Jump to content

Death of Anamorphic movies


Recommended Posts

Greetings to all of you,

 

I've read the posts regarding the new Indiana Jones production and

anamorphic lenses.

 

I cannot state this more succinctly. It's simply astonishing

how in this day and age of 500 ASA stocks, efficient HMI lighting,

and extremely high quality anamorphic lenses that you don't see

more anamorphic movies made.

 

I've read posts in the past from David Mullen about how his experience

had shown him that in the end it wasn't overly difficult to shoot anamorphic.

Richard Crudo ASC made a similar statement awhile ago in AC magazine,yet

quite a few DP's shy away from the format.

 

There were simply SO MANY anamorphic movies shot in the 1970's on 5254 and 5247-

100 ASA stocks!! Just to get a 2.8/4 was formidable yet they did it time and time again.

 

Remember the number of Bond movies shot in anamorphic?

 

It just sort of makes one feel that there is a 'wimp factor' going on, in which productions

take the easy way out. I mean , if Dave Mullen can shoot an 'independant ', lower budgeted

movie for the Polish brothers in anamorphic, surely bigger films could do it without a problem.

 

One wonders how many DP's these days,even ASC members have actually had experience shooting anamorphic.

 

Best regards,

Milo Sekulovich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this has a lot to do with the fact that Super 35 is "sharp enough," and while it may mean more grain due to the smaller negative and possibly a softer print, the lower f-stop you can use with Super 35 means maybe shooting at ISO 250 or 320 instead of 500 and also possibly avoiding shooting wide open, which really negates this issue, too. And the use of soft lights and blown out edge lights (and deep focus with some cinematographers) necessitates brighter lighting, making anamorphic less desirable...

 

Furthermore, most projection prints are less sharp than a Super 35 negative, and a 2K DI not only reduces grain, but also limits resolution pretty significantly...

 

Still, I read that Michael Bay was very upset by how soft Super 35 was on Bad Boys 2, so he switched to anamorphic for both The Island and Transformers, both of which look very pretty (from what I've seen). And certainly The Prestige and Memoirs of a Geisha (from the trailer, haven't seen the movie yet) have very pretty anamorphic work... Funny that Spielberg surrounds himself with Bay and Lucas, despite hating both anamorphic and digital. That Munich was a self-conscious 1970s homage in its zooms, grainy yellow look, and aspect ratio and was still Super 35 is a sin, though...

 

I think the main issue is that Super 35 is "good enough" and since anamorphic all but guarantees more production problems, people just opt for what's simplest and allows for the most freedom and easiest time for focus pullers. (I hear some t1.3 shots on Geisha were horrible to shoot...) I'd be happy with Super 16, though... All I can afford is miniDV and even then it's a stretch. </rant>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. Halloween was shot with Panavision anamorphic lenses for $300,000 in 3 weeks at a time when the average budget must've been 20 million or so. For a low budget film, Halloween looks great even to this day. I wonder what 'difficulties', if any, they encountered shooting anamorphic on such a low budget, especially for the nighttime scenes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were simply SO MANY anamorphic movies shot in the 1970's on 5254 and 5247-

100 ASA stocks!! Just to get a 2.8/4 was formidable yet they did it time and time again.

 

It just sort of makes one feel that there is a 'wimp factor' going on, in which productions

take the easy way out.

 

In the 1970s, Super 35 was not an option.

 

What often gets lost in discussion is that format choices are increasingly governed by distribution needs, not artistic ones. Super 35 and digital intermediate work are artful to the cinematographer, but as tools they're even greater tonics to post-production and distribution folks. Why? Distribution loves Super 35 because they can open the matte and bend the frame to any destination medium they might need. True scope negatives (and Techniscope negatives) are far less flexible to them. Again, in the end, it's all about how many sales a studio can makes, and how easily they can make their versions to complete their sales. And it's not just theatrical, home video, or television markets anymore ? there are many ancillary markets (foreign, web & new media devices, airplane) in many flavours and combinations to consider.

 

Artistically, it sucks big time. Unless you are a very powerful producer or director (Michael Bay on Transformers), and you're going to champion the use of a format (Christopher Nolan on the Batmans ? scope and IMAX), you more often than not face an uphill battle. Outside this forum, most folks only notice that you've gotten the 2.39 frame, not how beautifully light gets handled by true anamorphic optics. I'm certainly in the true anamorphic camp (when artistically appropriate), but I've worked in post-production and undertstand why things have become the way they are. It's a sad and sobering truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Premium Member

I love anamorphic and will defend it forever, but the reality is that it gets more anachronistic for every day:

 

1. As mentioned, super 35 is "good enough" in the DI-world.

2. Anamorphic doesn't leave any room for racking the image like it does on super-35. I know this is something both directors and post houses have come to love.

