I saw a post on 1.85/2.35, and wondered what format most new movies being shot in today?

Panavision 2.35:1, with a 2:1 horizontal compression when filmed. Still the best?

Super-35, 2.35:1, smaller negative?

Spherical 1.85:1?

Digital? Presumably either 2.35:1 or 1.85:1.

Also, how does the digital inter-negative format affect choices?

I think for popcornflicks etc 2,35:1 is most common. And for comedys and drama 1,85:1 is more common.

As for process, i think S35 commes in stronger. And I think HDM makes S35 even ore preferable.

In the old days, we only saw movies through 2 or 3 different channels. Cinema, TV, VHS.

And for cinema A35 made more sense since it were projected anamorfic. The other 2 it wasnt even important.

But in modern ages we can benefit from S35 much more. And for special effects S35 is preferable. And we can on our HDM se some advantages for S35 PQ.

But then we have digital, it gets adpoted slowly, but with the old school filmmakers getting smaller and smaller. Digital will get adpoted more and more.

George Lucas, Michael Mann, Bryan Singer, Mel Gibson is a couple of big filmmakers that has moved to digital. And more will come.

Check out "Super 35" on Wikipedia.
"Super 35 competes with the use of the standard 35 mm format used with an anamorphic lens. In this comparison, advocates of Super 35 claim an advantage in production costs and flexibility; when used to make 2.39:1 theatrical prints, detractors complain of a loss in quality, due to less negative area used and more lab intermediate steps (if done optically)."

Super 35 may have an advantage with ratios other than 2.35 (2.39), but check out how much more frame area the standard anamorphic system uses in the illustrations in the article.

Super 35 may have an advantage with ratios other than 2.35 (2.39), but check out how much more frame area the standard anamorphic system uses in the illustrations in the article.

Even if it uses less area of the 35mm frame, it still have the advantage that it doesnt have as much glass in front of the frame, as you have when you shoot anamorfic. And as filmstocks gets better so will the advantage of A35 get smaller

But both has some pros and cons, thats why both is still in use.

S35 should give a bit sharper image but show a little more grain then A35. If everything else is equal.

It's not often I stumble onto a thread about a subject I am an expert, but this is it. Proof that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

You are all right, sort of, but it is a more complex issue than anyone has covered yet. Anamorphic 35 photographs the largest negative area and gets it all to the screen. Super 35 uses a smaller negative area to render a 2.40 frame.

More glass in front of the lens does not necessarily mean lower quality.

Lens for lens, a spherical lens will be of higher optical quality from edge to edge than an anamorphic lens. It is extremely difficult to manufacture an anamorphic lens that will be optically exellent edge to edge.

The optical quality of anamorphic lenses vary greatly across several series (and even serial numbers within the series) at Panavision (and there are other providers). For this reason, the elite corps of First ACs who do anamorphic shows actually "keep/reserve" hand picked lenses to go on their shows. Many of the movies we've seen shot in 35 anamorphic, including most of the ones I've done, used the older C-series lenses. This series is not the top in quality, but they are the smallest, therefore somewhat easier to work with. The E-series is okay. The E-series 180mm is a standard close-up tool. The top quality Primo anamorphics are truly fabulous optically, but they are huge! A prime (fixed focal length) lens is the size of a spherical zoom lens. Hardly practical to put on a Steadicam :eek:

Two things have made Super 35 truly competitive: finer-grained film stocks; and digital intermediates which eliminate the necessity to add a generation to create the anamorphic intermediate from which prints are struck.

Anamorphic is more expensive for several reasons:
-They have half the depth of field for a given stop, and are highly unforgiving if you push them to work at low light levels. The C-series primes are T2.5 or so, but shooting below a T4 is dangerous for focus/resolution. Since you need more light, you need to rent more stuff that makes it.
-Often the sets literally have to be bigger because you see more. That said, this can be affected by shooting style chosen.
-The lenses cost more to rent.
-The camera assistants have more to watch over and get paid a "technician" rate.

The crieria used to decide what aspect angle to shoot seems more vague. The scope/scale of the production design and locales are a big factor. The new Indiana Jones movie debated over which to go with, but ultimately chose 35 anamorphic because it didn't seem right to mess with a classic, despite Mr. S and others preferring Super 35 these days.

Cam Man:

Do you have any experience using Panavision's Digital HD-CAM? How do the lenses differ?

Won't the use of Digital Cinematography be used because:

1. Gets rid of the dallies - shoot and review the finished product right on the spot - right after the scene is finished.

2. Better "fit" for D-Cinema

Have you seen the new RED Camera System?

I saw a post on 1.85/2.35, and wondered what format most new movies being shot in today?



For those who didn't get the answer from the thread the OP mentioned....here's how to find the info.

If you go to internet movie data base www.imdb.com You can define searches by aspect ratio, year etc

This should get you started.

This is search by aspect ratio. Make sure to put in spaces 2.35 : 1 for example.

http://www.imdb.com/Search/technical

This page allows you to search for technical specs by year (like aspect ratio)

http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Years/technical-by-year

The crieria used to decide what aspect angle to shoot seems more vague. The scope/scale of the production design and locales are a big factor. The new Indiana Jones movie debated over which to go with, but ultimately chose 35 anamorphic because it didn't seem right to mess with a classic, despite Mr. S and others preferring Super 35 these days.

Im glad that they tried to stay true to the PQ of the orginal movies. Just hope they dont add a CGI whip ;)

Thanks for the input Cam Man.

PS. Do you think anamorfic35 is going away now when S35 process is improving?

I used Anamorfic adapters on my prosumer cam, and its not funny for run and gun shootings.

It's not often I stumble onto a thread about a subject I am an expert, but this is it. Proof that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

You are all right, sort of, but it is a more complex issue than anyone has covered yet. Anamorphic 35 photographs the largest negative area and gets it all to the screen. Super 35 uses a smaller negative area to render a 2.40 frame.

More glass in front of the lens does not necessarily mean lower quality.

Lens for lens, a spherical lens will be of higher optical quality from edge to edge than an anamorphic lens. It is extremely difficult to manufacture an anamorphic lens that will be optically exellent edge to edge.

The optical quality of anamorphic lenses vary greatly across several series (and even serial numbers within the series) at Panavision (and there are other providers). For this reason, the elite corps of First ACs who do anamorphic shows actually "keep/reserve" hand picked lenses to go on their shows. Many of the movies we've seen shot in 35 anamorphic, including most of the ones I've done, used the older C-series lenses. This series is not the top in quality, but they are the smallest, therefore somewhat easier to work with. The E-series is okay. The E-series 180mm is a standard close-up tool. The top quality Primo anamorphics are truly fabulous optically, but they are huge! A prime (fixed focal length) lens is the size of a spherical zoom lens. Hardly practical to put on a Steadicam :eek:

Two things have made Super 35 truly competitive: finer-grained film stocks; and digital intermediates which eliminate the necessity to add a generation to create the anamorphic intermediate from which prints are struck.

Anamorphic is more expensive for several reasons:
-They have half the depth of field for a given stop, and are highly unforgiving if you push them to work at low light levels. The C-series primes are T2.5 or so, but shooting below a T4 is dangerous for focus/resolution. Since you need more light, you need to rent more stuff that makes it.
-Often the sets literally have to be bigger because you see more. That said, this can be affected by shooting style chosen.
-The lenses cost more to rent.
-The camera assistants have more to watch over and get paid a "technician" rate.

The crieria used to decide what aspect angle to shoot seems more vague. The scope/scale of the production design and locales are a big factor. The new Indiana Jones movie debated over which to go with, but ultimately chose 35 anamorphic because it didn't seem right to mess with a classic, despite Mr. S and others preferring Super 35 these days.

thanks for the informative post!

so, for super-35, do they print the digital intermediate horizontally compressed in the panavision format (17.x mm tall x 21mm wide)? And then use that as the copy from which all the prints are struck for the theater?

Hi guys,

I have used the Sony F900 that is the first generation of HD at Panavision. I think you are asking about the Genesis. I have not use that camera, but look forward to the opportunity. I really like the way it is built to emulate the long established ergonomics of a production film camera rather than an ENG camera. Given careful shooting and not going crazy in post, digital can deliver beautiful results to a film-out.

That said, 35mm film will not be going away any time soon as a capture medium. I would have thought that 35 anamorphic would already have faded, but a number of big features have used it to wonderful results the last few years. It seems to be enjoying a continuing following among some directors and DPs. There are advantages to both in shooting, but anamorphic really keeps everybody on their toes through the day. The operator and first AC (focus puller) must work together very well to stay on top of focus. It is much harder to see in the camera without using some creative techniques.

so, for super-35, do they print the digital intermediate horizontally compressed in the panavision format (17.x mm tall x 21mm wide)? And then use that as the copy from which all the prints are struck for the theater?
Yes, but scanned to film from a DI saves a generation.

I don't like anamorphic for one pithy reason: the out of focus areas are squished. It makes out of focus backgrounds look ugly compared to spherical lenses. Rack focusing looks terrible because whatever was out of focus changes shape as the camera focuses on it.

Yes, pithy but once I see it, I can't stop seeing it!

I don't like anamorphic for one pithy reason: the out of focus areas are squished. It makes out of focus backgrounds look ugly compared to spherical lenses. Rack focusing looks terrible because whatever was out of focus changes shape as the camera focuses on it.
That is one of a handful of optical artifacts of anamorphic cinematography. Interestingly, there are those in and out of the business that love it or hate it. Jim Cameron hates it. A lot of us in the biz consider them a bit of endearing insider knowledge (98% of movie goers would never notice these), and don't find them objectionable. Personally, the anamorphic gate kick seen in night scenes when there is a bright light in the darkness, is the most distracting. The photographed area is so close to the edges of the aperture gate, that a bright source will reflect harshly off the edge of the highly polished stainless steel gate (frame) and cause a strange horizontal streak across the frame. This is called anamorphic gate flare.

Cam Man:

Have you ever shot anything in 65mm?

For those who didn't get the answer from the thread the OP mentioned....here's how to find the info.

If you go to internet movie data base www.imdb.com You can define searches by aspect ratio, year etc

This should get you started.

This is search by aspect ratio. Make sure to put in spaces 2.35 : 1 for example.

http://www.imdb.com/Search/technical

This page allows you to search for technical specs by year (like aspect ratio)

http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Years/technical-by-year

Wow! Thanks. I never knew the IMDB would do that. And it will help answer a question I had in another topic a couple of days ago.

Have you ever shot anything in 65mm?

