Nate Opgenorth

Did you ever get a chance to test it out? I'd be curious to see what it looks like...damn though that sounds the a prime canidate for photographing the sun or like the other poster said desert during daylight, no ND filters on a nice giant aperture lens like oh say a Vantage T1 :D

I saw this thread: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?s=1c2ca0bd1a2159d4d0a34cbd6d9102cb&showtopic=12419&page=2 Among many others on the internet. I get the jist of it but I didn't want to base my research off circa 2006 data since film is uh on life support or at least was but still. I'm curious about using Eastman Double-X 5222 in my 35mm SLR, the reason I ask is because when I saw the movie Raging Bull I realized that those fight scenes in the ring were easily the most beautiful thing I've ever seen...now I realize that I'm probably not going to get the look perfect but I love the look of the stock in general and was wondering if I could use it for stills. I know its not designed for print but I could get it scanned just like digital intermediate process and work with it. If its too much of a hassle to shoot 5222 in an SLR then I would certainly be open to similar black and white film for still 35mm but allot of the black and white I see just doesn't quite look like Double-X 5222, especially from movies like Raging Bull!

Same with Michael Mann....I'm not sure how he went from making a movie as great looking and awesome as "Heat" and then makes a movie about John Dillinger with a High Definition Camera and makes it look all videoy (I loved the story just the cinematography was bad) and don't get me started with Miami Vice....although I love Collateral's look. Humans often do things just to be different for a multitude of reasons, I just hope they can realize when a journey is less about style and more about switching it up just to switch it up they can say "Jeez maybe I should go with what looks like cinema".

Yeah I probably wouldn't rent a Scarlet if it summed up to the price of a Blackmagic camera or say an FS100 with an external recorder....I'm just saying that one of these days I want to get my feet wet with RED on a project even if I only have the camera rental for 2 days I'd like to get the experience...by no means am I saying its the only option I view. The Blackmagic cameras are very affordable and I love their features, I just have to sort of wait for them to be available in my area (I live in Upstate NY and not NYC so its harder to find this stuff). As for a frankenmonster camera setup, thats not fun but ultimately the only thing I care about is the final product and if its getting the job done proper. With all do respect and without sounding snobby I really don't need a gear game sit down/lecture...not planning on buying a RED Camera anytime soon and my first goal is to move closer to the city where I can can simply be surrounded by people who are super creative and smarter than me! I know about the "Do you want to be a Cinematographer or run a rental house?" question as I'm always reading up on these types of things. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have some pretty strong gear lust towards RED cameras but like I said I don't plan on purchasing one as I don't have $10K let alone $25K to blow on a set up...I'm talking purely rental uses and I know the craft matters more than the camera and want to be known as someone who is versatile and not someone people go "Oh lets use that guy for his camera stuff!", I do know of people who own equipment that are perfectly fine with being used for it but I have seen people buy expensive things only to realize they have to sell them months later. I'm very careful by nature.

It would make sense to originate in ProRes but the RED Epic doesn't allow for that unless you use an external recorder right? And the idea of using an external recorder from say the SDI out of a RED seams somewhat odd, is the signal from the SDI output even designed for capture? It seams like its soley for monitoring....this is assuming RED's have a normal SDI output (which I believe they do but I'm not 100% sure). The reason I asked the somewhat strange question is if you went to a rental house and had the option of say a Canon 7D and a RED Scarlet you might feel the Canon is not enough for your project (Not going trying to debate the merits of gear lust over the craft of film making just an example) but the RED on the other hand is too much since the workflow is not in your budget but at the same time the RED offers the quality you want regardless of resolution. I just ask because there are always plenty of VERY tempting Scarlet and Epic deals hanging from low branches in front of me but only just now am I seeing intermediate camera options like the FS100 being more available in my area.

Yeah I realize that...I've shot RAW but not on the RED cameras, although I have worked with RED Footage but just sample footage but overall would the coversion to ProRes save space in post production overall? ProRes HQ is a great codec, even regular ProRes, but yeah I'm familiar with the Blackmagic workflow. At least with RED you can choose the compression ratio, I'd likely shoot 18:1 for most of the stuff with 8:1 or 3:1 for critical scenes, thats how I use RAW lately on other cameras, shoot regular codecs for the majority and scenes that I anticipate to need a little bit more I shoot in RAW.

