Peter Moretti

I just finished watching "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" and I have to say it didn't look so good to me. There were a lot of blown-out highlights, the darks had little gradation and the characters regularly moved move from being lit to being essentially blackened-out. Now I realize that some of these can be cinematic choices. "Dog Day Afternoon" intentionally went after natural light as much as possilbe and a documentary look. But "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" just looked like it was shot and lit by folks who were used to working with a lot more dynamic range. But why wouldn't that be caught in the dailies? And I would imagine anyone working on a Sidney Lumet film would be of the highest caliber. So I finished the movie scratching my head.

The EX1 has more dynamic range than the XHG1, which is essentially an H1 with a fixed lens. Does the EX1 have more dynamic range than a Red? IDTS, but honestly I've never conducted a test or seen. I've just assumed it was a given that the EX1 < the Red. And how are you going to color correct the XLH1's HDV 4:2:0 color and keep it from falling apart? Now if he captured uncompressed out of the XLH1's HD-SDI port, I believe the XLH1 can look really really good, although it's still only 8-bit color, but at least it's 4:2:2.

There is a VERY obvious widening of the image near the right and left sides of the frame. Does anyone know if this was an effect done by a lens filter or was it a post-production technique? Thanks much!

I just saw "Lake of Fire." Very powerful and beautifully shot, IMHO. But there were some effects that I'm curious about. First, the DOF was extremely shallow. But every now and then it would widen considerably for about half a second and then go back to very shallow. It almost looked like auto-focus going in, out and back into focus, but that wasn't what was happening. I'm also wondering if the DOF shallowness was enhanced in post production or solely resulted from camera, lens, lighting and settings choices. Second, there was a noticeable amount of grain in some shots. But it didn't look natural for film or video, but rather an effect. Perhaps it was from a vibrating 35mm adapter, but I really have no idea. Third, there were a lot of quick zooms in and out. (I found these pretty distracting to be honest.) I'm wondering if they were done while shooting or in post. They were so consistent in terms of speed and magnification that I'd venture to say that they were done in post production. But I couldn't see any loss in resolution, so again, I'm asking more trained and experienced eyes to comment ;). Any one else see this film and care to comment? Thanks!

I've never used an adapter, but I've read good things about Cinevate's Brevis adapter. Very easy to install and good low light performance... at least that's what I've been told.

I just finished watching "Venus" (good but a little creepy at times, BTW). I loved the color and natural feeling and warmth w/o being overly sturated. So I looked it up on the IMDB, and to my surprise it was shot using a Arri Super 16 camera (SR 3). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489327/technical I have never seen an HD movie create the same effect.

Just wondering if anyone is using Ultra 16 and how you're liking it? (Ultra 16 horizontally centers the image on the negative and places it between the perfs.) Thanks.

Christian, Prehaps the actors are farther away from each other than it appears. Could have been done to hide height differences or make up for the low camera angle. As for the trees in the bg, anamorphic lenses can exhibit elliptically shaped bokeh, maybe that's what causing them to look a little funky.

Adam, Thanks for your reply! I THINK I've put it all together. Real DOF is dependent upon two things: focal length and the size of the image projected onto the focusing pane. With an anamorphic lens, the width of the projected image (albeit squeezed) is the same as it is for a spherical lens projecting onto 35mm film in standard widescreen format. So there should be no difference in DOF. But the vertical size of the image projected onto the film by an anamorphic lens is considerably larger than what its spherical, widescreen counterpart projects. This will cause a difference in DOF. The net result is a horizontal DOF that is the same as it is for spherical lens shot in standard wide screen format but a vertical DOF that is shallower. Sound odd, but it may explain anamorphic lenses' elliptically shaped bokeh. It's a result of DOF that is shallower vertically than it is horizontally. Do you think that's accurate?

Max, Just to be sure I'm following you. Would it be accurate to say that a 50mm anamorphic lens has half the DOF of a 50mm spherical lens? Now I know you wouldn't use those lenses interchangeably, and that a 50mm anamorphic is most equivalent to 25mm spherical in terms of composing a scene. But I'm trying to nail down how much the decreased DOF is caused by the large image size of the anamorphic lens and not the perceived depth of field lessening that's actually attributable to using longer focal length. Hope that was clear, and thanks much!

/\ I know I'm asking you to do what you said would fall short of truly explaining the effects of anamorphic lenses, LOL! But I'd love even a partial explanation. Thanks much!

Peter, et al, I have a question about anamorphic lenses and DOF. My understanding is that a longer anamorphic lens is used when composing a shot with an than would be used with a spherical lens. Is the longer focal length the primary reason for the shallower appearing depth of field? (In actuality, longer lenses create the impression of less DOF, but the effect is caused by the background images being magnified making their softness more pronounced.) Or is the shallower anamorphic DOF mostly caused by the larger image size being projected on to the film? (This would result in a truly shallower DOF, even when comparing same focal lengths of a spherical setup.) Thanks a lot for the input! It's much appreciated! -Peter

I just saw this film last night; what I loved so much was the extremely shallow depth of field. Would you say the very shallow DOF was due to using an anamorphic lens, or more of a stylistic choice that could have been executed on "standard" equipment? In other words, could you easily get such a shallow depth of field from a non-anamporphic set-up? Thanks much!