Not in the context you are asking about. Up until recently all shots that were going to have optical or CGI effects were shot with 65mm (or in ILM's case, VistaVision). Also, background plates for composite shots were shot 65. Here's a bit of trivia: When we were doing Twister, it was the first film to ever be able to handhold shots destined to have composite elements. ILM provided a crude special "miniaturized" VistaVision camera to use for this. They placed track points in the shots, but all the handheld shots in the F-5 sequence were done with that camera, all operated by Jan DeBont himself.

Here's another bit of Twister trivia: Up to this point in the effects world, the effects guys could not generate convincing camera shake. Jan demanded that we operators do the camera shaking. ILM was able to do shake and wanted us to not shake the camera. Jan was more powerful. On the scequence at the Gorman four corners (drive-in movie, drive-in burgers, motel, and gas station) I was in a condor one night with my AC to do the shot where the car flies through the room of the gas station garage. ILM guys came to me and made a pitch to not shake the camera. I went to Jan, and he said "F***ing, hell, sh**...you shake the camera!" I went back up in the condor. Producer Ian Bryce walked over to me and asked, what I was going to do, as ILM had clearly chatted with him. I said, "I'm shaking the camera." ;) Unfortunately, the full story is that ILM had to remove all that camera shaking in any shot that had CGI in it, then put it back in after the compositing was done.

Twister was amost exclusively shot with the C-series primes, and E-series 180. A number of them (and camera viewing optics) were trashed by the effects (rain and crashes). The director was not very respectful of their irreplaceable status. C-series were no longer being made. A 40mm on an un-operated Arri3 was trashed by the swinging big rig. It easily could have been protected, but the boss insisted we shoot. "Don't worry; it will be fine." The full-size mock-up clipped it and sent it end over end. There was a collective groan among us in the camera department. :(

Not in the context you are asking about. Up until recently all shots that were going to have optical or CGI effects were shot with 65mm (or in ILM's case, VistaVision). Also, background plates for composite shots were shot 65. Here's a bit of trivia: When we were doing Twister, it was the first film to ever be able to handhold shots destined to have composite elements. ILM provided a crude special "miniaturized" VistaVision camera to use for this. They placed track points in the shots, but all the handheld shots in the F-5 sequence were done with that camera, all operated by Jan DeBont himself.

Here's another bit of Twister trivia: Up to this point in the effects world, the effects guys could not generate convincing camera shake. Jan demanded that we operators do the camera shaking. ILM was able to do shake and wanted us to not shake the camera. Jan was more powerful. On the scequence at the Gorman four corners (drive-in movie, drive-in burgers, motel, and gas station) I was in a condor one night with my AC to do the shot where the car flies through the room of the gas station garage. ILM guys came to me and made a pitch to not shake the camera. I went to Jan, and he said "F***ing, hell, sh**...you shake the camera!" I went back up in the condor. Producer Ian Bryce walked over to me and asked, what I was going to do, as ILM had clearly chatted with him. I said, "I'm shaking the camera." ;) Unfortunately, the full story is that ILM had to remove all that camera shaking in any shot that had CGI in it, then put it back in after the compositing was done.

Twister was amost exclusively shot with the C-series primes, and E-series 180. A number of them (and camera viewing optics) were trashed by the effects (rain and crashes). The director was not very respectful of their irreplaceable status. C-series were no longer being made. A 40mm on an un-operated Arri3 was trashed by the swinging big rig. It easily could have been protected, but the boss insisted we shoot. "Don't worry; it will be fine." The full-size mock-up clipped it and sent it end over end. There was a collective groan among us in the camera department. :(

VERY interesting. Thank you for sharing your stories with us.

Can you tell us what other movies you worked on?

PS: Any desire to shoot in IMAX?

Great story about Twister, Cam Man. That movie was always one of the handful I put on whenever I got a new "toy" for my HT, be it new speakers, my ButtShaker, or new projector.

I predict that as film emulsions continue to improve and digital intermediates become more common, 2-perf Techniscope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techniscope) will become the preferred 2.35 35mm film production format.

/criswell

(DISCLAIMER: I am not a cinematographer, nor am I actually psychic. I only wished to bump this thread which has been made Officially Awesome™ by Cam Man's informative posts.)

Cam man, can you explain why some movies shoot digital, have stuck to the idea to use open shutters. I think thats the most distracting thing you can do.

I kind of doubt that film and DI technology will improve to the point that Techniscope will become viable/competitive. I think that 2-perf 2.35 would be surpassed in PQ by even 2K HD, certainly by 4K. 3-perf Super 35 makes really good budgetary sense. The image area remains the same, but uses 25% less negative stock. This is already a common practice for televison series.

I think thats the most distracting thing you can do. Not sure I understand exactly. If you can describe the effect that bothers you, I can figure it out. Do you mean smaller shutter angles which results in shorter exposure time per frame? That creates the jitter affect as seen in Saving Private Ryan.

The photographed area is so close to the edges of the aperture gate, that a bright source will reflect harshly off the edge of the highly polished stainless steel gate (frame) and cause a strange horizontal streak across the frame. This is called anamorphic gate flare.

Great...another thing that's going to drive me nuts the next time I see an anamorphic film now that I know about it! Thanks a lot, Cam Man! :D

Cam man, can you explain why some movies shoot digital, have stuck to the idea to use open shutters. I think thats the most distracting thing you can do.

Is this what gives some digital movies, such as Miami Vice and Apocalypto much more of a "video" look than other digital movies, such as Star Wars and Superman Returns? If so, I'm a big fan of that. If not, what is it that does give those movies such a distinct look?

Is this what gives some digital movies, such as Miami Vice and Apocalypto much more of a "video" look than other digital movies, such as Star Wars and Superman Returns? If so, I'm a big fan of that. If not, what is it that does give those movies such a distinct look? Am I correct that you prefer the look of the first two? "Video look" is not a PQ characteristic in which DPs aspire in general ;-). I have not seen Miami Vice, but I thought Apocalypto was pretty great looking. Interestingly, that movie and Superman Returns were shot for the most part with the same camera, the Panavision Genesis. I would dare say that both were captured/shot fairly similarly. The differences are created in post.
Great...another thing that's going to drive me nuts the next time I see an anamorphic film now that I know about it! Thanks a lot, Cam Man! Oops, I was a afraid that might happen.:D

Is this what gives some digital movies, such as Miami Vice and Apocalypto much more of a "video" look than other digital movies, such as Star Wars and Superman Returns? If so, I'm a big fan of that. If not, what is it that does give those movies such a distinct look?


Yes that was what I was talking about. Normally films are shoot 1/48 in shutters (well its shutter angle value that filmcams use is something that Cam man can better explain)

But in essence it makes that every second of film is exposed for ½ second. This gives motionblur. You could raise it higher and get the SPR effect.

But with digital you can use open shutter (1/24), that gives 1 second of film gets exposed for 1 second. That give us much more motionblur then is possible for a filmcam. And that what gives the natural motion effect that we have seen in Collateral, Miami Vice and Apocalypto.

Some like it but I hate it.

If any are curious:

Panavision:

http://www.panavision.com/

Arriflex:

http://www.arri.com/entry/products.htm

MovieSwede, thanks for clearing that up. I've been trying to figure out the cause of the two such distinct looks for years now, and this is the first time I've been able to get straight answer. I'll finally be able to sleep tonight. :)

Am I correct that you prefer the look of the first two? "Video look" is not a PQ characteristic in which DPs aspire in general ;-).

Cam Man, I do generally prefer the "video" look. In my opinion, the fact that most DPs try to make their digital movies look like film is the reason why many of them look so bad. Personally, I see film and HD as two separate media, each with their own set of distinct characteristics, both good and bad, and neither one is necessarily better than the other. The open shutter is an example of something that HD can do which film can't. Technically speaking, it's "better." So why wouldn't DPs want to take advantage of that, at least when appropriate?

I can see how going for the "video" look would have been a mistake for something like Star Wars, which was making a semi-conscious effort to maintain a visual continuity with the first movies. But it works extraordinarily well in Miami Vice. That's a movie which is going for a very realistic aesthetic, from the script all the way down to the sound design. I think the "video" look helps to reinforce that aesthetic because we perceive video as being more "real" than film because of the things which have historically been shot on the format, like the news and such.

mumbles

I understand your point, but if you look at Micheal Manns previous work that was done on film, i think he succeded even better.

Dark somber look of Last of the Mohicans

or the clean Metallic look of Heat

Yes with the budget hollywood films, if they want filmlook just shoot film. But me as shoot digital because of economics really hate videlook. I would love if I could emulate film with video.

mumbles

I understand your point, but if you look at Micheal Manns previous work that was done on film, i think he succeded even better.

I would love if I could emulate film with video.

You can get a very filmic look with progressive capable video cameras as long as you get the shutter speed correct (or capture period). The old Canon Xl1 has very filmic motionblur in frame mode shooting PAL (25p to all intents) and a 1/50 shutter speed. (although its not really a shutter).

I really like the way Miami Vice looks precisely because its someone using a digital camera without trying to make it look like film. I wouldn't say it looks like "video" either. There are some shots in there that have an exposure range that people have just not seen before to the extent that a lot of people think it looks weird.

I will say I'm not a fan of open shutter smearing though.

I kind of doubt that film and DI technology will improve to the point that Techniscope will become viable/competitive. I think that 2-perf 2.35 would be surpassed in PQ by even 2K HD, certainly by 4K. 3-perf Super 35 makes really good budgetary sense. The image area remains the same, but uses 25% less negative stock. This is already a common practice for televison series.

Yeah, I was being somewhat facetious in my prediction. :D However, do you think it could make a comeback for low-budget 2.35 production?

Also, have you heard of any 1.85 format films that were shot 3-perf Super35, or would it be more trouble than it's worth (assuming a DI either way)?

Well, we are really entering into interesting territory now.

Here is "the reason" that the "film look" is pursued: for reasons that have been discussed ad-naseum for decades amongst cinematographers and filmmakers at large, film has a "once upon a time" character about it. Video, on the other hand, has an air of immediacy. These are affected by so many factors. The immediate look of video come partly from the fact that we have been watching live or almost live programs on video for decades. We are imprinted to perceive video as immediate/live/or almost so. That "look" is not appropriate for a "once upon a time" story, which is the great majority of narrative films. Are there narrative subjects that call for the immediate look of video? Sure. If the nature of the subject matter (motivation) to look like video does not exist, then to give the film that look is purely a subjective style choice, and is open to debate and criticism.

A year or so ago the MTV awards program used cameras all set to 24p. It did not look live. A significant mistake.

I don't think Apocalypto had a "video look" at all. That was just a good, sharp, no-nonsense straight-forward shoot that looked terrific and fit the subject matter. I guarantee that Dean Semler shot that at 24p.

