Film Vs Digital - Why Is Arri Alexa So Expensive

[Michael Landon]

Some details:

 

 

The image is 1280 x 536 (2.39:1 aspect ratio).

 

I believe the film was actually shot in 2K using the Arri Alexa.

 

According to ther DCI standards:

 

2D Image: 2048×1080 (2k) at 24 frame/s or 48 frame/s, or 4096×2160 (4k) at 24 frame/s

• In 2K, for Scope (2.39:1) presentation 2048×858 pixels of the image is used.

 

Now I see that the horizontal is 2048....this is a lot more than 1920. Either anamorphic lenses capture more vertical area....or there's a mechanism for stretching the image...without messing up aspect ratio (not seeing how this would be possible)

Edited June 1, 2014 by Michael Landon

[Brian Drysdale]

Fun topic, but has anyone considered that the original poster might be trolling?

 

-Carl.

 

Certainly very possible.

[cole t parzenn]

Now I see that the horizontal is 2048....this is a lot more than 1920. Either anamorphic lenses capture more vertical area....or there's a mechanism for stretching the image...without messing up aspect ratio (not seeing how this would be possible)

 

Shooting with anamorphic lenses, you do use much more vertical sensor/film area - typically, twice the amount. Most commonly (by an especially long country mile), an area of 18 by 21.95mm is used. The camera lens squeezes the wide image to fit the tall film frame and the projector lens does the reverse.

[Michael Landon]

Cole - so anamorphic indeed does have a wider horizontal*** (i put vertical accidentally) area right - capturing a bigger Field of View Horizontally than spherical 16:9's? Also thank you for responding.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Michael Landon

[cole t parzenn]

Wider field of view. Read.

 

And I'm always happy to share my (very, very limited, in this field) knowledge. :)

Edited June 1, 2014 by cole t parzenn

[Michael Landon]

This isn't what I want

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Think of an anamorphic lens like putting a wide-angle adaptor on a lens to double the field of view, except that the wide-angle adaptor only works on the horizontal plane, the vertical field of view remains the same, hence why the image looks squeezed. But a 40mm anamorphic lens "sees" the same horizontal view as a 20mm spherical lens.

 

However this assumes a squarish sensor and recording so that you don't end up cropping the sensor or image to end up with a 2.40 aspect ratio. If you record 1920 x 1080 16x9 and use a spherical lens, you'd be cropping vertical resolution to get a 2.40 image, but if you use a 2X anamorphic lens, you'd be cropping horizontal resolution to get a 3.56 : 1 image (once unsqueezed) back to 2.40 : 1. You'd also be cropping horizontal view so the increase in horizontal FOV from using an anamorphic lens would be somewhat reduced.

[Michael Landon]

Think of an anamorphic lens like putting a wide-angle adaptor on a lens to double the field of view, except that the wide-angle adaptor only works on the horizontal plane, the vertical field of view remains the same, hence why the image looks squeezed. But a 40mm anamorphic lens "sees" the same horizontal view as a 20mm spherical lens.

 

However this assumes a squarish sensor and recording so that you don't end up cropping the sensor or image to end up with a 2.40 aspect ratio. If you record 1920 x 1080 16x9 and use a spherical lens, you'd be cropping vertical resolution to get a 2.40 image, but if you use a 2X anamorphic lens, you'd be cropping horizontal resolution to get a 3.56 : 1 image (once unsqueezed) back to 2.40 : 1. You'd also be cropping horizontal view so the increase in horizontal FOV from using an anamorphic lens would be somewhat reduced.

 

Sir,

 

Thank you for your wisdom. This was just what I needed to read. I am so thankful you reminded me of a tidbit i forgot about anamorphic being halved in its field of view horizontal compared to spherical wide angles of the same focal length

[Michael Landon]

Think of an anamorphic lens like putting a wide-angle adaptor on a lens to double the field of view, except that the wide-angle adaptor only works on the horizontal plane, the vertical field of view remains the same, hence why the image looks squeezed. But a 40mm anamorphic lens "sees" the same horizontal view as a 20mm spherical lens.

 

However this assumes a squarish sensor and recording so that you don't end up cropping the sensor or image to end up with a 2.40 aspect ratio. If you record 1920 x 1080 16x9 and use a spherical lens, you'd be cropping vertical resolution to get a 2.40 image, but if you use a 2X anamorphic lens, you'd be cropping horizontal resolution to get a 3.56 : 1 image (once unsqueezed) back to 2.40 : 1. You'd also be cropping horizontal view so the increase in horizontal FOV from using an anamorphic lens would be somewhat reduced.

 

So is it possible to use a spherical wide angle lens and effectively emulate the same vertical dimension as an anamorphic? considering anamorphic doesnt increase vertical field of view does it?

 

Basically...would it be possible to get a spherical wide angle lens and emulate an anamorphic look without cropping the top or bottom (since anamorphic lenses do not crop the vertical)....im assuming anamorphic lenses capture the same vertical frame as a spherical wide angle lens?

Edited June 1, 2014 by Michael Landon

[Brian Drysdale]

No, because to achieve the same aspect ratio with a spherical lens you have to have a reduced vertical compared to using an anamorphic lens. It's the advantage of the anamorphic lenses that you use a greater sensor area compared to cropping, although in the digital projection they don't use anamorphic lenses, while for film projection they do..Most digital cameras, with 16;9 sensors don't make use of the squarer image used by x 2 anamorphic lenses on film cameras..

 

Google will search out a lot of information on this.

[Michael Landon]

Hi bryan

 

But anamorphic captures the same vertical frame as spherical does it not?

[John E Clark]

 

So is it possible to use a spherical wide angle lens and effectively emulate the same vertical dimension as an anamorphic? considering anamorphic doesnt increase vertical field of view does it?

