Jump to content

RED+Anamorphic


F Bulgarelli
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I'm thinking about shooting my next RED project in anamorphic. This is something I will be testing, I'm curious about any experiences shooting in that configuration.

It would seem that the only advantage in doing this would be to get a shallow depth of field, hence a softer image, not sure that increase resolution is achieved since using the full chip in 2.35 might be better than that. I'm wondering if shooting wide open with super speeds on spherical would be comparable.

 

Any comments or suggestions are appreciated,

 

Francisco

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Premium Member

You gain vertical resolution with anamorphic because you aren't cropping top & bottom to get 2.40, but you're losing horizontal resolution because you're cropping the sides to get 2.40 (unless you shoot with the 1.3X anamorphics by Hawk).

 

So it's a wash -- if you choose to shoot in anamorphic on the RED, it's really only because you want the look of front-anamorphic primes and all of their optical artifacts when shoot near wide-open (flares, stretchy backgrounds, etc.)

 

If all you want is a crisp, sharp 2.40 image, then shoot with good spherical lenses and crop. Shoot in the T/1.3 to T/2 range if you want a shallow focus look similar to anamorphic at T/2.8-ish.

 

I posted these example on RedUser that you may find useful.

 

Anamorphic (Star Trek 5)

startrekfive4.jpg

 

Super-35 (Star Trek 6)

startreksix3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi Francisco,

 

I have rented my Lomo anamorphics to a few RED music video shoots.

 

They seem to be after the qualities or artifacts that you and David have mentioned: the shallow DoF, distorted background elements and horizontal lens flares from the front element anamorphics.

 

It's an interesting (to me!) look that people recognize; it's often visually associated with big budget movies from Cinemascope era.

 

I've never seen a side by side comparison of shperical and anamorphic, thanks for the illustration David. A picture's worth.....ya, you know.

 

Bruce Taylor

www.indi35.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Any idea what stop each of those examples was shot at David?

 

No, but it looks like in the T/2.8 range. Photography on the bridge set has generally been around T/2.8 just to get all the lights to read well. In the original, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" they also had to expose for a lot of 16mm projection simulating those monitors, which were replaced by CRT's for "Star Trek 2". So there was a lot of use of split-diopters in the first movie to compensate for the lack of depth of field, deep-focus framing being one of Robert Wise's favorite techniques.

 

"Star Trek 3" was sort of the exception -- the DP wanted more sharpness out of the anamorphic lenses and shot much of the movie at T/5.6, even push-processing the 5294 negative for the bridge scenes to make that possible.

 

Of course, any zoom shots in these anamorphic Trek movies would have to boost the light level to near T/5.6 -- you can see the difference in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", the lights on the consoles don't expose as brightly because the light level was boosted for zoom lens shots (not many of those however). You also see that in the VistaVision bluescreen shots whenever the main screen was in the shot.

 

The early Star Trek movies all demonstrate the progression of film stocks well because as soon as a new high speed stock was available, the Trek movie was trying it out just to handle the bridge set. Trek 1 was shot on 5247 (125 ASA) as there was no high speed stock, then Trek 2 was shot on Fuji 250T, the first high speed stock, then Trek 3 was shot on 5294 400T, then Trek 4 as well, plus some of the new bluescreen stock 5295 400T. Trek 5 I think opted to stick to 5294 rather than 5295.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Trek 1 was shot on 5247 (125 ASA) .....

 

5247 is what we had back in my shooting days, and I'm pretty sure that we rated it at 100 rather than 125. The previous stock was 5254, which had bigger grain at the same speed. They also changed 5247 without changing the number, the new stuff was called "600 series". IIRC, it required different processing or something -- there was some reason we had to keep track of old '47 vs. 600 series '47.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
5247 is what we had back in my shooting days, and I'm pretty sure that we rated it at 100 rather than 125. The previous stock was 5254, which had bigger grain at the same speed. They also changed 5247 without changing the number, the new stuff was called "600 series". IIRC, it required different processing or something -- there was some reason we had to keep track of old '47 vs. 600 series '47.

 

Here's one of those moments when I wish I had John Pytlak to talk to...

