Michael Landon

People seemed too mad at me. An update: I decided to return the camera as per the conditions of the buying house I signed with. I did have to pay a "rental" amount equivilant to how long i had it (2 days / 1200$)...but I decided that perhaps blowing all my change in one basket where Technology is known to be outdated is not the best bet. In either case, getting hands on with the ALEXA was a nice experience. I myself am looking for a more modest RED camera than the ALEXA. I will rent it first and see if I may buy it...but it seems like Renting is the way to go for me.

Hahahahah. After 400 frames, i may actually get 16 seconds. now that's living!

The reality is I don't think I'm that technically knowledgeable to do any project on ACTUAL film....not even sure how I would go about scanning that into a PC and editing it etc. As much as I love the authenticity of that process, it's not for me in the slightest. Computers I at least have somewhat of an idea about. Btw I am going to be getting the Arri Plus 4:3 now.

I don't think canceling my order will get my head around it any more or faster. I'll keep my order and just learn as all film-makers do. I'm going to be renting ana lenses soon.

Right - this is what I meant. If one just uses a spherical lens on say a 16:9 sensor camera - using a more shorter focal length and cropping the top and the bottom - then would you not effectively have the same image as an anamorphic? Because the way I understand it from your point is "pretend it's a wide-angle adapter" which makes sense to me. I know you won't get the flares, etc - but I mean purely from a aesthetic standpoint - would it not be possible to just get a 16:9 video at say 25mm, film a bit further from your subjects, and crop the top and bottom - thereby making it appear to be the same as a 50mm anamorphic lens? Just wondering, sir

Thank you all. I just spoke to the sales rep and he said he would be able to do an equal trade to the 4:3 for me. He said he had no idea I intended to do anamorphic. He said something about anamorphic on 4:3 sensor having a more horizontal resolution in the final desqueezed image. Michael

Okay all. I will go ahead an rent the lenses. The money was inheritance to me - so no - I'm not quite well off enough to afford a lens that is $20,000 yet. I will go ahead and rent the Angieux Optimo and Carl Zeiss Master Anamorphic 2x lenses and decide. I don't have a 4:3 Alexa so at this point that's out of the picture. For anyone else who needs answers and stumbled upon this on the web - i got these links that helped me a lot in addition to the wisdom of people here willing to put up with my beginner questions: http://blog.abelcine.com/2013/10/02/go-anamorphic-with-the-arri-alexa-plus-43/

Yes - I did read it and did not get my answer. It seems to talk about the film process...

Hi Yeah maybe not but no reason not to futureproof myself until I become more knowledgeable in this subject. What does the 4:3 sensor do for anamorphic? Heard it has to do with resolution or something

Cole thank you! You understood my badly worded question perfectly. Guess I am going to go with a more wide angle lens to mimic the anamorphic look and crop the top and bottom...will be trcky...still considering anamorphic lens however to make my life easier.

Hi Bryan Im just trying to figure this out....if a spherical lens does not have the same horizontal field of view and an anamorphic does and allows a 2.39:1 then how on earth can one get their spherical lens to reproduce a scene like anamorphic ratio with the same framing vertically without cropping or use of anamorphic lens? Wide angle lens surely does not seem like a good solution...please note I am using a digital camera with a 16:9 sensor

Hi bryan But anamorphic captures the same vertical frame as spherical does it not?

So is it possible to use a spherical wide angle lens and effectively emulate the same vertical dimension as an anamorphic? considering anamorphic doesnt increase vertical field of view does it? Basically...would it be possible to get a spherical wide angle lens and emulate an anamorphic look without cropping the top or bottom (since anamorphic lenses do not crop the vertical)....im assuming anamorphic lenses capture the same vertical frame as a spherical wide angle lens?

Sir, Thank you for your wisdom. This was just what I needed to read. I am so thankful you reminded me of a tidbit i forgot about anamorphic being halved in its field of view horizontal compared to spherical wide angles of the same focal length

This isn't what I want

Cole - so anamorphic indeed does have a wider horizontal*** (i put vertical accidentally) area right - capturing a bigger Field of View Horizontally than spherical 16:9's? Also thank you for responding.