 

Basically...would it be possible to get a spherical wide angle lens and emulate an anamorphic look without cropping the top or bottom (since anamorphic lenses do not crop the vertical)....im assuming anamorphic lenses capture the same vertical frame as a spherical wide angle lens?

 

 

Part of the 'anamorphic look' is the distortion that is created by the lens. If you want that 'look' use that lens.

 

Of course there are spherical lenses that have 'wide' angle of views... pick your favorite angle of view, know your sensor size, and find the appropriate lens to achieve that view.

 

Further, one 'form' of anamorphic involves a spherical lens with an anamorphic 'font element'.

 

Since I really don't paricularly care for the 'look' or even the 'wide' (2.40, or whatever...) I haven't investigated all the potential options.

 

But given the popularity of the type of lens... there is a solution out there.

[Brian Drysdale]

Hi bryan

 

But anamorphic captures the same vertical frame as spherical does it not?

 

You will find a diagram for the Alexa Studio that explains using the sensor for x 2 anamorphic this matches the 35mm film gate used for using these lenses.

http://www.arri.de/camera/alexa/cameras/camera_details/alexa-xt-studio/subsection/xt_studio_features/

 

An advantage was increased neg area. Digital cameras usually have a 16:9 sensor, so don't need x 2 squeeze if you're using the full width of the sensor.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScope

Edited June 1, 2014 by Brian Drysdale

[Michael Landon]

Hi Bryan

 

Im just trying to figure this out....if a spherical lens does not have the same horizontal field of view and an anamorphic does and allows a 2.39:1 then how on earth can one get their spherical lens to reproduce a scene like anamorphic ratio with the same framing vertically without cropping or use of anamorphic lens? Wide angle lens surely does not seem like a good solution...please note I am using a digital camera with a 16:9 sensor

[cole t parzenn]

You don't. You either crop a tall image wide or squeeze a wide image tall.

[Michael Landon]

Cole thank you! You understood my badly worded question perfectly. Guess I am going to go with a more wide angle lens to mimic the anamorphic look and crop the top and bottom...will be trcky...still considering anamorphic lens however to make my life easier.

[cole t parzenn]

No mimicking the "anamorphic look;" lenses are what they are. If you kept the receipt, you could replace your Alexa with the 4:3 one but, frankly, it doesn't seem like any Alexa is going to serve you very well, based on the questions you've asked. Sorry. :/

Edited June 2, 2014 by cole t parzenn

[Michael Landon]

Hi

 

Yeah maybe not but no reason not to futureproof myself until I become more knowledgeable in this subject. What does the 4:3 sensor do for anamorphic? Heard it has to do with resolution or something

[cole t parzenn]

I really wish you would read the links we post :(; they're quite helpful.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format

[Michael Landon]

Yes - I did read it and did not get my answer. It seems to talk about the film process...

[cole t parzenn]

It's the same idea, only the lens projects onto a 1.95:1 shaped piece of sensor, instead of a 1.95:1 shaped piece of film. Because a 4:3 sensor is taller than a 16:9 sensor (same width, more area), you crop just slightly from the sides and increase the vertical resolution by a third.

 

Granted, this is moot, unless you upsample to 4K, as the vertical resolution will bottleck (there are no anamorphic digital projectors). Some people use anamorphic lenses anyway, because they like the look, but it's not necessarily more "filmic" - the vast majorities of Tarantino's, Spielberg's, and Scorsese's filmographies were shot spherically, along with the entireties of Kubrick's, Welles's, and Hitchcock's.

[John E Clark]

Yes - I did read it and did not get my answer. It seems to talk about the film process...

 

From the wiki:

---

Anamorphic format refers to the cinematography technique of shooting a widescreen picture on standard 35 mm film or other visual recording media with a non-widescreen native aspect ratio. It also refers to the projection format in which a distorted image is "stretched" by an anamorphic projection lens to recreate the original aspect ratio on the viewing screen.

---

 

What more 'questions', since the above does not go in to any detailed 'film' process description, but just what the 'lens' does to record the wide screen field of view on to a 'standard 35mm film or other visual recording media...'.

 

I think I've seen this sort of 'thread sequence before'...

 

Take your new camera, rent some spherical prime lenses, say a selection of lenses 25-50mm, then rent another selection that are 'anamorphic'... and see what happens.

 

If you can afford an Alexa with not much concern for 'pay back', surely you have sufficient free time to perform various tests with a large set of lenses.

[Michael Landon]

Okay all. I will go ahead an rent the lenses. The money was inheritance to me - so no - I'm not quite well off enough to afford a lens that is $20,000 yet. I will go ahead and rent the Angieux Optimo and Carl Zeiss Master Anamorphic 2x lenses and decide. I don't have a 4:3 Alexa so at this point that's out of the picture.

 

For anyone else who needs answers and stumbled upon this on the web - i got these links that helped me a lot in addition to the wisdom of people here willing to put up with my beginner questions:

 

http://blog.abelcine.com/2013/10/02/go-anamorphic-with-the-arri-alexa-plus-43/

[David Mullen ASC]

 

So is it possible to use a spherical wide angle lens and effectively emulate the same vertical dimension as an anamorphic? considering anamorphic doesnt increase vertical field of view does it?

 

Basically...would it be possible to get a spherical wide angle lens and emulate an anamorphic look without cropping the top or bottom (since anamorphic lenses do not crop the vertical)....im assuming anamorphic lenses capture the same vertical frame as a spherical wide angle lens?

 

No, you can't use a spherical lens to create an anamorphic look other than faking the blue horizontal flare with some special filters. But you won't get the stretched bokeh.

[cole t parzenn]

Sorry for your loss. There is a third option: standalone anamorphic elements of a lesser power, such as this. But, again, you would have to finish at a higher resolution. Best of luck!