Jump to content

Shooting 3perf or 4perf 35mm with anamorphic lenses


Recommended Posts

I'm shooting a short on a Arricam LT/cooke Anamorphics with Kodak 5222 stock. Trying to weigh the pros/cons of 3perf vs 4perf.

We plan on processing @ Kodak lab. 

I know we will save about 25% runtime on the stock by going 3perf as well as a lower cost of scans. But since we are shooting anamorphic glass, will we need to blow up for the ana squeeze anyways?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

With anamorphic the limiting dimension is frame height - with 4 perf you use the full height and crop the sides a little to get a 1.2:1 image in order to achieve a final 2.40 aspect ratio once unsqueezed. If you shoot anamorphic on 3 perf, your height is reduced by 25% and you'll be cropping about a third of the width to get 1.2:1. So quite a reduction in resolution:

470133610_4perfvs3perfanamorphic.jpg.62895fc3b7baccc83c414b28752e0289.jpg

                                      4 perf anamorphic                                                            black frame showing 3 perf anamorphic

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks dom, That makes sense. So I would really only use spherical lenses for 3 perf? 
 

Would it make more sense/more cost effective to shoot 3perf with spherical and frame for 2.40?

If shooting 4perf with anamorphic what ground glass would I request? I would assume I need an anamorphic optic viewfinder to de squeeze the image in my diopter. 
 

 

Edited by Michael Townley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Townley said:

Thanks dom, That makes sense. So I would really only use spherical lenses for 3 perf? 
 

Would it make more sense/more cost effective to shoot 3perf with spherical and frame for 2.40?

If shooting 4perf with anamorphic what ground glass would I request? I would assume I need an anamorphic optic viewfinder to de squeeze the image in my diopter. 
 

 

I have never heard of 3perf anamorphic but someone has probably done it before ?

If you want to shoot 3perf spherical and cropping to 2.40, I'd suggest looking into the 2perf format. It's not that common, only some camera's can shoot it (the arricam lt not for instance), but it will save roughly another 25% over 3perf.

When you're shooting 4perf anamorphic you would use an anamorphic viewfinder. 

Good luck shooting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
4 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

With anamorphic the limiting dimension is frame height - with 4 perf you use the full height and crop the sides a little to get a 1.2:1 image in order to achieve a final 2.40 aspect ratio once unsqueezed. If you shoot anamorphic on 3 perf, your height is reduced by 25% and you'll be cropping about a third of the width to get 1.2:1. So quite a reduction in resolution:

470133610_4perfvs3perfanamorphic.jpg.62895fc3b7baccc83c414b28752e0289.jpg

                                      4 perf anamorphic                                                            black frame showing 3 perf anamorphic

 

This looks like it could be an interesting solution for shooting on a 2:1 aspect ratio on film with 25% more of running time. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
4 hours ago, Michael Townley said:

So I would really only use spherical lenses for 3 perf? 

Would it make more sense/more cost effective to shoot 3perf with spherical and frame for 2.40?

Traditionally 3 perf is a spherical lens format yes, but there’s nothing stopping you using anamorphics with 3 perf. You would need to have a custom 3 perf Scope groundglass marked up though, since I don’t think one exists. I can’t say I’ve ever heard of anyone who’s done it.

You get more resolution shooting 3 perf spherical 2.40 compared to anamorphic 3 perf, a rough calculation of the film real estate gives about 260 square mms for spherical 2.40 compared to 230 square mms for 3 perf anamorphic. 4 perf anamorphic uses around 380 square mms, so it’s a fair bit more.

6 hours ago, Michael Townley said:

If shooting 4perf with anamorphic what ground glass would I request? I would assume I need an anamorphic optic viewfinder to de squeeze the image in my diopter. 

You would ask for a “Scope” groundglass, and have the camera converted from Super 35 to Standard (a very easy operation on Arricams) in order to centre the lenses to the Academy frame. And yes, you would want the Universal viewfinder that features an anamorphic desqueeze selector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
3 hours ago, Miguel Angel said:

This looks like it could be an interesting solution for shooting on a 2:1 aspect ratio on film with 25% more of running time. 
 

I don’t know about using anamorphics, but 3 perf is a good option for a 2:1 aspect ratio, as it’s natively around 1.78:1. 