Sorry to necropost but I have some questions and I didn't want to open a new thread....People say they fear RED for the massive files and well...thats resonable! BUT is it wrong to rent say a Scarlet or even an Epic and following the shoot convert straight to ProRes at a lower resolution like 3840x2160 instead of 5K or now 6K? People seam to say that defeats the purpose of RED but with the Alexa so many shoots are ProRes only and honestly I would rather just have a nice 200mbps+ codec over dealing with massive storage needs of RAW. Reason I ask is because it seams Alexa = more expensive than RED to rent but costs of post production are cheaper than RED, and RED = cheap to rent but costs of post production can be potentially disastrous. The jump from 2K/1080p to 4K was cool but it was pretty insane on the storage requirements which I didn't fully grasp until I went ahead and did a 30 minute piece at 4K and while my machine kept up with the renders my hard drives were being eaten alive!

Thanks a bunch David! I find it interesting when production's mix formats, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty looks like it will be interesting to see how the image looks. Does anyone make straight contact prints anymore? I always thought today with exceptions like Chris Nolan/Wally Pfister movies the preference was to do a DI and then do a film out...

Alright I think I've read the history of anamorphic about 9000x (half of which has been elegantly laid out by David Mullen thank you!) but there are still some ideas that are fuzzy to me that I'd like to get cleared up as well as questions about some older formats in history that fascinate me. Anamorphic is definitely making a come back, I thought it was small but then I saw 3 different commercials in 2.35:1 with oval bokeh and squeezed backgrounds…whether they were actually using anamorphic glass or a flare/bokeh adapter is up for debate but when you start seeing anamorphic looking TV commercials you know something is happening! -1.33 went to 1.37:1 because of sound but what I don't understand is why when you shoot 35mm anamorphic you shoot a 1.18:1 space….why didn't they just make a 1.75x anamorphic lens instead of a 2x anamorphic lens if they intended 2.35:1 from the start? I know that the original intention was 2.55:1 and then 2.35:1 and then final 2.39:1 but it still is sort of fuzzy… -I have some footage from an Arri Alexa 4:3 that was shot using a Zeiss Master Anamorphic, it stretches out to 2.39:1 but still looks squeezed, using some circular areas in the footage and the general shape of peoples faces I stretched it out to 2.66:1 and it seamed more proper looking. Are you supposed to crop 4:3 anamorphic footage to 1.19:1 before you unstretch or is it okay to crop to 2.39:1 after unstretching? I've heard mixed views on this…it seams like it wouldn't matter... -What is an anamorphic film gate? I have an idea what a film gate is but I recently heard someone say that their "anamorphic film gate broke". Is this necessary for shooting on anamorphic? Is it like ground glass for framing or something? -Has anyone shot anamorphic 35mm using the whole space to go from 1.33:1 to 2.66:1 or even 1.37:1 to 2.76:1 for a Ultra Panavision 70mm film out? I think it would be interesting to shoot full aperture using the whole area (if possible) using 2x anamorphics if Ultra Panavision 70 was still around…if so would the resolution be comparable to regular 35mm anamorphic 70mm blow ups or what? I'm guessing this is theoretical but maybe their is an example of an Ultra Panavision 70 film like this? -There was a movie that was shot on VistaVision with anamorphic lenses, it had to be a 50s era movie since that was when VistaVision was actually used outside VFX work but they used a 1.5x squeeze lens. Is there any info on the type of anamorphic glass that could cover 8-perf 35mm? What about those anamorphics for Ultra Panavision that were used on a film or two that squeezed 2.76:1 onto 2.20:1? I checked the widescreen museum's website and Panavision History but couldn't find much…When shooting flat VistaVision I've heard they used Nikon stills glass…was this glass that was converted for the proper mount, distance markings, no breathing, etc. or was it basic stills glass? I like checking IMDB for what equipment is used but older films only list very small details at times. Thank you for those that respond to any questions….I find anamorphic formats and large format photography very interesting and its sort of sad to see it die off since I'm not in a position to test some of this out before its gone forever so any answers are appreciated. I know I nag David Mullen and a few others allot so if you respond to this in advance just know its really appreciated!

