Batman Begins

[K Borowski]

Something I find quite pleasing about anamorphic cinematography (although I don't particularly like the squeeze-unsqueeze distortion of out-of-focus highlights) is the top and bottom of the screen as a focus pull is done in an anamorphic film. You can only see this in the theatre or with an HD signal, but it is as if the viewer is pulled into or pushed away from the screen as focus is changed. YOu can see the distortion around the edges of the frame as a pull is done and, at least to me, this effect is really really cool. Sorry to come off as a bit of a beatnik here, but I really do find this aspect of anamorphic films to be really pleasing.

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

[Filip Plesha]

Really you can see that on TV and DVD with a lot of movies. THe image gets squesed as the focus changes.

 

One of the classic shots of this that I can remember is the one from Empire strikes back where C3P0

suddenly appear into the screen from right (in the millenium falcon) trying to communicate with ships computer, so the focus shifts from the background to foreground.

[Kim Vickers]

The advantages of Super-35 are that you can use more lenses, since many will cover the super-35 frame, and you can shoot in lower light, due to quality issues you get at lower stops in anamorphic.

 

I hear this alot, but on the DVD commentary for Alien Ridley Scott says most of that movie was shot with anamorphic lenses wide open, which he acknowledges is dangerous and hard on the focus puller, but there's no denying the film looks beautiful, and many of the scenes were shot in very low light.

 

My point here is that if wide open anamorphic in 1978 was good enough for Ridley Scott, how "real" are these issues that people have with shooting anamorphic in low light? The alleged "quality issues" don't seem to have hurt Alien any.

[Max Jacoby]

Is this opinion based on having seen 'Alien' in the cinema or merely on dvd?

 

There is no denying that there is a huge quality difference betwen shooting anamorphic wide open and 2 stops down. This becomes already obvious when looking at the lenses on a projector.

[Kim Vickers]

Is this opinion based on having seen 'Alien' in the cinema or merely on dvd?

 

There is no denying that there is a huge quality difference betwen shooting anamorphic wide open and 2 stops down. This becomes already obvious when looking at the lenses on a projector.

 

Both. I've seen it many times in a theater, in 70mm, in 35mm, and digitally projected (for the revised cut that RS put out a couple of years ago). The idea that the image in this movie is somehow lacking in quality or sharpness of any kind just strikes me as absurd. You would think a blowup to 70mm especially would have revealed any quality issues with the lenses wide open, but I certainly didn't feel that way. If anything, I was continually astonished at how absolutely gorgeous the movie looked in virtually every shot.

 

A couple of years ago, I spoke with a camera technician about this anamorphic versus Super-35 debate, and he told me that all modern cinema lenses are engineered to be at their best when used wide open. He said older lenses looked better in the middle apertures, but generally the newer stuff was fine when used wide open. I should also note that in his opinion, he felt anamorphic was purely an "ego trip" because it involved a lot of extra expense, lens weight and was very hard on focus pullers -- all for an aesthetic that was only marginally different from spherical and therefore not worth it.

 

Anyway, from all the info I've cobbled together over the years, I'm beginning to think that the problems with anamorphic are simply over-sold by people who are either nervous about the degree of difficulty involved or envious of those with the money to afford it. If anamorphic lenses had any serious quality issues in low light, I seriously doubt a director with an eye as good as Ridley's would ever touch them. Maybe in inexperienced hands these lenses have issues, but the issues appear to be quite manageable for those with experience.

[David Mullen ASC]

If you shoot older anamorphic lense wide-open for a theatrical feature, you had better be sure you know what you're up against in terms of focusing the image...

 

Consider that shooting anamorphic at f/2.8 looks like you're shooting spherical at f/1.4, and that's not easy either.

 

Having shot four anamorphic features and one short, I can tell you that probably the Number One thing I've learned is to light to at least an f/4 whenever possible, if not deeper.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Ah, but when anamorphic is done right, it usually looks great. When it comes to image quality, Size DOES Matter: 0.825 x 0.690 inches is lots of real estate on the film, and you don't need an optical printing step or DI to put that 2.39:1 image on a print.

[Kim Vickers]

Having shot four anamorphic features and one short, I can tell you that probably the Number One thing I've learned is to light to at least an f/4 whenever possible, if not deeper.

 

Sounds reasonable. But is this primarily a focus consideration or a "quality in low-light" consideration?

 

Also, David, I'm sure you've seen Alien: Did you see any problems with the fact a lot of it was shot wide open or thereabouts?