Regarding the comment of shooting a video medium to look like a film medium being a mistake. You are mistaken about this. Technical matters drive this issue, not subjective creativity. If you are going to film-out release, you are married to a given set of scientific parameters that are defined by the characteristics of film print stock. A DP has to walk a narrow line. If he shoots in a manner that pushes the extreme edge of latitude and color, then he has trapped the show into that look, allowing very little if any creative latitude in post. I see guys shooting commercial in HD all the time that foolishly try to paint on the set. It slows them down, and boxes them in during post. They wonder why their spot looks like sh**. You have to shoot in a way that gives you as much freedom in post as possible. If a particular effect is best achieved in the shoot, that's okay to pursue, but you must realize that you are married to it. There's no fixing in post. This is particularly important with regards to exposure latitude. Remember video eventually clips all detail on the white end, and is terribly noisy on the dark end. Trap your director with crap like that, and you will probably not be working with him again.

Even the "shutter" effect you guys are speakng of can be done in post.

Also, have you heard of any 1.85 format films that were shot 3-perf Super35, or would it be more trouble than it's worth (assuming a DI either way)? It is viable to save production cost, but requires special arrangements and maybe a DI to enable it to go to film release. All that can offset or exceed any savings in shooting 3-perf. Where it pays is TV where it does not have to go to film.

Cam Man

Do you remember the "Compact 35mm" Format?

They wanted to go to 30 FPS and use 3 perf 35mm. They figured out that it was the same film budget as 5 perf 24 FPS. More for 1.85 movies.

Better PQ on the screen and no more 3:2 pulldown for conversion to video.

It was never adopted by I did see a demo of it in NYC about 10 years ago. They should have done it!

Wow, Jan De Bont sounds like a real prick. I always liked his work as a DP, but think he's a terrible director, and it seems a pretty damned destructive one at that. Destroying irreplaceable Panavision lenses without caring about it? What an a-hole.

Vincent

...

Twister was amost exclusively shot with the C-series primes, and E-series 180. A number of them (and camera viewing optics) were trashed by the effects (rain and crashes). The director was not very respectful of their irreplaceable status. C-series were no longer being made. A 40mm on an un-operated Arri3 was trashed by the swinging big rig. It easily could have been protected, but the boss insisted we shoot. "Don't worry; it will be fine." The full-size mock-up clipped it and sent it end over end. There was a collective groan among us in the camera department. :(

Wow, Jan De Bont sounds like a real prick. Twister holds a unique place in insider movie-makng history for this reason. The first crew (camera, grip, electric, and sound) all quit the show at the five week point. This was absolutely unheard of in Hollywood, but DP Don Burgess led the exodus. The reason was because Jan was out of control abusive to the crew. Granted, he was under a lot of pressure with Twister, but the mistake he made was to make it personal. That crew left, and WB brought in DP Jack Green, ASC to replace him. I came in with Jack. It is a huge credit within the business, because our crew was the one/the ones who could handle/deal with Jan. To be fair, Jan had been forced by WB to take the personal edge off his leadership style. That said, it was often miserable to work on the movie if you had a day when it was your turn to be in Jan's sights.

I must say though that I learned a tremendous amount from the Twister experience with Jan. His tenacity to get the shot despite how tough really impressed me. There is not a day at work that I don't use the lessons learned on Twister...from Jan.

Six months later in the spring of 1996, Jack Green called me to operate for him on a few days of re-shoots for Twister. He called me because he knew I was Jan-seasoned. LOL! By then, the pressure was off Jan; he knew he had a hit on his hands. I couldn't have asked for a more pleasant director to work for that week.

Jan is a camera genius...just ask him :D He would tell each of we three operators where to put the camera and what lens to use. We are accustomed to this being an approximation. It was always flawless from Jan. I could not make it better.

Great stories, Cam Man. Maybe referring to Jan as a "prick" was overboard on my part. It certainly seems he was dealing with his own issues and maybe he took out his pressures unfairly on others, a perfectly human thing to do, although of course it can make life pretty darned unbearable for the folks who are having-pressures-taken-out-on-them.

I agree re: him being a great DP. I love the look of the movies he shot, and he was great at shooting anamorphic. I must say I haven't been a fan of any of his directorial efforts, though, but I'd certainly love to see him back behind the lens as the DP on another Verhoeven or Ridley Scott flick :)

Vincent

Twister holds a unique place in insider movie-makng history for this reason. The first crew (camera, grip, electric, and sound) all quit the show at the five week point. This was absolutely unheard of in Hollywood, but DP Don Burgess led the exodus. The reason was because Jan was out of control abusive to the crew. Granted, he was under a lot of pressure with Twister, but the mistake he made was to make it personal. That crew left, and WB brought in DP Jack Green, ASC to replace him. I came in with Jack. It is a huge credit within the business, because our crew was the one/the ones who could handle/deal with Jan. To be fair, Jan had been forced by WB to take the personal edge off his leadership style. That said, it was often miserable to work on the movie if you had a day when it was your turn to be in Jan's sights.

I must say though that I learned a tremendous amount from the Twister experience with Jan. His tenacity to get the shot despite how tough really impressed me. There is not a day at work that I don't use the lessons learned on Twister...from Jan.

Six months later in the spring of 1996, Jack Green called me to operate for him on a few days of re-shoots for Twister. He called me because he knew I was Jan-seasoned. LOL! By then, the pressure was off Jan; he knew he had a hit on his hands. I couldn't have asked for a more pleasant director to work for that week.

Jan is a camera genius...just ask him :D He would tell each of we three operators where to put the camera and what lens to use. We are accustomed to this being an approximation. It was always flawless from Jan. I could not make it better.

Maybe referring to Jan as a "prick" was overboard on my part. I don't know about that. At the time, we certainly considered him the spawn of Satan himself. :D:D

Spawn of Satan perhaps, but damn if he doesn't know how to light a scene and compose an anamorphic frame! :)

Vincent

but damn if he doesn't know how to light a scene and compose an anamorphic frame! Most definately! Brilliant with anamorphic IMO. You just have to really be on your game and hang on for dear life when working for him. But that is part of the fun, too.

I believe Apocalypto was shot on a mix of different formats. Genesis HD, Arri 35MM, and some Super-16, depending on what Mel thought was appropriate for each scene. I could definitely pick out the parts that were shot with the Genesis.

Which brings me to my main question. I can easily tell the different between video and film because of the framerate, but I don't understand how HD looks like video when the framerate is 24. I'm viewing the same amount of frames per second, but HD just looks faster.

Thanks any info.

I believe Apocalypto was shot on a mix of different formats. Genesis HD, Arri 35MM, and some Super-16, depending on what Mel thought was appropriate for each scene. I could definitely pick out the parts that were shot with the Genesis.


I think you are wrong on this one. Most scenes seems to been shoot digital but with different shutters. So with the same camera you can get very different looks.

Even digital cams need to have filmcams at their side for things like slowmotion shoots. (unless you wanna morph)

You can get a very filmic look with progressive capable video cameras as long as you get the shutter speed correct (or capture period). The old Canon Xl1 has very filmic motionblur in frame mode shooting PAL (25p to all intents) and a 1/50 shutter speed. (although its not really a shutter).



Mr D

The canon cameras has really evolved since the XL1

http://web.telia.com/~u55701443/Ny%20mapp/lion.JPG

I think you are wrong on this one. Most scenes seems to been shoot digital but with different shutters. So with the same camera you can get very different looks.

Even digital cams need to have filmcams at their side for things like slowmotion shoots. (unless you wanna morph)

Nope - he is right:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472043/technical

Nope - he is right:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472043/technical

I know that they used all thoose cams, but what i dont think they choosed filmcams other then shoots they really needed it for things like slowmotion.

35/s35 is great for slowmotion
s16 is great for handheld

Some scenes look more video then others, but that is more a result of shutters then what camera that they used.

Resolution and frame rate are not the only factors in video and film looking different by nature, or looking alike by design. How each medium sees and interprets light is very different, and we are used to what that looks like, even if only subliminaly. Film emulsions have been refined over the years to see light very much like our eyes do; a very analog process, if you will. There is exceptional latitude in contrast, and each end of the exposure range is compressed so that detail is retained even when over or under exposed signficantly. Video does not do this "by nature." This, though, is the subject of another of the great advancements in modern HD cameras. They have the ability to electronically create the exposure response curve to see light very much like film does. That respresents a big part of the learning curve for DPs to make the transition to HD from film. Out of the box, most even professional HD cameras make video-looking pictures. You have to get into the menus and create the response curve that you wish to use. Typically, when the DP completes this recipe, he saves it on a memory stick. That said, there are target curves that are well tested and proven to render nominal results if going to film-out release. The picture with that set-up looks very "dull"; somewhat lower saturation and contrast, but all this changes in post. It is what I described in an earlier post about capturing/shooting within certain parameters so that you have lots of flexibility in post.

Anyway, once you make the camera see light more like film, shoot at 24p, and do a few tricks here and there with filters, it is very difficult to see any difference...even to the trained eye.

Most of Apocalypto was shot on the Genesis. There were a number of times that 35mm was used. You can dig up the feature on it in American Cinematographer magazine.

Some HD cameras are not capable of slow motion. Some are. I don't recall the slow motion capabilities of the Genesis. I have an HD shoot coming up that will have only a very few shots that need slow motion. We will probably shoot with Sony F900s. To do the slow motion shots we may bring in a Varicam, or possibly shoot super 16 for those shots.

Frame Rate for the Genesis:

1-50 fps

RED can go 120fps in 2K mode. But then you must handle the rolling shutters for the CMOS.

Incredible source of information here, thanks to all with film backgrounds here, especially Cam Man :-)

Some HD cameras are not capable of slow motion. Some are. I don't recall the slow motion capabilities of the Genesis.

On the 'Superbad' audio commentary, Seth Rogen makes a point of teasing the director about needing to switch to film for some shots because the super-advanced, state-of-the-art Genesis camera they were using couldn't do slow motion.

This, though, is the subject of another of the great advancements in modern HD cameras. They have the ability to electronically create the exposure response curve to see light very much like film does. That respresents a big part of the learning curve for DPs to make the transition to HD from film. Out of the box, most even professional HD cameras make video-looking pictures. You have to get into the menus and create the response curve that you wish to use. Typically, when the DP completes this recipe, he saves it on a memory stick. That said, there are target curves that are well tested and proven to render nominal results if going to film-out release. The picture with that set-up looks very "dull"; somewhat lower saturation and contrast, but all this changes in post. It is what I described in an earlier post about capturing/shooting within certain parameters so that you have lots of flexibility in post.

