35mm anamorphic feature

[Panayiotis Salapatas]

Hello all.

 

I would like to hear from someone who has shot an anamorphic feature. I am planning to shoot a feature and I am considering the anamorphic route (using Hawk lenses). It is a greek production set in Alaska. I have read about the size of the lenses and shallow depth of field but would like to learn more from someone who has had hands on experience.

 

Thank you

Edited February 7, 2008 by Panayiotis Salapatas

[David Mullen ASC]

I've shot four anamorphic features, what do you want to know?

 

We've talked a lot about this here, plus there is some good info on anamorphic in the FAQ:

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...?showtopic=4690

[Panayiotis Salapatas]

Hello David and everyone else who is reading this. I would like to know how easy or difficult it was to shoot with anamorphic lenses. Our film will take place in N. Orleans and Alaska at times in tight spaces on a tug boat. One idea is to shoot 3-perf (spherical lenses) and frame for 2.35 (with a DI process most probably) and the other ofcourse is to go with anamorphic lenses. I am looking into some Hawks lenses which I can get here in Greece. I think they start at f/2.5. We might even mix both routes for aesthetic purposes. The direcotr also plans to do a lot of hand held work.

 

Thanks.

[Max Jacoby]

If you plan to do a lot of handheld, you should look at the new Hawk V-Lites. Like all the Hawks they are T2.2, but they are much smaller and lighter, similar in size to a Cooke S4 lens.

 

Just keep in mind that with anamorphic the depth of field is half as much as the equivalent spherical lens, so shooting night scenes handheld with lots of movement and at low stops is going to make life hard for your focus-puller. For day exteriors, this is obviously less of an issue. Either way, you need to make sure that you get a damn good focus puller.

 

Mixing Super 35 and anamorphic is tricky, but can be done, like on 'Sunshine'. But that means you'll have to carry two sets of lenses and when you swap from one to the other, the focus-puller needs to exchange the groundglass.

[Keith Mottram]

If you plan to do a lot of handheld, you should look at the new Hawk V-Lites. Like all the Hawks they are T2.2, but they are much smaller and lighter, similar in size to a Cooke S4 lens.

 

Max,

 

do you know if v-lites being made for scope 16-9 chip cinematography aswel? vantage's site seems to imply this. it could make digital cinematography a bit more interesting- from there website "they are modularily structured and support both classical and upcoming film and sensor formats"

 

keith

[David Mullen ASC]

Hello David and everyone else who is reading this. I would like to know how easy or difficult it was to shoot with anamorphic lenses. Our film will take place in N. Orleans and Alaska at times in tight spaces on a tug boat.

 

Well, if you want more quality, go for anamorphic. If you want more ease, go with spherical. It's really a matter of how much of an effort you want to make getting a better widescreen image. Also, the extra detail in anamorphic shows off the best in daytime shots, particularly wide ones, and less in low-light night shots. And best in wide shots and less so in tight shots.

 

I can't tell you if you're going to have problems in a tiny room on a tugbut -- afterall, you have to get the 35mm camera in there.

 

Practically speaking anamorphic has less depth of field because you generally use twice as long a focal length. So T/2.5 can feel like T/1.4 to the focus puller. It helps to make an effort to get the stop up in anamorphic.

 

I think if it is practical at all to try it, it's worth doing an anamorphic shoot and getting that extra quality.

[Dan Goulder]

Mixing Super 35 and anamorphic is tricky, but can be done, like on 'Sunshine'. But that means you'll have to carry two sets of lenses and when you swap from one to the other, the focus-puller needs to exchange the groundglass.

You'd more than likely also be looking at carrying two different camera bodies, one with a super 35 gate and mount, the other with an anamorphic gate and academy mount.

[David Mullen ASC]

You'd more than likely also be looking at carrying two different camera bodies, one with a super 35 gate and mount, the other with an anamorphic gate and academy mount.

 

Most cameras these days have a full aperture gate, so the only difference between Super-35 and anamorphic is how the lens is centered and the groundglass. The groundglass can be swapped out, but the lens centering issue is trickier. If you are committed to doing a D.I. because of mixing two formats anyway, then I guess you can get a groundglass made where anamorphic is centered instead of offset, and just leave the camera set-up for Super-35. But then you're eliminating the ability to finish the film with a simple contact print for theatrical prints. You can of course make a contact print and project it full aperture at the lab with an anamorphic projector lens, and just remember that the sides will be trimmed a little.

[Max Jacoby]

Max,

 

do you know if v-lites being made for scope 16-9 chip cinematography aswel? vantage's site seems to imply this. it could make digital cinematography a bit more interesting- from there website "they are modularily structured and support both classical and upcoming film and sensor formats"

 

keith

Hi Keith

 

The anamorphic element can be swapped by a lens technician, so the same lens can be used for both 2x and 1.33x anamorphic shoots.

[Max Jacoby]

If you are committed to doing a D.I. because of mixing two formats anyway, then I guess you can get a groundglass made where anamorphic is centered instead of offset, and just leave the camera set-up for Super-35.

That's what they did on 'Sunshine'.

[Panayiotis Salapatas]

Thank you all for your comments.

Next week I will be doing some tests and will let you know how it will turn out.