Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
For some reason I can't quite wrap my head around the 'squeezing' of images while shooting, and how that relates to the final 'unsqueezed' image we see after post.

 

Anything on the subject would be appreciated!

 

Are you asking about anamorphic lens photography (optical squeezing) or 16x9 "anamorphic" SD video, or general use of non-square pixels in some recording formats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Have you ever put a wide-angle adaptor on the front of a camera lens? An anamorphic lens is similar in principle except that it only increases the field of view in the horizontal direction, not vertically, and then squeezes that wider view onto the same area. Sort of like a funhouse mirror that makes everyone look skinnier. In fact, some anamorphic lenses actually do involve the use of a front-surface mirror on a curved cylindrical surface to do the squeezing (the old Delrama lenses used for Technirama).

 

This allows you to fit a wider-screen image onto a squarer surface area, whether a squarer sensor or film format.

 

But obviously you're not meant to see a skinny-looking image in the final presentation so it has to be stretched out again horizontally to look normal and thus wider.

 

In 35mm filmmaking, the anamorphic camera lenses commonly have a 2X horizontal squeeze and the anamorphic projector lenses have a 2X horizontal unsqueeze or stretch. So the printed image becomes twice as wide on the screen as it is on the print itself.

 

So if the final projected image becomes 2.40 : 1, that means the projector is using a 1.20 : 1 gate, but the 1.20 : 1 image on the print itself has a 2X squeeze to it.

 

This is why there is talk of making 1.33X or 1.34X anamorphic lenses so you can squeeze a 2.40 image onto something less square than a 4-perf 35mm 4x3 negative, like onto a 16x9 sensor or a 3-perf 35mm negative, or a Super-16 negative. On those wider-shaped formats, a 2X squeeze is too much so you need an anamorphic lens with a milder squeeze factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the final projected image becomes 2.40 : 1, that means the projector is using a 1.20 : 1 gate, but the 1.20 : 1 image on the print itself has a 2X squeeze to it.

 

Most of this matches how I 'assumed' it worked, but still cannot quite comprehend how the projector accomplishes this 'de-squeeze' I guess. I understand that it works, but just have a hard time understanding how it works.

 

Thank you once again David. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Most of this matches how I 'assumed' it worked, but still cannot quite comprehend how the projector accomplishes this 'de-squeeze' I guess. I understand that it works, but just have a hard time understanding how it works.

 

Thank you once again David. :)

 

It gets unsqueezed exactly the same way it gets squeezed. On the camera there is a cylindrical element that make the picture squarer and makes people tall and skinny.

 

On the projector lens, there is an element that is the negative of the one on the camera. It optically stretches it back out to the proper proportions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It gets unsqueezed exactly the same way it gets squeezed.

 

Indeed it does Chris, I believe I understand that much better now.

 

 

This link was very helpful in the explanation of how anamorphic images can be created by both horizontal expansion and vertical compression.

 

So as I understand it, Cylindrical Pair Anamorphic Lenses are used to horizontally stretch the image, whereas Prism Pair Anamorphic Lenses are used to do the vertical compressing of images. Now the horizontal stretch of the Cylindrical Pair Lenses make sense to me, but I still do not see how the vertical compression of the Prism Pair Lenses work. Since this process is not gaining any horizontal view, is the entire image somehow magnified to fit the 2.35:1 format? If so, doesn't this reduce the quality of the image drastically?

 

Also, if the Panamorph Lenses are using optics from both of these other optic systems (Cylindrical Pair/ Prism Pair) what then are these lenses actually doing..the horizontal stretch or the vertical compression, or both?

 

Have either of you used these Panamorph Lenses before?

 

Thank you both again gentlemen. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Also, if the Panamorph Lenses are using optics from both of these other optic systems (Cylindrical Pair/ Prism Pair) what then are these lenses actually doing..the horizontal stretch or the vertical compression, or both?

 

In the end, it doesn't really matter whether the image is squeezed horizontally or stretched vertically. The magnification of the image could be changed to get the same results. I don't have any optical plans for modern anamorphic lenses, but chances are, most anamorphic lenses today use a combination of methods to aid in minimizing unwanted distortions.

Edited by Chris Keth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No plans for modern anamorphic lenses?! I expected more from you Chris! ;)

 

I realize that aberrations, distortion and lateral chromatic aberrations vary (as far as presence) in between the two, but as far as quality in the 'de-squeezing' stages the quality lost would be the same whether you used horizontal or the vertical options?

 

Thanks again Chris :)

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...