Anamorphic adaptor (2.35) for HD cameras.

[Tomas Koolhaas]

Hello everyone,

There was another post pertaining to this subject which no one replied to, so here goes my question again:

Has anyone seen/used or heard anything about the Canon AVC-235 anamorphic adaptor for HD cameras, I tried to google it but got no info except canon's product info. (nothing which would tell me when/were the adaptor might be available).

I would appreciate ANY information anyone might have, even rumours and conjecture.

Cheers.

Tomas.

[David Mullen ASC]

I've seen it but I've never heard of anyone using it nor have ever seen any tests done with it.

[Mike Brennan]

I've seen it but I've never heard of anyone using it nor have ever seen any tests done with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There were very few sold. I was tempted to pick one up second hand sor $6k last year.. But to be usefull one needs to fit an inverter board to the f900. This in turn needs an extra fan bolted to the bottom of the camera where the shoulder pad is. The board is not easily removed and involves a new setup of the camera.

I saw pic s with Arri Primes in 2001 and at the time it was sharper than the then standard Canon 1st Gen zooms.

It is quite bulky.

 

Note that the newer HD cams have an inversion function built in....

 

Mike

[Keith Mottram]

There were very few sold. I was tempted to pick one up second hand sor $6k last year.. But to be usefull one needs to fit an inverter board to the f900. This in turn needs an extra fan bolted to the bottom of the camera where the shoulder pad is. The board is not easily removed and involves a new setup of the camera.

I saw pic s with Arri Primes in 2001 and at the time it was sharper than the then standard Canon 1st Gen zooms.

It is quite bulky.

 

Note that the newer HD cams have an inversion function built in....

 

Mike

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Think you must be talking about a different adaptor as my contact at canon said that there are just a couple of test units around (this was about two months ago).

[Tomas Koolhaas]

Hi Everyone,

I was just wondering if anyone had heard, or experienced, anything more about the adaptor Such as tests or possible release date in the U.S.???

Cheers.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Hello everyone,

There was another post pertaining to this subject which no one replied to, so here goes my question again:

Has anyone seen/used or heard anything about the Canon AVC-235 anamorphic adaptor for HD cameras, I tried to google it but got no info except canon's product info. (nothing which would tell me when/were the adaptor might be available).

I would appreciate ANY information anyone might have, even rumours and conjecture.

Cheers.

Tomas.

 

I'm not entirely sure what such a device would achieve. I presume it's meant to squeeze a 2.35:1 image up to the 1.78:1 of most HD cameras. While this might well give you an extra 25% more pixels in the vertical direction (compared to "Super-35-ing" an ordinary HD picture), you're still going to have the same number of pixels horizontally, so you'd simply wind up with 25% more vertical resolution than horizontal.

 

Anamorphic lenses for film cameras certainly did have a lot of advantages, but that applied more when the only duplication process available was old-fashioned contact printing. When projecting an anamorphic film frame, light from the whole of the film frame is used, giving more brightness, and the best results were always obtained if the film was shot that way in the camera, minimizing the number of "optical" post-production steps required.

 

However if you're using a digital camera for a film-out project, the anamorphic squeeze is going to be done digitally as just one more step in the digital post-production process, rather than in a lossy optical printer stage, so I really doubt you'd notice much difference between "Anamorphic video" and "Spherical video". (No matter which way you shot it, you'd still need further squeezing to produce a standard 35mm anamorphic dupe-ing neg). There are bound to be some losses inherent in such a lens, which would probably cancel out the small gains in vertical resolution, so I very much suspect you'd be wasting time and money.

 

Shooting anamorphic can be a pain in the bum at the best of times anyway, which is why so many directors prefer the super-35 approach and have done so for many years.

Edited November 17, 2005 by Jim Murdoch

[Max Jacoby]

Shooting anamorphic can be a pain in the bum at the best of times anyway, which is why so many directors prefer the super-35 approach and have done so for many years.

 

Sorry, but there a plenty of people who prefer anamorphic over Super35. The image quality is just so much better and certainly worth the hassle of heavier lenses and deeper stops.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I thought this was a back-fitting adaptor? The Canon thing I've seen wouldn't make the lens much bigger or heavier, certainly not to the extent that scope lenses do on 35mm.

 

This sort of thing also has the interesting potential to turn a 4:3 camera into a 16:9 one, which is a welcome idea for people with an investment in 4:3 kit in a market that's almost completely gone widescreen. That's me, by the way.

 

Phil

[John Holland]

Sorry, but there a plenty of people who prefer anamorphic over Super35. The image quality is just so much better and certainly worth the hassle of heavier lenses and deeper stops.