3. You can't shoot 3-perf.

4. All lenses below 50mm in anamorphic have terrible barrel distortion. And 50mm isn't that wide a lens, really. I'm sure one could design a rectilienar wide angle

anamorphic, but it's such a small cottage industry I doubt anyone would have the resources to do it. Anamorphic lenses are basically knocked up in a some shop

by joining an anamorphic lement with a spherical lens and connecting them. I doubt if more than 100 lenses are produced a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I too agree that it's a shame that not more anamorphic films are produced. I've never been a fan of Super 35, to me it just feels wide, but without any character. There are few Super 35 films that I think look good. Mostly Michael Mann's stuff for one (The Insider and Ali).

 

I'm always happy to see an anamorphic film projected in the theatre and luckily there are some filmmakers who stick with it (Terrence Malick, Atom Egoyan, PT Anderson come to mind) and their films look invariably sharper and better than most Super 35 films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tim Partridge

Really good post, Saul.

 

However, I still get the impression that even with free reign, most DPs out there would still prefer super 35 just because the standard light levels of today (and certainly the comfort levels that directors and actors even are use to) are for wide open spherical.

 

Visual effects is of course the other big factor too in going super35. Along with the DI, today digital manipulation and effects work is in pretty much every movie of every scale. We nolonger live in a time where a small scale Hollywood movie would have only title opticals as the sole post effects in a movie. This is really good article from 1997 in which Mark Stetson talks about getting Luc Besson to shoot super35 for THE FIFTH ELEMENT:

http://www.vfxhq.com/spotlight97/9707b.html

 

I am not a fan of Michael Bay's work, I don't even like his images, but I suppose I should be happy that the guy supports anamorphic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

This is a fascinating, "perpetual difference." Obviously, spherical is easier to use. It's more versatile. But, since this is a cinematography site, what are the aesthetic differences? Can you describe what you like and dislike about each lens system from an artistic image standpoint? Go ahead and be subjective. It's what artists live by. Why not DPs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
This is a fascinating, "perpetual difference." Obviously, spherical is easier to use. It's more versatile. But, since this is a cinematography site, what are the aesthetic differences? Can you describe what you like and dislike about each lens system from an artistic image standpoint? Go ahead and be subjective. It's what artists live by. Why not DPs?

 

The problems with the anamorphic image are, in my opinion, what makes it beautiful. The distortions, the flares, and odd bokeh are all beautiful to my eye. The way the image really snaps into focus because of the higher resolution and shallower depth of field is beautiful. The huge feeling the image gives you is beautiful.

 

I think shooting anamorphic is worth any extra effort and problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

As a DP, you can't shoot anamorphic unless you have the backing of the producers and director, because as soon as something goes wrong, they will blame the DP for picking anamorphic. They have to be in support of the decision.

 

Truth is that most producers still feel more comfortable if you tell them you are shooting standard 1.85.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I love the three-dimensional look of anamorphic (as opposed to Super 35 which only looks flat), which to do with the fact that these lenses mix the characteristics of two focal lenghts (i.e a 100mm anamorphic lens has the horizontal angle of a 50mm lenes, but the vertical one of a 100mm). Also I love to play with the out-of-focus part of the image which in anamorphic is more painterly, because it is slightly squeezed and more soft than spherical.

 

As I like to say, Super 35 is for whimps ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of shooting format I hope anamorphic will live on in a projection format - the extra brightness is worth it in terms of perceived clarity and as much as I've tried to appreciate the taller aspects (I'm only shooting super16 currently) I have to say I love 2.39 ...

 

As for an acquisition format I love the bokeh of anamorphic, there is something a tad synthetic or contrived about spherical bokeh for me personally - very 'look Ma, out of focus!' (think rooftop chats at the end of Boston Legal) - anamorphic bokeh doesn't bother me the same way.

 

Its safe to say I'd love to work with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

In a weird way, one of the minor reasons for the embrace of Super-35 recently is that it looks grainier, and thus less like digital. Anamorphic photography tends to be finer-grained and more detailed on the big screen. Some filmmakers, in sort of a stand against the future demise of film, are embracing a somewhat rough & grainy style as being "anti-digital".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I love anamorphic and will defend it forever, but the reality is that it gets more anachronistic for every day:

 

1. As mentioned, super 35 is "good enough" in the DI-world.

2. Anamorphic doesn't leave any room for racking the image like it does on super-35. I know this is something both directors and post houses have come to love.