Sorry to necropost but sort of a thread of interest for me. You wouldn't happen to be a focus puller would you? :D I get that focus pulling is hard but as David said you can stop down and up the ISO on something like a 5D Mk.III or D800....ISO 6400 on those cameras is pretty dang clean...besides focus pulling doesn't HAVE to be hard, I mean sure if you have some crazy shot where the camera operator and focus puller are on a track following a fight sequence moving back and forth with a one shot deal exploding car while using a 24-290 wide open at T/2.8 simaltanously doing a hitchcock zoom then yes you might just want to jump off a bridge or rent an Epic/Scarlet for the day :) but I mean a full frame DSLR isn't that bad, the first time I used one I remember being at 28mm ƒ/4 and thinking "Holy crap this looks allot more than ƒ/4". Maybe you or David could correct me but I think if you wanted to go for an anamorphic look without anamorphic glass you'd be a step ahead of APS-C/Super35 sensor cameras since you have 36mm horizontal which comes closer to 22mm 2x (for 2x anamorphics on Super35) vs 22-28mm APS-C shooting flat...Correct me if I'm wrong but the part I mentioned about anamorphic being 22mm x2 would mean that anamorphic 35mm has the equivelent DoF of a sensor/film plane that is 48mm horizontal? It would seam correct since a 2x 100mm anamorphic has the horizontal view of a 50mm but vertical view of a 100mm. I think this post should be stickied. I don't think people had this issue when they shot on Super16 or Super8 but then again I never shot on those formats when there was not digital around. Regardless I think it would be weird if for example Zeiss DigiPrimes put a FF35mm or S35mm equivelent on the barrel unless they already do that and I'm crazy. Generally speaking what I would use as a basis is whatever the diaganol size of the sensor is in milimeters should be the approximate "normal" lens on the format no?

I don't know but Denzil is quite the Actor....truly a talented guy and every role he's played its so realistic that I wonder if he actually struggled with alcoholism after watching "Man on Fire", "Flight" and pretty much anything else hes in. I'd love to meet him just to have a conversation because on and off the screen hes a real stand-up guy. I remember he was in a hospital for recovering soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and he asked how much one of them cost to build and he just pulled out his check book, no words were exchanged...such a Denzel move.

Hmm I'll have to take a look at that. Looks interesting, even if it isn't I've been known to watch movies soley for the good or unique cinematography. Just curious do you have any thoughts on the look? Would it be something you'd be interested in shooting on a project or are you more of a spherical guy? It seams that their is a small resurgance of anamorphic and its got me excited as I simply love the look (when done well). I read about the series..looks VERY interesting...I'll have to hunt down a source to view it. Interesting approach..I honestly didn't expect to see these approaches used so its quite interesting and exciting to say the least!

Are their any movies/TV shows shot anamorphically in 1.78:1? This is probably confusing but I didnt have enough space to fully clarify. Are their any movies shot on say 4-perf with hawk v-lite 1.33x anamorphics to go from 1.33:1 (4:3) to 1.78:1 (16:9) / 1.85:1. I was thinking about this a few days ago, I sort of associate anamorphic with a certain time frame or at least the very obvious looks of C-Series. Hawks don't flare or look like C-series and they are 1.33x not 2x but I think it would be interesting to shoot a show for TV using something like an Arri Alexa 4:3 or 4-perf 35mm with 1.33x anamorphics to bring the aspect ratio to 1.78:1. I think for a show with a story based in the 70's, 80's, etc. this would make it look unique to other shows I would think. I think if you got the right film stock and/or color grade it would be an interesting look. Just some thoughts, so has anyone heard of this being done before? Anyone interested in the idea! I'm a die hard fan of 2.39:1 and anamorphic but I realize that 2.39:1 would be insane for TV production (unless your really balsy!) but at the same time I love anamorphic...of course you could crop anamorphic 2.39:1 I guess.....