 

 

Just like to add my support for Anamorphic cinematography , compaired to Super 35 , just cant seem to find anything SUPER about it , how many Anamorphic movies have you been involved in Jim ? john holland London.

[David Mullen ASC]

In terms of sheer picture quality, it's hard to beat GOOD 35mm anamorphic photography if done well. But there are a lot of valid reasons to use Super-35 instead, both for creative, aesthetic, financial, and practical reasons.

 

But everytime I consider how much easier my life would be if I used Super-35 instead of anamorphic, I go to the theaters and see how good anamorphic looks...

 

Recently I snuck in to see part of "North Country" (Super-35, Fuji Eterna 500T, DI) and caught the trailer for "Memoirs of a Geisha", shot in anamorphic. Now realizing of course that the pastel, gritty look of "North Country" is intentional -- based partly on photos by William Eccleston, plus it has a documentary aesthetic to some degree -- but it's hard not to prefer the richness of colors and black levels and the fine-grain at least as displayed in the trailer for "Memoirs of a Geisha". Not really a fair comparison of course in terms of visual beauty (working class factory life versus period Japan...)

 

However, I've seen plenty of great DI work done for Super-35 movies where at least for night and interior scenes, it rivals anamorphic, without all the depth of field problems. Trouble is that day exterior work -- where sharpness and grain structure matter most -- still tends to suffer.

[Tomas Koolhaas]

Hi,

 

I thought this was a back-fitting adaptor? The Canon thing I've seen wouldn't make the lens much bigger or heavier, certainly not to the extent that scope lenses do on 35mm.

 

This sort of thing also has the interesting potential to turn a 4:3 camera into a 16:9 one, which is a welcome idea for people with an investment in 4:3 kit in a market that's almost completely gone widescreen. That's me, by the way.

 

Phil

 

Hi,

As I understand the adaptor Phil is right, it is a back-fitting adaptor (similar to mini-DV anamorphic adaptors-only hopefully much better, and for the 2/3in HD camera). Here is a link to a page from Cannon's site about someone who used the adaptor: http://www.canon-europe.com/TV-Products/Ne...rcePageID=33108

 

Also as I understand it the adaptor uses spherical lenses to achieve a ratio of 2.35:1, so you don't have many of the issues which usually occur with using anamorphics. The article is a bit confusing: "we decided to test different options: first, to use the adaptor with prime lenses, in order to get the most quality in the final image in 2.35:1;then, to use regular prime lenses, cropping the image, as other movies did; or thirdly, to use an adaptor for film lenses, and regular spherical film lenses." I'm not exactly clear on what he means by all of this. What differentiates "prime lenses" from "regular prime lenses"????

Cheers.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Just like to add my support for Anamorphic cinematography , compaired to Super 35 , just cant seem to find anything SUPER about it , how many Anamorphic movies have you been involved in Jim ? john holland London.

I don't exactly know how you define "involved" since most of my professional interest is in the video tap cameras and making TV monitors work at 2.35:1.

 

I don't really care one way or the other, but I know that both systems have their adherents. One problem is that going anamorphic greatly restricts the range of good quality lenses available and even the best ones still produce some barrel distortion. My only response to your sort of argument is: Well super-35 exists, deal with it. Whether the problem is geometric distortion on Anamorphic or grain on Super-35, it isn't my problem. Besides this thread was about an anamorphic adaptor; how many of those have you used to shoot 35mm anamorphic movies?

 

Anyway, if "Super-35" HD was good enough for a master cinematic artisan like George Lucas, surely it's good enough for the likes of you :P

[Keith Mottram]

Hi,

As I understand the adaptor Phil is right, it is a back-fitting adaptor (similar to mini-DV anamorphic adaptors-only hopefully much better, and for the 2/3in HD camera). Here is a link to a page from Cannon's site about someone who used the adaptor: http://www.canon-europe.com/TV-Products/Ne...rcePageID=33108

 

Also as I understand it the adaptor uses spherical lenses to achieve a ratio of 2.35:1, so you don't have many of the issues which usually occur with using anamorphics. The article is a bit confusing: "we decided to test different options: first, to use the adaptor with prime lenses, in order to get the most quality in the final image in 2.35:1;then, to use regular prime lenses, cropping the image, as other movies did; or thirdly, to use an adaptor for film lenses, and regular spherical film lenses." I'm not exactly clear on what he means by all of this. What differentiates "prime lenses" from "regular prime lenses"????

Cheers.

 

that link doesn't seem to work, have you another?

 

keith

[GEAR Rentals]

There was a Varicam feature shooting here in Austin this past summer, a horror picture, using a new Canon anamorphic adapter. I believe it was a demo from Canon, a beta test if you will. I heard about this device at NAB 2005, but did not see it.