Storaro proposed his Univisium format based on 3 perf:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply’s. I’m still a bit confused on a few things. 

what steps would need to be taken for shooting 3perf with spherical but framing for 2.40?

I can also rent 1.8x anamorphics, has any used these?

thanks

Edited by Michael Townley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

3 perf with 1.3x anamorphic lenses is pretty straight forward. Hawk makes them and they're kinda tricky to test, but Vantage (in the US) will ship them to ya no problem. They're excellent lenses, but expensive to rent. 2x anamorphic would be for 4 perf and that's of course an added cost. You'll save quite a bit of money with 3 perf and 1.3x anamorphic. I personally would simply shoot spherical and matte the top and bottom to your finished aspect ratio, thats the simplest way AND you get all that extra room incase you want to reframe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

3 perf with 1.3x anamorphic lenses is pretty straight forward. Hawk makes them and they're kinda tricky to test, but Vantage (in the US) will ship them to ya no problem. They're excellent lenses, but expensive to rent. 2x anamorphic would be for 4 perf and that's of course an added cost. You'll save quite a bit of money with 3 perf and 1.3x anamorphic. I personally would simply shoot spherical and matte the top and bottom to your finished aspect ratio, thats the simplest way AND you get all that extra room incase you want to reframe. 

Thanks Tyler. So I wouldn’t hard matte in camera? But I would still get ground glass to frame for anamorphic? 

Edited by Michael Townley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
13 minutes ago, Michael Townley said:

Thanks Tyler. So I wouldn’t hard matte in camera? But I would still get ground glass to frame for anamorphic? 

Right, open matte, 2.40:1 aspect ratio ground glass. Anamorphic is a "process" not an aspect ratio. There are MANY wide screen aspect ratios not just 2.40:1. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Right, open matte, 2.40:1 aspect ratio ground glass. Anamorphic is a "process" not an aspect ratio. There are MANY wide screen aspect ratios not just 2.40:1. 

I called Arri and they basically told me my options are to shoot 3 perf with spherical but they said I would need to use ground glass that fits for the lenses im using which would be 16x9. or shooting 4 perf with anamorphic lenses for 2.40. 

If I shoot 3 perf with spherical, how would I go about getting frame lines to frame for 2.40?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
3 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

 Hawk makes them and they're kinda tricky to test, but Vantage (in the US) will ship them to ya no problem. They're excellent lenses, but expensive to rent. 

I would challenge the excellent lens part Tyler. Having tested them extensively, I would honestly not be able to recommend them. They distort, they are milky at the wide open apertures, they are very heavy and the minimum focus is not very close. Finally, as you can see from my attached clip, they flare in a way that is not good. This clip was from when I tested them for STAR TREK BEYOND. Just my opinion…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Michael Townley said:

If I shoot 3 perf with spherical, how would I go about getting frame lines to frame for 2.40?

You can set frame lines in the video assist. Then you just look at your monitor for frame lines. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
13 minutes ago, Gregory Irwin said:

I would challenge the excellent lens part Tyler. Having tested them extensively, I would honestly not be able to recommend them. They distort, they are milky at the wide open apertures, they are very heavy and the minimum focus is not very close. Finally, as you can see from my attached clip, they flare in a way that is not good. This clip was from when I tested them for STAR TREK BEYOND. Just my opinion…

I did a project with them on Super 16 years ago when V-Lite's first came out. I don't recall having any issues with them, but we weren't pushing them in situations like your demo video above. That's kinda disappointing. I wonder if they've fixed that issue since then. Do you recall which ones you guys tested? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I can’t remember the focal length of the clip but it was a V-Lite. It’s too bad. I always want lenses to perform. Hawks by Hollywood standards just can’t compete with all of the other manufacturers out there. In the end, we shot STB on Master Anamorphics. Not much anamorphic personality in those lenses but they did perform well!

G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Gregory Irwin said:

In the end, we shot STB on Master Anamorphics. Not much anamorphic personality in those lenses but they did perform well!

What about 1.3X anamorphic? What would you use? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
33 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

What about 1.3X anamorphic? What would you use? 