Does that mean that recording raw data (as was done for Zodiac) would make for almost no learning curve? Would it save time on set?

On the 'Superbad' audio commentary, Seth Rogen makes a point of teasing the director about needing to switch to film for some shots because the super-advanced, state-of-the-art Genesis camera they were using couldn't do slow motion. And neither can a super-duper state-of-the-art silent-running studio film camera whether from Panavision or whoever. The most you might get is about 48fps from them. There are special models for speeds over that (Panastar, Arri 435, etc). The Panastar is not terribly noisy up to about 48fps, but after that you're pretty much making margaritas in the blender with any 35mm camera.

[QUOTE][Does that mean that recording raw data/QUOTE] Not sure I follow what you mean.

And neither can a super-duper state-of-the-art silent-running studio film camera whether from Panavision or whoever. The most you might get is about 48fps from them. There are special models for speeds over that (Panastar, Arri 435, etc). The Panastar is not terribly noisy up to about 48fps, but after that you're pretty much making margaritas in the blender with any 35mm camera.

Cam Man:

I watch NHRA Drag Racing in HD and this year they started using a HD-CAM at 300 FPS so you could actually watch each cylinder fire on a Top Fuel Dragster.

Any idea whose camera that might be?

I have an HD-CAM demo DVD from Sony that has all kinds of different short films on it demonstrating the different types of "look" it could create, from the harsh 'video' look to soft, beautiful 'film' look. Some of the clips are 2:39.1 aspect ratio too. Very cool.

Does that mean that recording raw data Not sure I follow what you mean.

Frankly, I'm not really sure I do either. :o But I think it's akin to how a DSLR's raw mode works. It's not just an uncompressed image, but the actual unprocessed sensor data, so you can do things like go back and change the white balance in case you happened to have set it wrong when you shot.

Anyway, I think Zodiac was the first time the Viper was used this way. I think the Red camera also has a RAW mode.

I watch NHRA Drag Racing in HD and this year they started using a HD-CAM at 300 FPS so you could actually watch each cylinder fire on a Top Fuel Dragster.

Any idea whose camera that might be?I don't...but that is a way cool use of it!! I would guess it is a Panasonic of some variety. If the program is on ESPN or ABC, it is 720p which the Panasonic Varicams are.

And neither can a super-duper state-of-the-art silent-running studio film camera whether from Panavision or whoever. The most you might get is about 48fps from them.
They've used film cameras in Battlestar Gallactica to shoot certain slow motion scenes in the past because the Panavision can't do slow motion but recently they've found a cheesy solution to get something that looks like 120 fps: shoot in 60i then deinterlace and duplicate each frame.

It isn't as smooth and there are sometimes deitnerlacing artifacts, but it's cheaper than using a film camera.

Here's a funny over-use of slow motion. Take a look at the Juarez hotel shoot-out in the re-make of The Getaway. When Baldwin is chased up the stairs and David shoots up the stairwell at him with a shotgun, the banister disintegrates. Watch that frame by frame. It's just hilarious. We had a Panastar running at least at 96fps. Watching dailies in Yuma where we shot that scene (and yes they were projected anamorphic 35, mostly C-series), it was really interesting to watch the different film rates. Clearly the fast rates (96 and 120) looked rediculous because you could literally see the origin of the primer cord blast, and the banister come apart rather than explode. Very fun night at dailies. They were over the top on most of that stuff in that movie. Another of my favorites is when one of the heavies (Tommy Huff, RIP) is shot by Alec with that Bernelli shot gun. There is a pay phone on the wall beside/behind Tommy that explodes off the wall like an RPG round hit it. LOL!!

They've used film cameras in Battlestar Gallactica to shoot certain slow motion scenes in the past because the Panavision can't do slow motion but recently they've found a cheesy solution to get something that looks like 120 fps: shoot in 60i then deinterlace and duplicate each frame.

It isn't as smooth and there are sometimes deitnerlacing artifacts, but it's cheaper than using a film camera.
Funny, I just read an article about Battlestar Galactica in last months American Cinematographer. For the boxing episode which had kinda slow motion, they did exactly that with their Sony F900. For most other slo-mo scenes above 120fps, they shoot film.

But the article is about the new camera they are using for slow motion on Razor and season 4: Vision Research's Phantom HD. The thing does up to 2048x1563@up to 1000fps.

Funny, I just read an article about Battlestar Galactica in last months American Cinematographer. For the boxing episode which had kinda slow motion, they did exactly that with their Sony F900. For most other slo-mo scenes above 120fps, they shoot film.

But the article is about the new camera they are using for slow motion on Razor and season 4: Vision Research's Phantom HD. The thing does up to 2048x1563@up to 1000fps.

I remember seeing something about that camera, but had no idea it was in already shipping, let alone that it had already been used on anything. Still waiting for Razor (in queue, Long Wait :( ).

http://www.visionresearch.com/index.cfm?sector=htm/files&page=camera_HD_new

And a 65mm sized sensor version! Only 4K and 125fps max., but still, wow!

http://www.visionresearch.com/index.cfm?sector=htm/files&page=camera_65_new

Some sample clips on the main page:

http://www.visionresearch.com/index.cfm

Even the "shutter" effect you guys are speakng of can be done in post.


Yes but its not particularly effective at mimicing real motionblur especially in the z-axis , generally produces its own set of artifacts and it leaves you with a significantly softer image than doing it for real.

Here's a funny over-use of slow motion. Take a look at the Juarez hotel shoot-out in the re-make of The Getaway. When Baldwin is chased up the stairs and David shoots up the stairwell at him with a shotgun, the banister disintegrates. Watch that frame by frame. It's just hilarious. We had a Panastar running at least at 96fps. Watching dailies in Yuma where we shot that scene (and yes they were projected anamorphic 35, mostly C-series), it was really interesting to watch the different film rates. Clearly the fast rates (96 and 120) looked rediculous because you could literally see the origin of the primer cord blast, and the banister come apart rather than explode. Very fun night at dailies. They were over the top on most of that stuff in that movie. Another of my favorites is when one of the heavies (Tommy Huff, RIP) is shot by Alec with that Bernelli shot gun. There is a pay phone on the wall beside/behind Tommy that explodes off the wall like an RPG round hit it. LOL!!

Cam Man.

That is funny! What happens when you go "too fast. " I love the Mythbusters episodes debunking Hollywood "magic." The best one IMO was them trying to duplicate what Kate Bekensale did in UNDERWORLD with the shooting of a circle around herself and dropping to the floor below . . .after 400 rounds of ammo - they gave up!

Could you PLEASE describe to all on this thread the difference in the image quality that you see watching dalies - versus what we see in a movie theater.

Funny, I just read an article about Battlestar Galactica in last months American Cinematographer. For the boxing episode which had kinda slow motion, they did exactly that with their Sony F900. For most other slo-mo scenes above 120fps, they shoot film.
Yes, I should have cited my source!

The slow motion scenes back in seasons 1 and 2 were shot on film. The boxing scene and the last scene in that same episode (the shocker climax to season one) both have slow motion scenes that were shot on film. In fact there's a little hint that this frame came from negative film:

http://home.pacifier.com/~scowl/hdtv/BSGHair.jpg

Since then they've switched to the using the 60i plus deinterlace method if I remember the article correctly.

Wait, I may be getting some of it mixed up too. Are they using a Sony F900 with Panavision lenses?

>>Do you remember the "Compact 35mm" Format?
They wanted to go to 30 FPS and use 3 perf 35mm. They figured out that it was the same film budget as 5 perf 24 FPS. More for 1.85 movies.>>

It was CDP - Compact Distribution Print. 30fps was only an 'optional' part of it to be implemented later. It made a lot of since because a lot of film is wasted with 1.85:1 films on standard 4-perf 35mm. It was promoted by Dr. Richard Vetter (developer of D-150), Todd AO and United Artists Theaters. A 'change over' kit would allow a projector to be switched over to the CDP in less than 5 minutes.

We've already had a real 30fps film format, 70mm Todd AO - of course, only the first two films were shot at 30fps. It makes a huge difference in the quality of the image.

I am contiuously amazed that inovative people are out there designing ever reaching new camera technologies and capabilities. I'm probably considered something of a heretic with regards to digital cinema. I am actually quite critical of film projection because it can go so bad and often does. Detrimental problems like gate weave, poor registration, and under-lamping really drive me nuts. A top notch digital cinema presentation is breathtaking. Frankly, even what we are able to achieve at home now is making major challenges.

That takes me to the question about dailies. Projected film dailes have several advantages going for them: a 1st generation print (no scratches, no dirt); a projector that is meticulously maintained (no gate weave, perfect registration, perfect film movement); a dedicated projectionist who wants to keep his job and reputation (when is the last time you saw a projectionist use a monocular from the booth to permit him to see focus better?); and a lamp house that is going to nail the luminance spec. The environment is not perfect, but after a long day, you can live with that. Dailies are a fun time. Food and drink are brought prodigiously because it is the only time you have before its time to hit the rack.

Dailies for The Getaway were set up in a large meeting room in the Shiloe Inn in Yuma...for the time were were in Yuma. Also had them in Prescott, AZ which doubled for Deming.

Have you seen this report before Cam Man?

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf

It compares Digital to Film as seen at the theater.

Wait, I may be getting some of it mixed up too. Are they using a Sony F900 with Panavision lenses?
Yes, Panavised Sony HDW-F900 CineAlta with Panavision Digital Primo lenses.

Have you seen this report before Cam Man?Lee, thank you very much for this. I haven't seen it. I skimmed it and can see that this provides much of the science that explains much about my perceptions about the subject. This will make a good study/read.

That is one of a handful of optical artifacts of anamorphic cinematography. Interestingly, there are those in and out of the business that love it or hate it. Jim Cameron hates it. A lot of us in the biz consider them a bit of endearing insider knowledge (98% of movie goers would never notice these), and don't find them objectionable. Personally, the anamorphic gate kick seen in night scenes when there is a bright light in the darkness, is the most distracting. The photographed area is so close to the edges of the aperture gate, that a bright source will reflect harshly off the edge of the highly polished stainless steel gate (frame) and cause a strange horizontal streak across the frame. This is called anamorphic gate flare.

Gate flare as well as the distorted bokekis also purposely used to some effect in movies as well, no?

Here are some examples from David Mullen, A.S.C. that he recently provided on the RED forum:

Gate Flare:
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/logansrun1.jpg


Distorted background (using anamorphic):
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/startrekfive4.jpg

Comparison shot (using spherical):
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/startreksix3.jpg


The effect can be very cool for some moods... especially the gate flare in dark/sci-fi movies.

