wouldn't get any with a rear-mounted scope adapter (though I don't know for sure if one was used for this shot).

Christian Appelt · June 1, 2007

Prehaps the actors are farther away from each other than it appears. Could have been done to hide height differences or make up for the low camera angle.
As for the trees in the bg, anamorphic lenses can exhibit elliptically shaped bokeh, maybe that's what causing them to look a little funky.

Peter, indeed the actors' positions do vary a bit, but they all look soft in the top area. That's why I think it must be a lens/camera defect. As for the trees, I feel that definition is better in the middle and bottom part of the frame, so whatever artifacts the anamorphic lens creates, it should have been the same all over the frame.

I admit that the problem does not look that bad in these frame grabs (at 720x576 pixels) - but it was more disturbing on the big screen.

But hey - it's just a minute in a well done 2 hour film, so I'm not complaining that hard... ;)