 

I spoke to the editor on a set visit to Austin Studios, and he was pleased with the res VS cropping for 2.35. I don't know their workflow or whether they were expecting a filmout or straight to video etc. The cameraman was Mike Washlesky, gaffer Tony Brummer. If I'm not mistaken the production company was

 

MARTINI SHOT

attn: Blayne Gorum

906 E. 5th Street, Studio 209

Austin, Texas 78702

 

 

I haven't followed up on their progress or in general whether they were pleased with the outcome; whether there were unforseen pitfalls with the device. But perhaps you can contact them and get their experience first hand.

 

Kirk Miles

GEAR Rentals

Austin TX

512 485 3131

www.gearrental.com

[Tomas Koolhaas]

that link doesn't seem to work, have you another?

 

keith

 

Hi Keith,

Here's the link again, it should work this time:

www.canon-europe.com/TV-Products/News/anamorphic_converter_story.asp?ComponentID=320038&SourcePageID=33108

 

If it still doesn't work just type "canon anamorphic adaptor for HD" into a google search and it should be the second result from the top.

Cheers.

Edited November 18, 2005 by Tomas Haas

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

I don't know their workflow or whether they were expecting a filmout or straight to video etc.

Kirk Miles

GEAR Rentals

Austin TX

512 485 3131

www.gearrental.com

It would have to be film out, wouldn't it? How else could you project it in 2.35:1?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> How else could you project it in 2.35:1?

 

On a 16:9 projector with a 1.33x anamorphic projection lens on it, which exists for exactly this purpose.

 

Phil

[Guest dbledwn11]

master cinematic artisan like George Lucas

 

i know this is off topic, but i assume this was a joke?

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Hi,

 

> How else could you project it in 2.35:1?

 

On a 16:9 projector with a 1.33x anamorphic projection lens on it, which exists for exactly this purpose.

 

Phil

 

Yikes, you're right; I forgot that 1.78 x 1.33 = 2.35 (or thereabouts). Actually, I'd always assumed those things were meant for converting 4:3 projectors to 16:9.

 

I don't know that converting a 1.78:1 image to 2.35:1 is going to have as dramatic a benefit as converting a 1.33:1 image though.

[Tomas Koolhaas]

Hi,

All this talk has lead to me to ask this question: Would there be a big difference in quality when projected of two projects shot on HD if one used an anamorphic adaptor that streched the 2.35 image to utilize the whole 16x9 (1.78) image size of HD, which would then be projected using the 1.33 anamorphic lense on the projector to squeeze the 16x9 image back to 2.35, and the other project shot in 16x9 mode in camera and just framed for 2.35, then in post cropped to achieve 2.35, then made an HDCAM master that stretched the 2.35 image onto the full 16x9 area, and then also used the 1.33 anamorphic lense on the projector to squeeze it from 16x9 back to 2.35.

I may be missing something here but it seems like there shouldn't be too much of a difference in quality... Right???

(The reason I ask is because I did the latter for a project I shot on HD recently and wonder if the adaptor is a much better solution or not)

Any opinions about this would be appreciated.

Cheers.

Edited November 20, 2005 by Tomas Haas

[Mark Wilson]

Hi,

All this talk has lead to me to ask this question: Would there be a big difference in quality when projected of two projects shot on HD if one used an anamorphic adaptor that streched the 2.35 image to utilize the whole 16x9 (1.78) image size of HD, which would then be projected using the 1.33 anamorphic lense on the projector to squeeze the 16x9 image back to 2.35, and the other project shot in 16x9 mode in camera and just framed for 2.35, then in post cropped to achieve 2.35, then made an HDCAM master that stretched the 2.35 image onto the full 16x9 area, and then also used the 1.33 anamorphic lense on the projector to squeeze it from 16x9 back to 2.35.

I may be missing something here but it seems like there shouldn't be too much of a difference in quality... Right???

(The reason I ask is because I did the latter for a project I shot on HD recently and wonder if the adaptor is a much better solution or not)

Any opinions about this would be appreciated.

Cheers.

There would not be as much difference between that and 35mm film framed as super-35. If you frame a picture for 2.35 on a standard 16 x 9 HD camera, you're losing about 100 lines at the top and bottom, in other words, using an adaptor gains you about 25% more vertical resolution. But as somebody else said you're only increasing the vertical resolution a bit, the horizontal stays the same, less what may be lost by the anamorphosizer.

 

Using a 1.33 to 1 adaptor on the projector is worthwhile, rather than just letterboxing because it will theroetically give an increase in brightness of about 25%

 

i know this is off topic, but i assume this was a joke?

George Lucas is a JOKE?

I'm afraid shall have to ask you to step outside!

(And close the door after you :P )