Frankly, I'm not really sure I do either. :o But I think it's akin to how a DSLR's raw mode works. It's not just an uncompressed image, but the actual unprocessed sensor data, so you can do things like go back and change the white balance in case you happened to have set it wrong when you shot.

Anyway, I think Zodiac was the first time the Viper was used this way. I think the Red camera also has a RAW mode.

RED does indeed use RAW. As a matter of fact, it's not a mode, but the primary way in which the camera is operated. That is, the raw Bayer-pattern sensor data is lightly compressed, without any color or gamma correction, de-mosaicing, etc... and stored.

Then, all of that rest of that process happens in post. This allows exactly what cam-man was referring to earlier: worrying about exposure while shooting, and then giving you maximum flexibility in post for light level, gamma response (i.e.- applying an "S" shaped curve as Cam referred to), etc...

Very cool stuff.

RED has some framerate flexibility as well, depending on what resolution you are shooting at (i.e. 4K or 2k).

I really look forward to what RED will produce. Steven Soderberg and Peter Jackson have already either shot feature films on them, or have tested early units and expressed interest in doing so.

Cool stuff.

Great photos. I'm not sure what the two photos of Spock are demonstrating for us. Upon looking at the two photos, I don't see any characteristic that would suggest that the first shot of Spock is anamorphic. This is a somewhat wide focal length, wide aperture/stop, with the actor not very far from the camera...which results in rather shallow depth of field which makes the background soft; a good close-up. I see no change in the geometry of the details in the background that would indicate anamorphic. The Vulcan Kim Cattrall visible reveals this is ST VI which is on record as being shot Super 35. What does your source (David?) indicate was the purpose of the comparison?

As a footnote, I did ST: First Contact which was anamorphic. All the interior practical sources of light (monitors, displays, and other odds and ends) dictated a stop of T3.2. That is a challenging low stop for depth of field in anamorphic. Primarily C-series used...also E 180mm.

Great photos. I'm not sure what the two photos of Spock are demonstrating for us. Upon looking at the two photos, I don't see any characteristic that would suggest that the first shot of Spock is anamorphic. This is a somewhat wide focal length, wide aperture/stop, with the actor not very far from the camera...which results in rather shallow depth of field which makes the background soft; a good close-up. I see no change in the geometry of the details in the background that would indicate anamorphic. The Vulcan Kim Cattrall visible reveals this is ST VI which is on record as being shot Super 35. What does your source (David?) indicate was the purpose of the comparison?

As a footnote, I did ST: First Contact which was anamorphic. All the interior practical sources of light (monitors, displays, and other odds and ends) dictated a stop of T3.2. That is a challenging low stop for depth of field in anamorphic. Primarily C-series used...also E 180mm.

You've got some great experiences. That must be fascinating work.

Here are David's words regarding the Spock shots (as I don't want to mis-state the point he was intending):

All of the "Star Trek" features were shot in anamorphic except for "Star Trek 6", the only one shot in Super-35. I found a frame from each that are similar enough to see the difference in how the background goes out of focus in anamorphic (Star Trek 5) versus spherical (Star Trek 6):

Personally, it appears to me that the monitors have a "taller" aspect ratio in the anamorphic shot, but it's hard to tell with the focus.

Also, this was another example of creative use of anamorphic gate flare folks here might appreciate:
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/akeelah7.jpg

Thanks a lot for your insight in this discussion... I find it very interesting.

My pleasure.

That's helpful...to confirm the shots are from different features. You may be right about the monitors, but it is really tough to tell, therefore not very important in the big scheme of things in this shot.

Much more obvious is the shallower depth of field, and it appears that this is what David is referring to. For any given shot and stop, an anamorphic shot will have considerably less depth of field. For this reason, it is much easier to get that selective focus look to close-ups in anamorphic...but tougher to keep in focus what needs to be. This is not an undesireable characteristic.

This is purely subjective opinion, but I really like the look of the single of Spock. I love the shallow depth of field and low-key lighting. It looks like it comes from a feature, not a TV movie or show. IMHO, that somewhat intangible property is desirable if you want to look that way. The second photo from ST 6 could be on the Sci-Fi channel. Anamorphic is only used for features on the big screen. Unlike many others, I like that there are signs that reveal the movie's cinematographic roots. It tells me that this is a feature, it is hard to do, they spent more time money and effort to get it to me, and it looks cool. :)

DPs work at getting that soft bg look when shooting spherical by working at very low light levels of T2 or so, depending on the focal length. Getting this look is even tougher with 2/3" HD cameras because there is so much depth of field. On interiors with those cameras, I'm always at T2 and longer focal lengths so that I have some selective focus.

Great photos. I'm not sure what the two photos of Spock are demonstrating for us. Upon looking at the two photos, I don't see any characteristic that would suggest that the first shot of Spock is anamorphic.
What I see is a predominance of vertical circles of confusion:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/startrekfive4.jpg

Every point of light that's out of focus is taller than wider. Almost everything on the monitors is vertical.

Also the bokeh has that "harsh" look that is common with bargain spherical lenses in still photography. You'll see a similar effect with lenses that have cheap five bladed apertures. I'm sure anamorphic lenses have far more than that but the effect is very similar. If a spherical lens looked like this, no professional still photographer would use it.

As a footnote, I did ST: First Contact which was anamorphic. All the interior practical sources of light (monitors, displays, and other odds and ends) dictated a stop of T3.2. That is a challenging low stop for depth of field in anamorphic. Primarily C-series used...also E 180mm.
David Mullen wrote a thread on how split diopter lenses were used extensively in the movie to keep as much of the frame in focus as possible (possibly setting a record). He said that in some cases they even used two of them to keep three areas in focus at the same time. He posted several examples.

Also, this was another example of creative use of anamorphic gate flare folks here might appreciate:

See, here's another "cultural" difference between motion photography and still photography. D.P.'s talk about how they just looooove flares in anamorphic lenses. In fact there was an article in A.C. about how they sometimes use anamorphic lenses in CSI just to get the pretty flares (they stretch it in post).

To those of us who grew up doing still photography, flare is bad! Flare must be avoided at all costs! It will ruin your best shots and at a minimum it will create needless distractions from your main subject. For example I took this shot directly into the setting sun (I didn't have a lot of time to react) and it damn near ruined a classic end-of-the-season moment:

http://home.pacifier.com/~scowl/Shockwave/Corvallis2/106.jpg

I spent about an hour mopping up the flares in that one. There are even a couple of parts of the photo that are completely fake.

My pleasure.

...

This is purely subjective opinion, but I really like the look of the single of Spock. I love the shallow depth of field and low-key lighting. It looks like it comes from a feature, not a TV movie or show. IMHO, that somewhat intangible property is desirable if you want to look that way. The second photo from ST 6 could be on the Sci-Fi channel. Anamorphic is only used for features on the big screen. Unlike many others, I like that there are signs that reveal the movie's cinematographic roots. It tells me that this is a feature, it is hard to do, they spent more time money and effort to get it to me, and it looks cool. :)


I agree. It does feel "big production".

What I see is a predominance of vertical circles of confusion:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/startrekfive4.jpg

Every point of light that's out of focus is taller than wider. Almost everything on the monitors is vertical.

Ahh yes! That reminds me of another example that David posted:
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/bringoutdead1.jpg

His comment regarding it:
Here is a frame from "Bringing Out the Dead" which shows the points of out of focus lights becoming ovals instead of circles.


Also the bokeh has that "harsh" look that is common with bargain spherical lenses in still photography. You'll see a similar effect with lenses that have cheap five bladed apertures. I'm sure anamorphic lenses have far more than that but the effect is very similar. If a spherical lens looked like this, no professional still photographer would use it.


David Mullen wrote a thread on how split diopter lenses were used extensively in the movie to keep as much of the frame in focus as possible (possibly setting a record). He said that in some cases they even used two of them to keep three areas in focus at the same time. He posted several examples.

Very interesting.

See, here's another "cultural" difference between motion photography and still photography. D.P.'s talk about how they just looooove flares in anamorphic lenses. In fact there was an article in A.C. about how they sometimes use anamorphic lenses in CSI just to get the pretty flares (they stretch it in post).

To those of us who grew up doing still photography, flare is bad! Flare must be avoided at all costs! It will ruin your best shots and at a minimum it will create needless distractions from your main subject. For example I took this shot directly into the setting sun (I didn't have a lot of time to react) and it damn near ruined a classic end-of-the-season moment:

http://home.pacifier.com/~scowl/Shockwave/Corvallis2/106.jpg

I spent about an hour mopping up the flares in that one. There are even a couple of parts of the photo that are completely fake.

Wow! It's not very often the kids football game shots get an hour in post! That's great.

Good point about the different disciplines... there are a bucnh of special FX plugins for ADDING flare in post! And video games now incorporate it in their rendering engines...

It sounds like a bit of technical elitism on both sides of the fence. I like many of the artifacts of anamorphic, and like it for more unusual reasons because I am part of that world. I wouldn't consider telling a still photographer he should have flare in his shot ;) but I might suggest your beautiful shot might have some flare in it that is lower in exposure than the other picture content, therefore concealing it.

Cinema lenses in general are very succeptable to optical flare. We struggle against flare at night and on dark interiors because there are often sources of light...sometimes even a reflection...outside the frame that will sneak in. I have sat at a camera more than once with the first AC and a grip struggling to control a bit of light getting to the front lens element only to be told by the director and/or DP that if there is any flare, it is a good thing. :rolleyes::D The worst flares are ones that are faint and unmoving. They are sometimes tough to see in time to fix.

Every point of light that's out of focus is taller than wider. Almost everything on the monitors is vertical.

Ahh yes! That reminds me of another example that David posted:

Wow, very different shots. So are both equally unacceptable to some? I contend not. The latter is a pretty poor choice of shots, IMO, because it so exacerbates this artifact and distracts. Frankly, I wouldn't offer up that shot on a show if it were spherical for the same reason. If it hasn't been said, let me say that there is always a consdierable amount of judement that should go into all the elements of choosing and composing a shot. That is typically left to the operator to inconspicously make decisions about. A DP may even tell his operator to be careful when he is setting up frames for fear that something the DP finds undesirable will unintentionally be temporarily framed that the director may see at video village and like. Then the DP has to try to talk the director out of it. It happens all the time. Obviously, this does not happen with some directors who are powerfully autocratic.

