Ray Equis Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 just watching nebraska again. i wonder if this shot is solely focus racking or a change in aperture as well - 0:51-0:54 - do you calculate this in advance or is it just trial and error?. whats up with the image compressing laterally when the focus changes back to the front seats?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted June 11, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted June 11, 2015 I don't think there is an iris rack though in the D.I. the colorist may have tried to pull a little bit of overexposed detail down once the focus shifted to the background, but I didn't really see a change. The stretching laterally is an artifact of classic rear-anamorphic prime lenses. Early CinemaScope lenses had a problem where when the lens was focused to near minimum, the amount of optical squeezing was decreased to less than 2X, but in projection, with a constant 2X lateral stretch, those shots, mainly close-ups, looked fatter. So Panavision solved the problem of "CinemaScope Mumps" but it meant that to keep to point of focus at a constant 2X horizontal squeeze, the out-of-focus areas would get more than a 2X squeeze, so they look skinny even after the image is stretched back out laterally by 2X. So when you do a focus rack, you see the amount of squeezing shift as a form of lens breathing. The only way to minimize it is to stop down the lens a lot to reduce the amount of frame that is out of focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Equis Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 thanks david nice background info! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now