[Max Jacoby]

A couple of years ago, I spoke with a camera technician about this anamorphic versus Super-35 debate, and he told me that all modern cinema lenses are engineered to be at their best when used wide open. He said older lenses looked better in the middle apertures, but generally the newer stuff was fine when used wide open. I should also note that in his opinion, he felt anamorphic was purely an "ego trip" because it involved a lot of extra expense, lens weight and was very hard on focus pullers -- all for an aesthetic that was only marginally different from spherical and therefore not worth it.

Lenses are never at their best when wide-open, it's a simple rule of physics that they will always look better when stopped down. The only lenses I have ever seen where the difference between wide-open and 2 stops down was barely perceptible are the new Zeiss Master Primes. Put any other lens on the projector and the difference will become very obvious. The centre of the frame is not affected as much, but in the corners the sharpness increases and the chromatic abberations decrease visibly. This difference is magnified by anamorphic lenses.

 

Now Dops may choose to shoot a film wide-open, because they like that look. The contrast is a bit lower and the lenses don't look quite as sharp (which can be a good thing if you shoot on Zeiss lenses for instance). It is a more organic look one could say. On the other hand there are very few people who shoot anamorphic wide-open a lot. The only one who really comes to mind is Robert Richardson.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that the perceived sharpness of a lens depends not just on the stop, but also on the contrast of the scene and the brightness. If you shoot a contrasty night scene, like there were many in 'Alien', the fact that you are wide-open is not as obvious, since the shortcomings of the lens are burried in darkness.

 

I for one believe that there is a perceptible difference between anamorphic and spherical. I much prefer the anamorphic look and although it is more complicated to shoot and not right for every subject, the extra effort is well worth it.

[Dan Goulder]

The centre of the frame is not affected as much, but in the corners the sharpness increases and the chromatic abberations decrease visibly. This difference is magnified by anamorphic lenses.

I assume you're comparing full frame spherical (perf-to-perf, super 35mm) with anamorphic. You'll find greater edge-to-edge sharpness consistency within a spherical 1.85 frame, which is also an advantage that 2-perf scope has over 3-perf scope.

[Kim Vickers]

I for one believe that there is a perceptible difference between anamorphic and spherical. I much prefer the anamorphic look and although it is more complicated to shoot and not right for every subject, the extra effort is well worth it.

 

Agreed. I can't quite put my finger on it, but anamorphic lenses seem to do something to the 2.39 frame that Super35 doesn't do. Maybe what I'm seeing are technically "flaws" but I always like the look. Sometimes I almost feel like I'm seeing things that are a little distorted vertically, streched a bit. I'm talking about a micro, micro bit of stretching, nothing too obvious. Anyway, whatever it is, I like it. It's got character.

[Max Jacoby]

If you haven't done so, check out 'The New World' in a theatre. It's a film that really shows off anamorphic cinematography. The exteriors, shot on wide-angle lenses at a deep stop look incredibly three-dimensional. sharp and present. You could never get this look with spherical.

[David Mullen ASC]

Some of the difference between anamorphic & cropped Super-35 spherical is just compositional, in terms of perhaps one tends to frame differently if one is cropping a taller image in the viewfinder. But assuming you match the framing, the difference are partly the level of detail from using a larger negative and the finer grain that results. In terms of optical distortions, there are the obvious anamorphic artifacts unique to that format, but besides that, you really feel the sides of the frame partially because of the oval-shaped barrel distortion in the wider-angle anamorphic lenses -- you don't sense that there is more image "outside" the frame because of the curvature, so Super-35 tends to feel "flatter" (or more optically correct, if you want.)

 

But I think if you use a medium to long focal length and stop down to correct the depth of field problems and the stretchiness of out of focus areas, then anamorphic and Super-35 can look very similar optically, and all you are really getting from anamorphic are the advantages of using a bigger negative.

 

I love anamorphic, but honestly, I need to find some hot-shot top focus pullers if I'm going to keep using it... or just live with a certain percentage of soft shots.

 

I'm going to start shooting in one week on this feature "Solstice" -- since it has a huge amount of night exterior using a Steadicam (chase through moonlit woods, etc.) I'm shooting 3-perf Super-35, framed for 2.35, for the first time. Plus I have a lot of small locations where the camera will be squeezed against a wall and I need small lenses that focus closely, plus I need better depth of field (8 actors in many scenes, wandering through these small rooms). Plus I have 25 days and 115 pages of script to deal with, covering this large cast, with some action and efx. So anamorphic just seems insane to attempt.

 

I asked Panavision if they had a 3-perf groundglass with 2.35 near the top but not quite, just below, and they said "yes, it's called the Fincher groundglass..."