Wow, very different shots. So are both equally unacceptable to some? I contend not. The latter is a pretty poor choice of shots, IMO, because it so exacerbates this artifact and distracts. Frankly, I wouldn't offer up that shot on a show if it were spherical for the same reason. If it hasn't been said, let me say that there is always a consdierable amount of judement that should go into all the elements of choosing and composing a shot. That is typically left to the operator to inconspicously make decisions about. A DP may even tell his operator to be careful when he is setting up frames for fear that something the DP finds undesirable will unintentionally be temporarily framed that the director may see at video village and like. Then the DP has to try to talk the director out of it. It happens all the time. Obviously, this does not happen with some directors who are powerfully autocratic.

I certainly wasn't meaning to imply any of the shots were unacceptable. Nor was, I believe, David. Just illustrations of the physical characteristecs of the lnses that allow for some creative choice.

I just thought they were good illustrationns some here might like to see.

If your comment wasn't directed at me, then never mind. ;)

If your comment wasn't directed at me, then never mind.
Certainly. It is more thown to the gallery. There are those here that have been quite opinionated. I would be one of those in a way, but not as a campaign, but purely as an opinion of an insider who is sharing that perspective. That is what you were doing, too. David does a good bit of "teaching", and this kind of thing is very much in character with that. It is educational rather than an agenda of some kind. Still, conclusions are drawn when comparisons are presented. The photos are just too good to not do so.
I threw in my $.02 and explained why. I look forward to hearing the opinions of others which are bound to come.

This is indeed a fun thread.

DPs work at getting that soft bg look when shooting spherical by working at very low light levels of T2 or so, depending on the focal length. Getting this look is even tougher with 2/3" HD cameras because there is so much depth of field. On interiors with those cameras, I'm always at T2 and longer focal lengths so that I have some selective focus.

Interesting - in a film camera, if you want to open up the lens to lessen depth-of-field, you can add ND filters. But adding ND filters to a video cam wouldn't work the same way (at least a consumer cam) - it would also add noise. Can this be fixed with ND and variable "shutter speeds" in the more sophisticated pro video cams?

Certainly. It is more thown to the gallery. There are those here that have been quite opinionated. I would be one of those in a way, but not as a campaign, but purely as an opinion of an insider who is sharing that perspective. That is what you were doing, too. David does a good bit of "teaching", and this kind of thing is very much in character with that. It is educational rather than an agenda of some kind. Still, conclusions are drawn when comparisons are presented. The photos are just too good to not do so.
I threw in my $.02 and explained why. I look forward to hearing the opinions of others which are bound to come.

This is indeed a fun thread.

Excellent.

I happen to think lens anamorphic lens a unique quality (think "UFO lights in a balck sky) for some material. And I like the grainy film stock choice in others. Or the stylized coloring (Matrix).

What's particularly interesting to me is how many times I'll NOT notice it until a second or third viewing (or screen shot), but realize it had nonetheless imparted a "feeling" to me at the time.

Good stuff.

It sounds like a bit of technical elitism on both sides of the fence. I like many of the artifacts of anamorphic, and like it for more unusual reasons because I am part of that world.
My theory is that our brains just associate the look to the lens we know it came from. I see what looks like "harsh" bokeh to me and I associate it with an $80 lens. You associate it with huge expensive hunk of anamorphic glass that many people love.

I wouldn't consider telling a still photographer he should have flare in his shot ;) but I might suggest your beautiful shot might have some flare in it that is lower in exposure than the other picture content, therefore concealing it.
This wasn't the pretty round blob of flare you see in films. This was a big wash of the sun wiping out the lower part of the image. I don't think still photography lenses are designed to handle flare as well as cinema lenses -- once a light source gets into the lens the wrong way, it often makes a huge mess of everything in it. It also didn't help that the sun was just setting and was lighting a lot of the horizon so the flare wasn't a single point source of light.

The worst flares are ones that are faint and unmoving. They are sometimes tough to see in time to fix.
Yes, if your pictures move the flare can move and just be a temporary thing and seem natural as the camera moves. In still photography you just have that annoying mess in your shot forever.

Interesting - in a film camera, if you want to open up the lens to lessen depth-of-field, you can add ND filters. But adding ND filters to a video cam wouldn't work the same way (at least a consumer cam) - it would also add noise.
Oh we use NDs on both camera a lot, more so on exteriors, especially on 2/3" HD cameras! You don't increase noise if you keep the exposure correct. If I have complete control of the light (no practicals are affecting it), then I just light to the stop necessary to achieve the depth of field I need. If doing a day exterior that is at 16 or 22, we're going to ND down several stops so that the correct exposure is at a 4 or wherever we want it. If you ND and don't open up, you will underexpose...and add noise, too.

My theory is that our brains just associate the look to the lens we know it came from. I see what looks like "harsh" bokeh to me and I associate it with an $80 lens. You associate it with huge expensive hunk of anamorphic glass that many people love. I think that is exactly true. But I must tell you that I became aware of the "look" of an anamorphic movie when a kid before I ever heard of an anamorphic. The BIG movies had that look, but I couldn't describe it.

What's particularly interesting to me is how many times I'll NOT notice it until a second or third viewing (or screen shot), but realize it had nonetheless imparted a "feeling" to me at the time. That says a ton. It is the ideal reaction according to filmmakers. It is also why some of us must go back to watch a movie to figure out what it was that got our attention. Fun stuff.

Guys . . . I have to post this imge:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/Bladerunner.jpg

Every point of light that's out of focus is taller than wider. Almost everything on the monitors is vertical.
Scowl, I went back take a look at the anamorphic single of Spock to try to see what you mention in this shot. I am using the monitors as the primary reference for geometry of the bokeh, too. The fourth monitor from screen left is the most straight on to us and it has the most screen area illuminated which lets us see the whole screen. Those screens still look very close to 1.33 AR. The depth of field is not shallow enough to throw the bokeh into vertical orientation. What do you mean by "...everthing on the monitors is vertical" ? The program content on the monitors may be in columns, but the AR of the screens is not stretched vertically enough to not still look like 1.33. My point is that this shot is most likely set up so that the bokeh is not noticable or distracting, therefore well-crafted, unlike that in the shot with Nicholas Cage. If you see/detect something else that clearly screams anamorphic in that shot, tell us.

So, what's up with that Blade Runner frame that has a spherical optical flare in a movie shot anamorphic? :D

So, what's up with that Blade Runner frame that has a spherical optical flare in a movie shot anamorphic? :D

It's an effects shot, and unless I'm mistaken, all the effects shots in BLADE RUNNER were shot and composited in 65mm spherical, then reduction printed to 35mm anamorphic to be intercut with the non-effects 35mm anamorphic Panavision footage :)

Vincent

It's an effects shot, and unless I'm mistaken, all the effects shots in BLADE RUNNER were shot and composited in 65mm spherical, then reduction printed to 35mm anamorphic to be intercut with the non-effects 35mm anamorphic Panavision footage :)

Vincent

Not mistaken, 65mm. In fact, they were supposed to have scanned the original 65mm elements for the Final Cut restoration, then re-composited them digitally.

EDIT: The original 1982 issue of Cinefex devoted exclusively to Blade Runner was reissued in a hardcover edition as Blade Runner: The Inside Story, if anyone is interested.

RED does indeed use RAW. As a matter of fact, it's not a mode, but the primary way in which the camera is operated. That is, the raw Bayer-pattern sensor data is lightly compressed, without any color or gamma correction, de-mosaicing, etc... and stored.

Then, all of that rest of that process happens in post. This allows exactly what cam-man was referring to earlier: worrying about exposure while shooting, and then giving you maximum flexibility in post for light level, gamma response (i.e.- applying an "S" shaped curve as Cam referred to), etc...

I think some of the look can be applied on set in a non-destructive way using some sort of metadata using this system, right? Then tweaked in post?

I really look forward to what RED will produce. Steven Soderberg and Peter Jackson have already either shot feature films on them, or have tested early units and expressed interest in doing so.

I think Peter Jackson shot a WWI short with a couple of pre-production models, and Soderberg was actually shooting a feature with some of the first finished cameras.

Mods, can this get moved to the HDTV General Software thread so we can get more input on this greatly informative and fun to read thread?

You are depriving the DF crowd, and many BD only members, of the most informative thread I have read on AVS since I have been a member.

It's an effects shot, and unless I'm mistaken, all the effects shots in BLADE RUNNER were shot and composited in 65mm spherical, then reduction printed to 35mm anamorphic to be intercut with the non-effects 35mm anamorphic Panavision footage :)For the 70mm release, they did something atypical: blew up only the 35mm non-effects footage and used the original 70mm effects footage (avoiding a couple of extra reduction/enlargment printing steps).

BTW, the lens flare was photographed as a separate pass using their motion control camera. The light was shot through a thick fibre optic cable, which was always pointed directly into the camera lens. This way, you always saw the same perfectly circular lens flare no matter which side of the spinner you were looking at. Sorta like Mickey Mouse's ears.

Sanjay

I think Peter Jackson shot a WWI short with a couple of pre-production models, and Soderberg was actually shooting a feature with some of the first finished cameras.

I just got back from shooting a few days of behind-the-scenes on the movie Game (from the guys who did Crank). They're using the RED camera (they actually have 6 of them, I believe) and the footage looks amazing. It's weird to be on a set and instead of hearing "Check the gate!" you continually hear, "Check the cards." Overall, I was really impressed with the look this camera creates and it's unusual because it has completely eliminated the need for dailies. Instead of drinking while we watched dailies, we'd just go out drinking!

Seeing as how the topic of discussion is lens flare - I thought I would post another image from Blade Runner:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/spinner.jpg

As before - and the explaination is dead on - normal circles in an anamorphic film

I think some of the look can be applied on set in a non-destructive way using some sort of metadata using this system, right? Then tweaked in post?

Indeed. Exposure information can be applied real-time to the monitoring outputs (viewfinder, LCD, etc...), but is simply stored as metadata along with the raw sensor data. You then can apply this data in post, along with gamma correction. or tweak, or change the exposure entirely, etc...

Nothing is "baked in" at record time.... you can make those decision in non-realtime after the shot. The only thing you HAVE to nail are the exposure clip points and focus. Very cool stuff.



I think Peter Jackson shot a WWI short with a couple of pre-production models, and Soderberg was actually shooting a feature with some of the first finished cameras.

Yes. PJ shot a short called "Crossing the Line" using two pre-production beta cameras ("Boris" and "Natasha"). Part if this has been exhibited at some shows on a 4K projector. ;) Jackson is rumored to be planning on using the camera for his next movie, "Lovely Bones"

Soderberg is/has been shooting "The Argentine" and "Che" on RED. Another couple of feature films are in process now, and a number of commercial ads/videos have already been done with it.

It truly looks to be a significant (if not revolutionary) step in digital cinema.

Mods, can this get moved to the HDTV General Software thread so we can get more input on this greatly informative and fun to read thread?