I’ve never used any 1.3x but  I’m currently using the Technovision 1.5x Anamorphics. After much testing, we dialed down the squeeze factor to 1.44x to eliminate any perception of mumping. We then built custom 1:2.40 frame lines for Open Gate, 1.44. They cover the large LF sensor very well using much more area of the sensor than what 2x would be able to use.

G

Edited by Gregory Irwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
5 hours ago, Michael Townley said:

I called Arri and they basically told me my options are to shoot 3 perf with spherical but they said I would need to use ground glass that fits for the lenses im using which would be 16x9. or shooting 4 perf with anamorphic lenses for 2.40. 

If I shoot 3 perf with spherical, how would I go about getting frame lines to frame for 2.40?

You would use this ground glass for 3 perf 2.35:

243CFA80-EF32-4303-A840-E96150BC3A3C.thumb.png.be02c6e0fb67f822758625599e350fba.png

There are other “combo” ground glasses that have several frame lines marked in case you want to safely frame for, say 1.78 as well as 2.35.

See the Arri ground glass catalogue:

https://www.fdtimes.com/pdfs/howtos/ARRI_Groundglass_and_format_guide.pdf

The 4 perf scope ground glass is on page 13.

There is no 3 perf scope option, as I mentioned, which is why Arri said you can only shoot spherical in 3 perf, but a rental house may be able to mark up a custom ground glass. 

Hawk 1.3x anamorphics will get you to 2.35 using 3 perf with maximum use of the film area, but because you usually have to pay to import them as well as the rental feee they can be prohibitively expensive. You’d need to source the 1.3x viewfinder de-squeeze module as well.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
5 hours ago, Gregory Irwin said:

I would challenge the excellent lens part Tyler. Having tested them extensively, I would honestly not be able to recommend them. They distort, they are milky at the wide open apertures, they are very heavy and the minimum focus is not very close. Finally, as you can see from my attached clip, they flare in a way that is not good. This clip was from when I tested them for STAR TREK BEYOND. Just my opinion…

 

We supplied Hawk V-Lites for the Australian film Charlie’s Country and I recall during testing that they were very similar in many respects to Russian Lomo anamorphics, only with better housings and improved contrast. But distortion, edge fall-off, minimum focus and other attributes were very much the same. 

For years Hawk was pretty much the only modern anamorphic alternative to Panavision, but these days there are many other options that put Hawk lenses somewhat in the shade. Having bench tested nearly every anamorphic option out there I think Panavision are still the world leader in anamorphic lens design. Even though I work for Panavision now, that’s actually an honest appraisal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Gregory Irwin said:

I’ve never used any 1.3x but  I’m currently using the Technovision 1.5x Anamorphics. After much testing, we dialed down the squeeze factor to 1.44x to eliminate any perception of mumping. We then built custom 1:2.40 frame lines for Open Gate, 1.44. They cover the large LF sensor very well using much more area of the sensor than what 2x would be able to use.

G

Ahh got ya, yea I wish the Technovision anamorphic lenses would be the right squeeze ratio for 1.75:1 imagers. But for FF they're perfect. I really want to do a short film on Vistavision with those lenses. 

Thanks for the valuable info as always. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
14 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:Having bench tested nearly every anamorphic option out there I think Panavision are still the world leader in anamorphic lens design. Even though I work for Panavision now, that’s actually an honest appraisal.

I really appreciate your knowledge Dom. It’s always insightful. I would agree with the Panavision anamorphic point  to a limit. I’ve been shooting with Panavision Anamorphics for the last 40 years. And I was very involved with the inception of the T Series Anamorphics that Dan Sasaki made for me for INTERSTELLAR, even though they didn’t have a name yet. Today, the Panavision Anamorphics are getting too old and they show the wear and tear. I have more issues with them than I do with any other current manufacture. It’s frustrating because I know what they are capable of and they are constantly failing these days. I wish new and fresh lens technology would come out of Woodland Hills but I don’t think they are in a financial position to do that. What are your thoughts?

G

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 7/15/2021 at 1:46 AM, Gregory Irwin said:

I really appreciate your knowledge Dom. It’s always insightful. I would agree with the Panavision anamorphic point  to a limit. I’ve been shooting with Panavision Anamorphics for the last 40 years. And I was very involved with the inception of the T Series Anamorphics that Dan Sasaki made for me for INTERSTELLAR, even though they didn’t have a name yet. Today, the Panavision Anamorphics are getting too old and they show the wear and tear. I have more issues with them than I do with any other current manufacture. It’s frustrating because I know what they are capable of and they are constantly failing these days. I wish new and fresh lens technology would come out of Woodland Hills but I don’t think they are in a financial position to do that. What are your thoughts?