Ah while I'm not a Star Wars aficionado I have had actual dreams of walking into my basement and discovering reels of my favorite and most beautiful movies with an Arri Scan next to them....back to reality! I think Chris Nolan would have a heart attack if he didn't photochem finish.....actually I think Chris Nolan would have a heart attack if he thought anyone thought a 4K DI was "enough" :P I believe their is an ASC Magazine issue on the editing process for The Dark Knight Rises...actually it might be just Inception but regardless Chris Nolan has a pretty intense view on film and photochem process vs DI. Remember bits and pieces of the story and feeling very very very tiny compared to the kind of workflow he had rolling through!

Saw the trailer and I started to understand the responses here and else where...why not just do a sequal to District 9 or something? Either way Anamorphic Red Epic footage....interesting look in and of its self let alone everything else...

Late response but better late than never... http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/November2012/TheMaster/page1.php Just gonna leave that link there since it provides allot of details on the cinematography. "I'd just really like to use 65mm" is a perfect excuse for a small project I think....I mean as long as style of the story its self wouldn't be destroyed by large format cinematography I think its a good choice. I can think of an example where 65mm would be bad (well allot of examples actually!) for the story's overally feel (of course thats subjective but think of your favorite grainy B&W movie thats just flat and stopped down but looks great and imagine it in clean 65mm...yeah). But to my main point I don't think the grandeur of the format is lost when its not projected in 70mm, the DoF characteristics, the lack of distortion on "wide" lenses, background compression, clean yet very celluloid look, etc. are very obvious looks to me. I feel like the look of larger sensor/film plane stuff makes it almost 3D, maybe from the depth of field but even in a scene where there is a bunch of DoF it just looks bigger! Wide and medium shots look much much grander and the perspective of everything else in relation to each other is obviously different. I don't think pixels can really take away from that unless you really really dump the quality down. Even at 1080p movies like The Master and The Dark Knight Rises the larger formats are just head over heals different than other movies. While 70mm projection would be preferred If I shot 65mm in a day where it was impossible to do anything other than Digital Intermediate I'd be pretty happy about it so long as I got a nice 4K+ scan, and I'm not a resolution Nazi I just think 65mm deserves at least 4K. P.T. Anderson didn't use the full 2.20:1 and preferred 1.85:1 (for the look of the era) but I still think it looked good. Personally I think something like 2.35:1 or pardon me 2.00:1 would have looked better. Agreed it wasn't my favorite PTA film either. I loved the look and the colors were amazing and as David said the deep blues were beautiful. The Ansel Adams look was nothing I would have wanted in this film, none the less the Ansel Adams look is something that is of course a valid approach and wind numbingly beautiful in a different right. The Department store meltdown for me was great, I'm not sure whether it was the way it was shot vs just being in 65 or probably both but I loved it. I actually tracked a friend down and made him let me use his medium format camera! The beginging of Casino Royale was pure gold for me though, I heard people complain in the theater when I saw it on launch day and I was just smiling widely like an idiot because it was beautiful, I would have loved to have seen it shot in that Black and White as well, that Eastmen Double-X gets me so good, I think I watched that intro more than a healthy amount of time prior to discovering Raging Bulls beautiful cinematography. I keep copies of films on a hard drive because whenever I need inspiration for a photo or an idea or just think of an awesome look I love to just relive it again.