You are depriving the DF crowd, and many BD only members, of the most informative thread I have read on AVS since I have been a member.

DF?

I just got back from shooting a few days of behind-the-scenes on the movie Game (from the guys who did Crank). They're using the RED camera (they actually have 6 of them, I believe) and the footage looks amazing. It's weird to be on a set and instead of hearing "Check the gate!" you continually hear, "Check the cards." Overall, I was really impressed with the look this camera creates and it's unusual because it has completely eliminated the need for dailies. Instead of drinking while we watched dailies, we'd just go out drinking!


That's awesome, Cliff. What were they using for the on-set monitoring? Do they have an EVF yet?

DF?

Dual Format

Speaking of digital

Wasnt it so that the director of Superman wanted to watch filmdailes of the shoot. That really takes away the benefit of shooting digital if you have to make filmouts of your digital work.

What do you mean by "...everthing on the monitors is vertical" ? The program content on the monitors may be in columns, but the AR of the screens is not stretched vertically enough to not still look like 1.33.

This may very well be my brain misinterpreting what I see, but the content on these monitors that is in focus enough to see a clear shape seems to have more tall shapes than wide shapes.On the lower monitors on the left I see six vertical shapes while the shapes that seem to be more horizontal are blurrier. On the right the vertical content on the monitors stands out while the horizontal seems blurrier.

That may just be what the art department put on the monitors or the angle that we're seeing the monitors but it's consistent with the bokeh I've seen in anamorphic movies. Look at the stuff below the monitors. The vertical lines stand out while the horizontal lines seem more out of focus. This may also be a coincidence or the effect of something else but again, it's consistent with what I've seen with anamorphic bokeh -- vertical contrast is more in focus than anything around it so it jumps out. This is similar to the bokeh created by five-bladed apertures. Anything with contrast that lines up with the blade points will be more in focus which can make backgrounds look rough if they're full of random lines of contrast like leaves or people in seats.

Also still photography lenses are designed to have softer out of focus backgrounds at the expense of making closer out of focus objects look rougher (look at the player on the left in my shot). I don't know if cinema lenses are designed this way. There's a scene in Alien where there's an out of focus object in the foreground and it looks like a big ugly blob to my eyes. :)

Seeing as how the topic of discussion is lens flare - I thought I would post another image from Blade Runner:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/spinner.jpg

As before - and the explaination is dead on - normal circles in an anamorphic film

I used to be very careful about adding proper anamorphic lens flare elements into anamorphic films and spherical for spherical. I've also worked with supervisors and directors who insisted on everything being consistent. Now more often than not I'll get directors asking for those "big blue line flares" on films if given the option of choosing so really lens flare "continuity " is out the window these days.

I've also worked on Vista material that's then had scope lens flares added to it to cut with scope 35mm live action.

Defocusing is usually done to match the intended footage though: lenticular circles of confusion for scope films.

Scope flares in movies just look "more" like a 'big' Hollywood film, to me. I love em!

BTW, what does the "APO" in Apo-Panatar mean? In my last job as an iWerks (IMAX) projectionist, our standard 35mm projector had a HUGE lens that had APO marked on it... I think it was a Schneider lens or something like that I believe - it cost us $40,000, was custom made for our short throw, and filled the 5 story screen from side-to-side, which the 'standard' scope and flat lenses couldn't do - I rarely used it, however, because 35mm looked so bad blown up like that!

It's an effects shot, and unless I'm mistaken, all the effects shots in BLADE RUNNER were shot and composited in 65mm spherical, then reduction printed to 35mm anamorphic to be intercut with the non-effects 35mm anamorphic Panavision footage :)

Speaking of Blade Runner... thanks for ruining it for me, Cam Man! That movie must have set the record for anamorphic gate flares. Every last freakin' light that hits the lens has an annoying horizontal line that my brain has been ignoring for 25 years! :)

Surely there must be some way to design an anamorphic lens that doesn't flare like that.

I just read through this whole thread, fascinating stuff. I've noticed that gate flare before and it's usually used to dramatic effect, so I always naively thought it was intentional! I think I also associate it with like a half-flare reflection...like if the sun was half set yet reflecting of something, you might get a line like that in real life. Probably not, but that's what my imagination thinks. Also, the Stargate CG effect is reminiscent of this, like the stars tapering off sideways...I think I am just used to it.

Also, I usually can tell what shows/movies come from which decade...is this more the camera technology changing or just the way the scenes are shot, and by that, like in the original Star Trek shows, they used to light the face for effect but that didn't continue on into later decades. Is that what I'm seeing or is it the recording devices/media used?

A year or so ago the MTV awards program used cameras all set to 24p. It did not look live. A significant mistake.


Thanks for bringing that up. I saw those awards live and I thought they just didn't "look right"-like they weren't happening live right at that moment. However, I knew nothing about video vs. film at that time, so it was just strange feeling like what my eyes were seeing didn't know match up with what my brain was interpreting as what "reality" looked like. (I don't know if that makes sense;it's very hard to explain.)

I guess maybe I was so used to only seeing films in 24fps and to me that meant something that was usually fictional and happening in some other time and place.

I wonder if this is something inherent in the human visual system or is just a habit from seeing live stuff (news,etc...) in 30fps.

Wow! It's not very often the kids football game shots get an hour in post! That's great.

Good point about the different disciplines... there are a bucnh of special FX plugins for ADDING flare in post! And video games now incorporate it in their rendering engines...

The lens flare in video games is getting ludicrous. Since games are starting to get somewhat photorealistic (see Crysis on the PC), game designers are starting to add it in to make it look more "real", but it's obvious they don't know what they're doing and it's very over done. Newer "bloom lighting" is especially bad: everything is starting to look like it's glowing from within (see Halo 3).

Take it from someone who is a pretty hardcore gamer: you video guys need to consult game programmers so they can get better,more realistic visuals. Games are especially atrocious when it comes to color accuracy (not that is always the goal in games);the game industry does not adhere to standards very well.

Hehe...

The goal of many movies in not to always depict reality, but rather evoke an emotion or feeling, so lens flare there often IS intentional, and one of the reasons anamorphic optics are selected.

Ditto with video games. When you are battling alien species on ring-like constructs floating in space, I don't think some "embellished" lighting for dramatic effect is beyond reason. ;-)

Hehe...

The goal of many movies in not to always depict reality, but rather evoke an emotion or feeling, so lens flare there often IS intentional, and one of the reasons anamorphic optics are selected.

Ditto with video games. When you are battling alien species on ring-like constructs floating in space, I don't think some "embellished" lighting for dramatic effect is beyond reason. ;-)

Ditto. Just like Speilberg likes to use a backlit subject defocused to introduce an important character (Close Encounters, A.I.), it's an aesthetic tool. Does anyone remember the trailers for Maximum Overdrive, when the Green Goblin truck's headlights come on and cast that evil blue horizontal flare into the lens?

The goal of many movies in not to always depict reality, but rather evoke an emotion or feeling, so lens flare there often IS intentional, and one of the reasons anamorphic optics are selected.

As a still photographer, the only emotion lens flare invokes in me is anger and frustration because it just ruined my shot. :D

It must be great to work in a branch of photography where ugly bokeh and distracting lens flare are considered things of beauty!

This thread disappeared for a while. Glad to see it back. I don't have anything to say, but I'm enjoying reading your posts and observations.

As a still photographer, the only emotion lens flare invokes in me is anger and frustration because it just ruined my shot. :D

It must be great to work in a branch of photography where ugly bokeh and distracting lens flare are considered things of beauty!

I'm sure it is for DOC filming as well. Lens flare obscuring the eagle snatching the rabbit is not welcomed.

But when the spaceship lights pop up up over the horizon and a glowing luminescent blue streak shoots form either side to fill your field of view giving you a sense of foreboding and awe, it may very much be welcomed.

And are you telling me that a bokeh in which the alien in the background is obscured and then slowly revealed as Ripley turns around to face it is "ugly"?

Puh-leeze! Different story types benefit from different tool palettes.

Ditto. Just like Speilberg likes to use a backlit subject defocused to introduce an important character (Close Encounters, A.I.), it's an aesthetic tool. Does anyone remember the trailers for Maximum Overdrive, when the Green Goblin truck's headlights come on and cast that evil blue horizontal flare into the lens?

Yes... great effect!

And are you telling me that a bokeh in which the alien in the background is obscured and then slowly revealed as Ripley turns around to face it is "ugly"?
Could you tell me exactly which scene this is? I'd like to review it before state an opinion on it.

Puh-leeze! Different story types benefit from different tool palettes.
Absolutely. Unfortunately anamorphic lenses only give you one palette -- rough bokeh. If you want the soft misty bokeh of a spherical lens, you're going to have a tough time getting it. That's why I think so many anamorphic films have used a lot of diffusion, especially ones made in the 70's. It smooths out the rough bokeh and gives a softer background.

Now I can easily give any spherical lens rough bokeh by putting something in front of the lens. A net works very well. Shooting through a vertical or horizontal slit or through a box snoot will also give a similar effect.

Could you tell me exactly which scene this is? I'd like to review it before state an opinion on it.


Absolutely. Unfortunately anamorphic lenses only give you one palette -- rough bokeh. If you want the soft misty bokeh of a spherical lens, you're going to have a tough time getting it. That's why I think so many anamorphic films have used a lot of diffusion, especially ones made in the 70's. It smooths out the rough bokeh and gives a softer background.

Now I can easily give any spherical lens rough bokeh by putting something in front of the lens. A net works very well. Shooting through a vertical or horizontal slit or through a box snoot will also give a similar effect.

Oh, I have no idea if that's even a real scene... much like my "spaceship" example, it was just to illustrate the concept I've seen many a time. Sorry of throwing the real character name in there seemed otherwise.

Nonetheless, maybe I'm mis-reading you, but it feels like you are dismissing the particular distortion that anamorphic provides (lens flare, bokeh that changes shape as you rack focus, etc...) as not attractive, period. I think there are many features where that look throughout the movie is what the DP was wanting.

Check for instance the deliberate lens flare used to great effect on David Mullen A.S.C.'s website: http://davidmullenasc.com/page4/page7/page7.html

Could you tell me exactly which scene this is? I'd like to review it before state an opinion on it.


Absolutely. Unfortunately anamorphic lenses only give you one palette -- rough bokeh. If you want the soft misty bokeh of a spherical lens, you're going to have a tough time getting it. That's why I think so many anamorphic films have used a lot of diffusion, especially ones made in the 70's. It smooths out the rough bokeh and gives a softer background.