 

Kodak changed the rating of 5247 from 100 ASA to 125 ASA in the early 1980's. I have a product catalog from Kodak from the early 1990's that lists 5247 as 125 ASA.

 

But their historical section of the website makes no mention of this re-rating and I can't find the specific announcement for it, but I suspect it was around 1983.

 

Of course, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was shot in 1979 so 5247 would have been 100 ASA.

 

I just never know whether to call 5247 at 100 or 125 ASA stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Here's what I found, digging through a couple of years of AC magazine...

 

January 1983 issue ("E.T." on the cover) under "What's New" (page 14):

 

After a recap of a SMPTE conference in New York where Kodak introduced the new 5294 400 ASA stock, the paragraph ends with:

 

Eastman also announced that the recommended exposure index for 5247 is being changed to 125 instead of ASA 100 due to new methods for determining exposure index.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Thanks for the info David.

I never made it to see "CHE", was there any noticeable differences between the anamorphic and the spherical parts. I've heard some people say that the anamorphic section looked soft.

 

Looked like classic C-Series anamorphic sharpness, which is to say, not as crisp as other anamorphic lenses but sharp enough.

 

Remember that this was a 2K Cinevator print, and there was a lot of shooting in available light. Many C-Series lenses aren't very good at T/2.8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Here at Panavision Hollywood we just finished a RED job using our anamorphic lens with the build 18 and no known issues coming back from the camera crew or post. I would shoot your know test and work with your post house.

 

Mark August

Panavision Hollywood, CA

 

Hello,

 

I'm thinking about shooting my next RED project in anamorphic. This is something I will be testing, I'm curious about any experiences shooting in that configuration.

It would seem that the only advantage in doing this would be to get a shallow depth of field, hence a softer image, not sure that increase resolution is achieved since using the full chip in 2.35 might be better than that. I'm wondering if shooting wide open with super speeds on spherical would be comparable.

 

Any comments or suggestions are appreciated,

 

Francisco

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Murphy
Here at Panavision Hollywood we just finished a RED job using our anamorphic lens with the build 18 and no known issues coming back from the camera crew or post. I would shoot your know test and work with your post house.

 

Mark August

Panavision Hollywood, CA

 

 

I'm prepping to shoot a build 18 RED project using the Hawk (2x) lenses - ill let you know how the workflow goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm prepping to shoot a build 18 RED project using the Hawk (2x) lenses - ill let you know how the workflow goes.

 

 

Speaking of The Red and Che - why is it that with every film I see projected in a theatre that was originated on HD looks dead up there? It's like a photo of a loved one. Is it the lack of grain? The image is just not organic. It doesn't breathe. It looks like marble. Is it just conditioning on my behalf having watched celluloid in theaters all these years? I know one is chemical based and one is just numbers swirling about. Even if they come up with HD with the resolution that you can see inside the pores of the actors I still feel I'll be sitting there in the theatre watching the screen vs merging with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Is it just conditioning on my behalf having watched celluloid in theaters all these years?

 

Yup. It's like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" -- It's trying so hard to be the same, but there's some ominous little thing that's just not quite right.

 

Right now, in real life, it's .... "Invasion of the Movie Snatchers"

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I've shot twice with anamorphic lenses on the Red and not had any problems. Once in LA with the old Todd-AO's and once in London with my own set of Lomo's. Woks fine as long as you're in 4K. In 2K they become to long. You need build 18 or 16, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I have tested a set of Ultrascope lenses (Zeiss anamorphics from the early 60's) for an upcoming project and everything looks fine with them. Trouble with this particular set of lenses is that the performance at the largest apertures isn't very good, so it can be a little difficult to light night interiors & exteriors up to a T/5.6 at 320 ASA, specially in terms of budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Premium Member
Here'sI just never know whether to call 5247 at 100 or 125 ASA stock.

 

Hi David,

 

In 1979 when I was a trainee it was certanly 100asa for 16 & 35mm, from 1983-85 I was only shooting 16mm and was unaware of any change in speed, could the 35mm version 5247 have been uprated and 7247 left at 100? I am sure I would have noticed as I was shooting 5-10 rolls a week at that time.

 

Best,

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...