Glad I'm not alone! I first thought of it when I saw people flocking to the AG7200 for DSLR video (unfortunately I was 2 years late, could have had one for $400> a few years ago >:\ ) and I wondered about stills since I always like anamorphic artifacts and wider aspect ratios. The AG7200 for stills on a 35mm would bring the aspect ratio to about 2.00:1 pretty cool stuff! Then I remembered some of the few movies like Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia shot in Ultra Panavision 70 and after seeing The Dark Knight Rises I really loved the photochem finish and the anamorphic 35mm scenes stood out as shockingly beautiful. One day me and a friend went on a shoot in an old factory and we got to the roof and you could see just miles and miles of highway and city and I told him to grab his Pentax 6x7 camera out, I felt like that square aspect ratio didn't do justice to the scenery...I researched and saw a few lone wolfs ask about anamorphic solutions on several forums and most people (even DP's) just replied "Crop the frame its got enough rez" and I get that, I mean when I saw for the first time a medium format negative it was quite shocking and then to see a shot from a Mamiya 6 drum scanned at 150MP's something like that and to go to a 100% view and see every single little detail resolved I realized how incredibly awesome larger formats can be. I think part of being a Photographer, DP or Director even is establishing a certain look, Chris Nolan and Wally Pfister together make beautiful movies (duh) and everyone knows it but when I watch any movie that those two made I recognize it, most likely from the mix of formats and the look. I think people should be a bit more open to crazy ideas and at least TRY them! I think had I had the funds for the AG7200 at the time I would have bought it and thrown it on anything with a lens just to see how it looked because very often innovation is just stumbled upon. I love the look of anamorphic 70mm (although 2.75:1 is a tad bit too wide for my taste, nothing over 2.55:1 for me but I won't complain), it has a hint of that anamorphic look I love but the wide shots are so detailed it makes me feel silly inside! Theres allot you can do with ANY camera at ANY location to make an image but when I see a vast landscape I automatically think of large formats and I automatically think of anamorphic. Maybe someone will offer the AG7200 for rental and I'll rent a Pentax 645D and experiment with some 1.78:1 medium format prints! I'll probably get a few dirty looks from naysayers thinking I cropped, so Ill have to pull a JJ Abrams and have 3 or 4 people run out in front of the camera with flash lights to get some blue streaks (kidding). In all seriousness though If you have the cash I would jump on the AG7200, I've seen a few excellent short films where it was used on the 5D Mk.II/III, 1D Mk.IV, Nikon D800 and a few others, pretty sure I saw some Super 16 footage as well. I had a few discussions with owners of it and asked about the difficulty of using it, some shots like macro shots were more difficult but a few sequences where you use spherical only and just crop isn't gonna hurt a film. Its nice because it can technically adapt to pretty much any lens with a 77mm diameter filter size, so I don't think you'd run into issues using it on larger format cameras, works great on the 5D which is a VistaVision sized frame (8-perf film equivalent). Close focus stuff is hard but you can use diopeters (sp?), even with the close focus issues I can't say I'd complain, I know the Panavision anamorphics had at one point issues with that. I know you can't go too wide on the focal length. I'd really like to see someone manufacture some affordable 1.33x adapters and lenses for the DSLR market...Hawk V-Lites are expensive from what I've heard too. I think 1.33x adapters would have great market potential too, Allot of 16:9 sensor cameras and allot of movies still in scope with a good amount of people who appreciate the anamorphic look. Also instead of converting 4-perf cameras to 3-perf you could throw on an adapter that wouldn't squeeze it all the way to 2.35:1 but only to 16:9~ then unsqueeze in the digital intermediate. Just my .02 cents....

I hate to necro post and revive a dead thread but are there any plans that anyone is aware (and privy to telling us) of more 1.33x squeeze or even 1.5x anamorphic lenses or better yet adapters that would be usable on a variety of platforms preferably DSLR's? I know about the Hawk V-lites and those got me excited but I don't see my self owning PL mount glass when I only own DSLR's....The AG7200 seams like the best choice but I'd preferably like to NOT spend more than 800 USD on an anamorphic lens/adapter....How hard would it be to make an anamorphic lens that didn't degrade quality substantially? I know I've seen guides for home theater projectors but I suppose thats a bit different? I'm asking because I'm sort of a nut for shooting in scope and shooting flat and then cropping just doesn't feel the same...I can't even find a place that'll rent AG7200's or Kowa's or Iscorama's...keep in mind I will be shooting on a full frame but have a APS-C DSLR for back up if I have no choice, hence why the AG7200 sounds nice! Always wanted to throw it on a variety of cameras like medium format stills, Super 8, etc. (I know I'm strange but this stuff is what I love more than anything!). Thanks in advance.

