Premium Member David Regan Posted December 12, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted December 12, 2007 So in an attempt to understand lenses a little bit better, there is something that has me puzzled regarding bokeh in film shot with anamorphic lenses. I certainly do not have an eye yet to be able to distinguish if a film has been shot anamorphic or spherical easily, but the one way I've seen to tell (I think) is in the bokeh. I first noticed a while ago a squeezed bokeh, and wondered if that ment it was shot anamorphic. I did some research and film had been. A few times since I've noticed again, and checked, and the films with the squeezed bokeh were shot anamorphic. So perhaps its just a coincidence, but assuming it isn't, my question is, why doesn't the bokeh get unsqueezed? Because isn't it just part of the image like anything else, with the 2x squeeze factor, so why doesn't it return to looking more spherical when released? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 12, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted December 12, 2007 Because it is even more squeezed than the 2X squeeze of the main subject, so when unsqueezed, it still looks squeezed. This: Gets unsqueezed into this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted December 12, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted December 12, 2007 That squeezed bokeh is one of the main reason why I like anamorphic so much better than spherical, the out-of-focus background always has such a painterly feel to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted December 12, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted December 12, 2007 Only things on the plane of focus are actually squeezed exactly 2x. Things further from that point get increasingly squeezed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Regan Posted December 13, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted December 13, 2007 Ahhh so Max is fact there is a different squeeze ratio relative to the plane of focus what you mean in your post on Anamorphics, "The breathing is so prominent because of the change in compression, unless one is really stopped down...?" Because that seems rack focusing would be nearly impossible to get away with unless as you say you are really stopped down, because wouldn't objects not only come in/out of focus, but they would get squeezed/unsqueezed in the shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 13, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted December 13, 2007 Not impossible, but you do have to think about it, you can't just ping-pong the focus during the scene and hope no one notices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Always a fan of the Cooke bokeh, it's a good one to be able to recognize :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bruno Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 There are a lot of good examples of extreme changes in focus with a very wide aperture in Sunshine, shot by Alwin Kutchler. Check out the scene right after Kanaeda fixes the solar panels. Sorry I can't add a pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Price Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 This may be stupid but i'll ask any way... If you attach an anamorphic lens to the camera port offset by 90 degrees from the normal position, will the squeezing effect become horizontal instead of vertical, would the squeezed anamorphic bokeh appear horizontal? would flares become vertical? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted August 4, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted August 4, 2008 Some of the fellas here shot some tests on a 1-perf, horizontal squeeze system. IIRC, it was Mitch and the guys at Abel. He could give you eyewitness info on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Not me, although I do recall someone talking about a crazy 1-perf format as well as a Vista-16, which was 16mm stock shot sideways for a very long frame. Too crazy for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Not me, although I do recall someone talking about a crazy 1-perf format as well as a Vista-16, which was 16mm stock shot sideways for a very long frame. Too crazy for me. Mitch, has Abel received the anamorphics you mentioned a while back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now