Now I can easily give any spherical lens rough bokeh by putting something in front of the lens. A net works very well. Shooting through a vertical or horizontal slit or through a box snoot will also give a similar effect.

This is probably why 65mm was often used in special effect shots (and Vistavision) which could be "down printed" to 35mm anamorphic and still preserve the lens flare.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/12420071856.jpg

Nonetheless, maybe I'm mis-reading you, but it feels like you are dismissing the particular distortion that anamorphic provides (lens flare, bokeh that changes shape as you rack focus, etc...) as not attractive, period. I think there are many features where that look throughout the movie is what the DP was wanting.

I'm saying that I don't find it attractive since it's very much like the awful bokeh you see in cheap still photography lenses with five bladed apertures. I really love the smooth misty bokeh I get with my spherical lenses and that's what I see in movies shot with spherical lenses. I don't see how anyone could prefer a chunky rough background over a smooth background.

The lens flare is a cool effect but I've never seen it do anything but distract from what's being photographed. Isn't that what's important?

The lens flare is a cool effect but I've never seen it do anything but distract from what's being photographed. Isn't that what's important?

Sometimes obscuring the subject is the intended purpose, like a figure emerging from inky blackness, or a shadow across the face of a backlit character. Remember Desperado? You weren't supposed to see the Mariachi's face in the first scene... it was always in the shadow. The lens flare can be used in a similar way.

This thread disappeared for a while. Glad to see it back. I don't have anything to say, but I'm enjoying reading your posts and observations.

Well we need to change that! Get you once again involved in this thread. It is such a rare treat to actually converse with one of the people who is actually behind the camera on some of the films we have all enjoyed watching.

Can you get us started again? We seem to have dead ended on the subject of lens flare. Maybe give us a list of the films you worked on? Funny stories? Nightmare stories?

Please.:)

Well we need to change that! Get you once again involved in this thread. It is such a rare treat to actually converse with one of the people who is actually behind the camera on some of the films we have all enjoyed watching.

Can you get us started again? We seem to have dead ended on the subject of lens flare. Maybe give us a list of the films you worked on? Funny stories? Nightmare stories?

Please
Thanks for your kind comment and request. It has gotten wrapped up in flares and bokeh, huh? I'm not sure I have the ability to shift things.

I've watched the Blade Runner Final (HD-DVD) cut twice this week on a 122" CIH screen. I spent significant effort to try enjoy the movie and the gorgeous images, look for how shallow the depth of field was, and the quality of the bokeh and other artifacts. The depth of field was brutally shallow much of the time. Some of the close-ups would be as shallow as what appears to be an inch or so. Harrison's upper lip might be in focus, but neither eye sharp. That is just insanely difficult to stay on top of. Actors will move that much just breathing. IMHO, the operator and focus puller need to speak to the DP at a time like that and see if he can give them another stop or so for the close-up. I don't envy those guys on that show.

In general, I am not sensitive to the bokeh issues...unless they scream like that hidious Nick Cage shot posted earlier.

I don't think I mentioned that most DPs and camera guys on anamorphic shows will try to avoid gate flares in scenes other than night shots where it is virtually impossible to avoid. In the night environment, it has kind of gotten commonly accepted. In other than night shots, we try to avoid them. Anamorphic gate flares occur most easily when a bright source like a light bulb is near (even just outside) the edge of the frame. In a day interior shot we have to watch this a bit since we have no "expectation" of them in that environment.

Not sure I can remember all the anamorphic shows...since they are a few years back. Twister, A Time to Kill, Star Trek: First Contact, Posse, The Getaway. Others I'm sure.

I just interviewed with a writer/director to be considered to shoot a small feature (a wonderful script...Mr. Action flick here, but this is a romantic comedy somewhat like My Big Fat Greek Wedding). It would not seem to lend itself to a 2.35 format on that description. The question of shooting super 16 with a DI was even brought up. I suspect it will go 35mm 1.85...but since there are two very impressive ethnic weddings, I'd like to see it go Super-35 2.35. Hope I get it.

Thanks for your kind comment and request. It has gotten wrapped up in flares and bokeh, huh? I'm not sure I have the ability to shift things.

I've watched the Blade Runner Final (HD-DVD) cut twice this week on a 122" CIH screen. I spent significant effort to try enjoy the movie and the gorgeous images, look for how shallow the depth of field was, and the quality of the bokeh and other artifacts. The depth of field was brutally shallow much of the time. Some of the close-ups would be as shallow as what appears to be an inch or so. Harrison's upper lip might be in focus, but neither eye sharp. That is just insanely difficult to stay on top of. Actors will move that much just breathing. IMHO, the operator and focus puller need to speak to the DP at a time like that and see if he can give them another stop or so for the close-up. I don't envy those guys on that show.

In general, I am not sensitive to the bokeh issues...unless they scream like that hidious Nick Cage shot posted earlier.

I don't think I mentioned that most DPs and camera guys on anamorphic shows will try to avoid gate flares in scenes other than night shots where it is virtually impossible to avoid. In the night environment, it has kind of gotten commonly accepted. In other than night shots, we try to avoid them. Anamorphic gate flares occur most easily when a bright source like a light bulb is near (even just outside) the edge of the frame. In a day interior shot we have to watch this a bit since we have no "expectation" of them in that environment.

Not sure I can remember all the anamorphic shows...since they are a few years back. Twister, A Time to Kill, Star Trek: First Contact, Posse, The Getaway. Others I'm sure.

I just interviewed with a writer/director to be considered to shoot a small feature (a wonderful script...Mr. Action flick here, but this is a romantic comedy somewhat like My Big Fat Greek Wedding). It would not seem to lend itself to a 2.35 format on that description. The question of shooting super 16 with a DI was even brought up. I suspect it will go 35mm 1.85...but since there are two very impressive ethnic weddings, I'd like to see it go Super-35 2.35. Hope I get it.

WOW!

I asked for a few crumbs . . .

You gave us a 7 course meal!

:D

I'm saying that I don't find it attractive since it's very much like the awful bokeh you see in cheap still photography lenses with five bladed apertures. I really love the smooth misty bokeh I get with my spherical lenses and that's what I see in movies shot with spherical lenses. I don't see how anyone could prefer a chunky rough background over a smooth background.

The lens flare is a cool effect but I've never seen it do anything but distract from what's being photographed. Isn't that what's important?

I certainly respect your opinion. I find that it can be used to great dramatic effect, however:

Oblong distortion of backround objects:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1333&d=1191138975

Dramatic back-lighting:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1334&d=1191138975
http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1335&d=1191138975

Dual flares backlit... the image conveys a sense of something overpowering the individual people:
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/logansrun8.jpg

The background "stretches" away:
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/apocalypse3.jpg

Agian I believe it's a matter of subject and style. I don't expect this in a National Geographic documentary. But anamorphic certianly has it's place in Blade Runner and Apocalypse Now.

Thanks for your kind comment and request. It has gotten wrapped up in flares and bokeh, huh? I'm not sure I have the ability to shift things.

I've watched the Blade Runner Final (HD-DVD) cut twice this week on a 122" CIH screen. I spent significant effort to try enjoy the movie and the gorgeous images, look for how shallow the depth of field was, and the quality of the bokeh and other artifacts. The depth of field was brutally shallow much of the time. Some of the close-ups would be as shallow as what appears to be an inch or so. Harrison's upper lip might be in focus, but neither eye sharp. That is just insanely difficult to stay on top of. Actors will move that much just breathing. IMHO, the operator and focus puller need to speak to the DP at a time like that and see if he can give them another stop or so for the close-up. I don't envy those guys on that show.

In general, I am not sensitive to the bokeh issues...unless they scream like that hidious Nick Cage shot posted earlier.

I don't think I mentioned that most DPs and camera guys on anamorphic shows will try to avoid gate flares in scenes other than night shots where it is virtually impossible to avoid. In the night environment, it has kind of gotten commonly accepted. In other than night shots, we try to avoid them. Anamorphic gate flares occur most easily when a bright source like a light bulb is near (even just outside) the edge of the frame. In a day interior shot we have to watch this a bit since we have no "expectation" of them in that environment.

Not sure I can remember all the anamorphic shows...since they are a few years back. Twister, A Time to Kill, Star Trek: First Contact, Posse, The Getaway. Others I'm sure.

I just interviewed with a writer/director to be considered to shoot a small feature (a wonderful script...Mr. Action flick here, but this is a romantic comedy somewhat like My Big Fat Greek Wedding). It would not seem to lend itself to a 2.35 format on that description. The question of shooting super 16 with a DI was even brought up. I suspect it will go 35mm 1.85...but since there are two very impressive ethnic weddings, I'd like to see it go Super-35 2.35. Hope I get it.

I hope you do too. Pulling for ya...

In general, I am not sensitive to the bokeh issues...unless they scream like that hidious Nick Cage shot posted earlier.
An artifact that we camera guys and mp lens designers are always very concerned about is breathing. This occurs (or is most obvious) when the lens focus is changed quickly...most commonly in what we call a "flip"...from or to a foreground or background character or object. It can be so pronounced as to change picture to what appears to be a different focal length (tighter or wider). This can be particularly distracting on an anamorphic show because the bokeh geometry changes greatly. Breathing can also a problem with some spherical lenses...particularly zooms. There is a shot in the original Star Wars (SW Episode 4) when the two droids are communicating with the humans trying to get to the Mellinium Falcon to escape the Death Star. There is a moment when C3po says something like "Come on, R2. We're leaving." The breathing in the flip from the Falcon to the droids (or is it vice versa) is very pronounced. Not a good thing to do if you can avoid it.

Cam Man

I believe you said you picked up the HD title Blade Runner. Have you had a chance to watch the DVD - Dangerous days - the making of Blade Runner yet?

You mentioned POSSE - was that the Mario Van Pebbles western?

I just wanna say that I love the "look" of anamorphic and that this thread is a great read!

That is one of a handful of optical artifacts of anamorphic cinematography. Interestingly, there are those in and out of the business that love it or hate it. Jim Cameron hates it. A lot of us in the biz consider them a bit of endearing insider knowledge (98% of movie goers would never notice these), and don't find them objectionable. Personally, the anamorphic gate kick seen in night scenes when there is a bright light in the darkness, is the most distracting. The photographed area is so close to the edges of the aperture gate, that a bright source will reflect harshly off the edge of the highly polished stainless steel gate (frame) and cause a strange horizontal streak across the frame. This is called anamorphic gate flare.

I like those effects! They give to me a higher sense of wonder.

I like those effects! They give to me a higher sense of wonder.

I always thought those effects were intentional...Especially in Ridley Scott films and yes i think they look great on film too. ( Maybe i'm confusing lens flare with this gate flare though )