Will, 5219 extend the effective f-stop range of anamorphics?

[James Steven Beverly]

I have 2 small sets of Lomo anamprphics, one OCT-18, 2-piece square-fronts and one OCT-19 round-fronts, both in 35, 50 and 75mm (I also have a line on a 100mm round-front which I'm keeping my fingers crossed for). The round-fronts are said to have an 3.3 effective f-stop limitation, as for the the square-fronts, I'm not sure, but I would imagine, it's probably pretty close to that or higher as they were made earlier, I believe in the mid to late 70s, possibly early 80s. As my proposed project, Blood Moon Rising will require a LOT of night shooting in the desert, using a fair amount of red light (not that I didn't set MYSELF up for a LOT of headaches already :rolleyes: ), this limitation has been of some concern to me. I know I'll probably have a fairly tight DoF and will be using every light, trick and technique we have in our repertuare to make this thing look good, but will this new film, designed to extend the capabilities of the cinematic effectiveness at the extremes of the lighting spectrum actually help to extend the effectiveness of the lens capabilities themselves? B)

[Michael Nash]

An effectively faster film just means that you might be able to shoot at a higher f-stop with the same light levels, or lower light levels at your minimum f-stop. The optical characteristics of the lens wide-open will of course be the same as they always were.

[James Steven Beverly]

So that would mean that although you are not changing the stop, you are able to shoot a lower light levels as though you had changed the stop, but were able to retain the same DOF at the previous stop, effectively lowering the stop the lens is capable of shotting at? Would that mean you could also shoot at a higher stop, push the film one or two stops and get the same effective stop with a greater DOF that if you had stopped it down? I mean obviously this is true, but are you getting pretty much the same look as if you used say a fast anamorphic stopped down to the equivalent pushed stop or are there aesthetic differences with the newer film like contrast compromises and grain issues? (this probably should have gone in the film processing category but I thought I had a lens question here. I also know this is somewhat basic information I should already know but I'm just trying to verify I have it exactly correct in my own head)

Edited December 10, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

[M Joel W]

So that would mean that although you are not changing the stop, you are able to shoot a lower light levels as though you had changed the stop, but were able to retain the same DOF at the previous stop, effectively lowering the stop the lens is capable of shotting at? Would that mean you could also shoot at a higher stop, push the film one or two stops and get the same effective stop with a greater DOF that if you had stopped it down? I mean obviously this is true, but are you getting pretty much the same look as if you used say a fast anamorphic stopped down to the equivalent pushed stop or are there aesthetic differences with the newer film like contrast compromises and grain issues? (this probably should have gone in the film processing category but I thought I had a lens question here. I also know this is somewhat basic information I should already know but I'm just trying to verify I have it exactly correct in my own head)

 

Well, 5219 is ISO500, same as 5218, so, using either one, you'd get the same f-stop for a given set up. Apparently 5219 is a little less grainy, so you might be able to push it a bit further than 5218, particularly if you're shooting anamorphic, which is inherently cleaner than super35.

 

So, it doesn't "extend the f-stop range" but it might let you use a bit less light with similar results. But, the thing is, it doesn't appear that 5219 is that much cleaner than its predecessor so it makes next to no difference. Why not just shoot super35 and rent sharp lenses? I doubt those anamorphic lenses are sharp wide open, and stopped down a stop or two you would need a whole lot of light, and this would probably increase your rental cost far beyond renting faster spherical lenses for the same amount of time. Than again I don't know much about this since I've never had the chance to shot 35mm yet!

[David Mullen ASC]

If you can afford 5219 and if you can afford to do a lot of push-processing, certainly it will be useful for those night scenes, though I don't generally recommend more than a one-stop push unless you want a special look that is grainier, with odd blacks.

 

Anamorphic requires more light generally, so you just have to bite the bullet and find more light for your night work. Certainly Super-35 might make more sense for a night-heavy production with minimal lighting, but you have to factor in that anamorphic allows you to just cut the negative and make a contact print for projection, if you're aiming to make prints.

[James Steven Beverly]

If I can afford 5219, being the optimum decisive factor, although I can't imagine it staying high and there may be some discounts available by the time I'm ready for it. If not 5218 will probably be going cheaper than it is now. I am going with anamorphics so I guess we'll just get as much light on the scenes as we can and will process and contact print in house so assuming of course I can get the processing right, we should be able to push the footage we need. Though I do think we may have to let a commercial lab do the negative cutting and answer print.