So lets say I were to do a film using a Canon 5D Mk.III (Most likely a Canon 6D but similar) and a Canon 7D (or other APS-C style camera) while using the Panasonic AG7200 anamorphic adapter (1.33x squeeze, so 1.78:1 to 2.35:1~). My thoughts were that since the adapter like many full purpose anamorphic lenses has trouble close focusing I could use regular spherical process to shoot macro shots and interiors with allot of close ups when using wider glass (under 35mm full frame/8-perf). I don't currently have an AG7200 to test some of this but I'm wondering if there are any examples of even say Super35 and 35 anamorphic in one film looking bad or great...I personally like the aesthetics of anamorphic even on shots where barrel distortion is VERY obvious (i.e.: Léon: The Professional, Heat [certain parts], and a few others)...My main idea behind this is thinking about Wally Pfisters Cinematography where he was mixing VistaVision (8-perf), Anamorphic 35mm, and 65mm together and it honestly looked great in The Dark Knight Rises, Inception, etc.

Hey David do you happen to still have that Xerox? If you do would you be willing to share it? Would appreciate it allot. I sort of have a fascination in this area and was going over all the unique formats I find interesting/love (i.e.: VistaVision, 35mm 2-perf, various large formats), I randomly thought of the idea of 12-perf 35mm! Well as Google revealed my mind did not invent the thought and it sure didn't get past the geniuses on here! I mostly lurk and post around when I can here, but I did happen to read allot of Paul Bruening's stuff and its a damn shame he's passed on. I always feel a little bad reviving an old thread when someone as unique as Mr. Bruening is no longer with us. Perhaps I'm getting nostalgic about film before it goes :/ Oh well...I can only dream of a digital sensor in the 48x20 range with DR similar to RED's new Dragon sensor now...Who knows maybe Ill invent one and start a line of sensors named after the unique film pioneers that thought of similar ideas years before.

Do I want to know what it was useful for? haha

I was actually asking David. Curious about your idea none the less. Any specific reason you'd use 65mm for a short film? Don't need plot details or anything just curious what it is you like.... Side note: I find it strange that the Phantom 65 (4K version) doesn't see more use....I know its not true 65mm film but it does give unique DOF of the 65mm format AND it doubles as a high frame rate camera...not an established workflow for it maybe? Even that seams like a bad excuse...maybe I'll ask a rental house for reasons if no one can give me an idea.

I was actually asking David. Curious about your idea none the less. Any specific reason you'd use 65mm for a short film? Don't need plot details or anything just curious what it is you like....

I think it was the projector. I read somewhere that in really bad cases with 35mm prints it really killed the resolution that could be seen. Haven't seen 70mm in quite some time... I think its sorta weird to shoot on 65mm and crop for 1.85:1. I love the crisp clarity of 65mm and I guess I sort of associate it with the 2.20:1 or less common 2.75:1 aspect ratio. I really really like large formats shallow focus and the grand size of it, I think the only other person "keeping 65mm alive" is probably Christopher Nolan. It'll be sad to see the format fade with the entire idea of celluloid :/ was out with a friend shooting medium format and some high quality 35mm a bit ago and the magic of it almost put my DSLR on the side line. Haven't seen the movie but mixing 65mm and 35mm is always smart and sensible, sometimes the grandeur of the 65mm format is overkill for certain scenes. I never can really get over the picture quality of movies like Lawrence of Arabia, 2001, etc. I know its controversial and not always the best but I sort of always dreamed of a digital camera maybe by Arri or even RED that had a 36x24 or larger sensor, the 5D look is so pleasing artifacts aside, although I understand shallow depth of field is a real PITA when pulling focus in fast moving scenes and in general. Just about of curiosity have you ever shot 65mm?

4:3...I never liked the format, respect it but don't like it one bit. Shooting an older movie? Shoot 1.66:1, way better than a box sitting in my field of view. I'm forever a fan of scope, especially anamorphic scope, watch a movie like Heat and just seeing all that beautiful fine grain with those beautiful anamorphic "artifacts" gets me going. Maybe one day Vittorio Storaro's dream of 2:1 will be the standard ;) I sense tension with this...haha. Oh I loved The Dark Knight switching back and forth, hardly annoying as I felt this feeling of the scene feeling more grand and then realized I was in a 65mm scene and then gently put back into 35mm...Christopher Nolan really knows what he wants and I can't imagine watching his work in some jammed up way like a 4:3 crop for the entire thing! Got allot of respect and love his views on film and CGI use.