Some details: The image is 1280 x 536 (2.39:1 aspect ratio). I believe the film was actually shot in 2K using the Arri Alexa. According to ther DCI standards: 2D Image: 2048×1080 (2k) at 24 frame/s or 48 frame/s, or 4096×2160 (4k) at 24 frame/s In 2K, for Scope (2.39:1) presentation 2048×858 pixels of the image is used. Now I see that the horizontal is 2048....this is a lot more than 1920. Either anamorphic lenses capture more vertical area....or there's a mechanism for stretching the image...without messing up aspect ratio (not seeing how this would be possible)

The look I'm trying to go for:

Hi Mr. Mullen This is what confuses me - do the lenses have a wider FOV? Because I don't understand quite how squeezing the image would actually lead to a more wide aspect ratio which does not look badly stretched out without the lens actually capturing more horizontal detail over spherical lenses (wider FOV) As you mentioned that a lot of films were shot on spherical....but I am essentially trying to get close to film (despite people having a heartattack I didn't just get actual film stock, etc.) I want an updated digital workflow for my small-time production. And I don't want to add black bars in post to fake the filmic aspect ratio look (losing vertical resolution detail). "Working backwards, with a 2X anamorphic lens on the camera, this means you end up only using a 1.20 : 1 area of the sensor or recording for a final 2.40 unsqueezed image." Based on this, the way my brain is interpreting this is that if you have a 16:9 image...and use an anamorphic lens - you get a much bigger capture area than most films? I think I probably have this insanely wrong. Awaiting your response and I thank you for your time. I have read several of your posts and am glad you decided to reply to mine. Thank you, Michael

Hi All, An Update - I went ahead and bought the Arri Alexa...it was a lot more than I bargained for. A lot of people are mentioning recouping the costs...I'll be honest in saying I just happened to get this much money to buy just the kit from AbelCine - but not the lighting etc (worked out a deal on this). Also the fact that I'm not taking film professionally...it is just a hobby. I wouldn't even know how to start renting out my camera...or that I could even afford that type of risk I am however stuck...I don't know which lens to use. I want a more FILMIC look - so I have been looking at the 'anamorphic' lenses. Apparently they capture a wider FOV (field of view) than spherical lenses. Is this true? I am horrible when it comes to aspect ratio..I saw videos on youtube...but no one quite explains what lenses are.

People should not out too much stock on uneducated freelance writers who write utter nonsense such as how turning up the iso on a camera "lowers low contrast detail areas" turning up ISO inherently does that unless the sensor is warped. LoL

I don't think a part of me can bear risking the Alexa to any damage...I'll film with it but I'm extra cautious. The Rebel I will use for my own personal home videos, etc.

Thank you all for explaining this to me. I feel I will go with the best of both worlds: the Arri Alexa and the DSLR (Rebel T3i I have). Could anyone explain to me how expensive the SxS solution is? I'll be broke after that 80K-90k purchase.

Hi Adrian, I'd say you hit the nail on the head...the Arri Alexa is something like 1.8K measurable with a lot more dynamic range....and the coloring is purely film...like. Whatever I mean by that...lol

Hi Adrien, That sounds like such a good description...I never thought the sensors were proprietary...I did look into the ALEXA page and they do tout the fact that the sensor is custom built with Arii Scientist "magic" technology or whatever. Not exact words...but haha, still. Recently DSLRs got that magic lantern with RAW capability (really crappy post-flow) but definitely I think ProRes encoders built into the Arri with ARRIRAW offstorage support is super fantastic. And as you mentioned, I do notice the ARRI ALEXA has this serious film-like...(whatever this means - i kind of dont have a clue) quality - its softer..just looks like...a movie? Not sure if you can understand what I mean...I guess that has to do with their proprietary lenses...probably it costs more to make 'filmic' lenses than 'dslr' lenses....thoughts sir?