G

Thanks Greg! 

I don't know if I can comment usefully on the state of Panavision given that I'm just a tech working in the farthest flung corner of the empire, but from my experience the lenses we rent are all working and reliable. I mean, that's my job, so I work hard to make sure the ACs are happy and generally we have very few complaints about the lenses. If an issue develops we fix it promptly or we try to get a replacement. 

What anamorphics have you had issues with? There are certainly a lot of vintage lenses in the inventory, but I would think that's part of the Panavision appeal. One of the things that I've come to appreciate is the quality of the American machining and materials used on some of those older lenses - very fine tolerances and often very minimal wear even after decades. I can't say the same for Zeiss Super Speeds or Canon K-35s or many other cine lenses from the 80s and 90s for example. Of course all things wear eventually, especially if they are constantly working, like the C series for instance. Maybe there will be some rehousing happening in the future, like the PVintage range that modernised older Ultra Speed mechanics, but I'm not the one to ask about that.

In terms of fresh technology as far as I can see there's been lots of new products in the last 6 or 7 years  -  T-series, Ultra Vistas, Ultra-Panatars, Primo 70s, Primo Artistes, T1.4 Panaspeeds, Primo X for drones,  the DXL camera - as well as re-housing projects like the Auto-Panatars,  PVintage and H series. The Primo 70s are among the best corrected modern lenses I've seen, and the first cine lenses to have internal focus and iris motors, which was a difficult challenge to do while keeping the size and weight down. So I think it's a bit unfair to say no new lens technology is coming out of Woodland Hills. They also still lead the way in custom lens detuning, which is obviously very time-consuming but another reason a lot of DPs choose Panavision.

Anyway, I don't want to sound like I'm spruiking for Panavision because I'm not an official spokesperson for the company and I've always tried to post as an impartial individual. But I am proud of the work I do and genuinely impressed with some of their optics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Of course, I appreciate  you and Panavision. Your knowledge is valuable! We were referring to only anamorphic lenses which are getting older. My previous show was a Marvel show and we shot with the T Series. Every week we had to send in a lens for service/return due to elements dropping out of position, dublet’s coming unglued or other failures. The coveted Cs and Es are getting fewer and far between because of age and breakage. Part of the problem is that we use Prestons full time and the older lenses were never designed with the powerful motors constantly driving them in mind. That’s a lot of the wear and tear. Panavision has made many gains in the large format spherical world but the anamorphic world is lagging in my opinion. I guess I should mention the anamorphic expanders that help convert 35mm rear elements to cover large sensors which is good but still a bandaid solution.  
I love what we can do with detuned lenses but the problem is that every detuned lens becomes a prototype. If or when that lens goes down, there is not an inventory of custom detuned glass waiting to replace it. In fact, we really don’t have the luxury of testing several anamorphic lenses like we used to, spending a couple of weeks making our selections because the detuning process can take too long for most prep schedules. They are chosen for us ahead of time to facilitate the process. That, I don’t like. Thankfully, I can still convince producers to grant me prep schedules that can accommodate the time but I realize that isn’t the norm for most. For my current job, BLACK ADAM for Warner Bros, I had six weeks of lens prep. That was for testing lenses, making my selections and then detuning. Afterwards, the camera prep began for another three weeks.  But that is not the typical prep time for most jobs. 
 

G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Even modern lenses can break down -- twice on a TV series, I had the iris on a Leica Summilux-C lens breakdown after weeks of stop pulls on a Preston... With digital, you tend to catch this sort of stuff early (like on the moment rather than in dailies). I remember years ago on my first digital series using a Genesis camera, a shot was soft and I blamed the AC. Then the next day on the same lens, the shot was soft again... and now I was shooting a wide shot outdoors on a wide-angle Panavision Primo lens at f/8, so I was asking the AC how was the focus could be off!  And he discovered that even through he was rotating the lens barrel, the lens wasn't focusing internally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...