3. You can't shoot 3-perf.

4. All lenses below 50mm in anamorphic have terrible barrel distortion. And 50mm isn't that wide a lens, really. I'm sure one could design a rectilienar wide angle

anamorphic, but it's such a small cottage industry I doubt anyone would have the resources to do it. Anamorphic lenses are basically knocked up in a some shop

by joining an anamorphic lement with a spherical lens and connecting them. I doubt if more than 100 lenses are produced a year.

 

I have never shot with anamorphic lenses. On your number 2. point above, do you mean

racking in the sense of it being easier to rack focus in Super-35 than in anamorphic? If so,

why would that be and why would post houses love that? I can see why people shooting,

especially those doing the focus pulls would. If not, what do you mean? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He means vertical reframing, repositioning.

Yeh, who needs expensive shift lenses when you can spend the same money on a 4-perf shoot instead.

 

I suppose a shift lens is never going to reframe a hair in the gate out of shot though is it :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh, who needs expensive shift lenses when you can spend the same money on a 4-perf shoot instead.

 

I suppose a shift lens is never going to reframe a hair in the gate out of shot though is it :rolleyes:

 

he means recomposing the shot by using part of the image above or below what was composed for, not racking as in shifting focus perpendicular to the lens axis, which is by the way the least important use of a shift lens!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh, who needs expensive shift lenses when you can spend the same money on a 4-perf shoot instead.

 

I suppose a shift lens is never going to reframe a hair in the gate out of shot though is it :rolleyes:

 

he means recomposing the shot by using part of the image above or below what was composed for, not racking as in shifting focus perpendicular to the lens axis, which is by the way the least important use of a shift lens!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he means recomposing the shot by using part of the image above or below what was composed for, not racking as in shifting focus perpendicular to the lens axis, which is by the way the least important use of a shift lens!

 

"Recomposing the shot by using part of the image above or below what was composed for" is exactly the same as a shift - Its just with 4-perf you can choose do it after the fact - yes, you loose your composition, but I'm saying that its a potential use of 4-perf if you were to plan beforehand ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Racking, in this situation = reframing/repositioning

 

 

Thanks everybody, that's great to know!

 

By the way, does shooting anamorphic lock you out of this option because you can't move a squeezed

image in post as you can an unsqueezed image?

 

My lack of knowledge about shooting anamorphic makes me wonder if that question makes sense but I

am familiar with reframing in post when editing in Final Cut Pro by using image>wireframe and moving

the image around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racking, in this situation = reframing/repositioning

By the way, does shooting anamorphic lock you out of this option because you can't move a squeezed image in post as you can an unsqueezed image?

Yip, but nothing to do with squeezing - its just the fact you've got no more image to scan/rack up or down to with scope, it uses the full 4-perfs for its image... You'd be bringing in the top or bottom of the previous/next frame instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope anamorphic isn't dead because I plan on shooting my next film in anamorphic. I really fell in love with anamorphic when I saw Apocalypse Now Redux for the first time, in fact it is the inspiration for the visualization of Blood Moon Rising. Though we'll be shooting in the desert and not the jungle, the combination of beauty and horror just fascinates me and I want to try and create that in my own way. The cinematography on that film was utterly incredible to such an extent that I can only watch the film once in a while because it so profoundly affects me. Vittorio Storaro did something I have never seen any other cinematographer do to this day, he manage to literally capture a nightmare. The beauty of the horror in that film is mesmerizing. That single film is the argument for using anamorphic on certain movies.

 

I don't, however, believe anamorphic is appropriate for every film most comedies for example though with "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" it was a perfect fit, and like that film, there as some instances where it is the only way to shoot, Laurence of Arabia comes to mind, anything else would destroy the artist value of the piece. I personally truly love anamorphic and sense I'm also producing, I get to go with what I want. I love the old techniscope Italian Westerns but more for the way they were lit and staged rather than the image quality it's self. Super 35, well, if you don't screw up the framing in the first place, why would you need to re-frame it? :D I personally don't see how anyone could confuse anamorphic with video, the anamorphic image may be cleaner that other film formats but it looks nothing like HD, in fact it looks nothing like anything else. B)

Edited by James Steven Beverly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...