Originally Posted by FendersRule
Just about all of his other films you see these "abnormalities" more seldomly. However, anamorphic lenses are the fine case of having much greater "pros" than "cons". First, they simply just show you more of the setting/surrounding by how they bend the light (creating wider frames). Secondly, they simply make the movie look more on a "grander" scale rather then just using a standard 16:9 lens which is more amateurish IMO (what any camcorder will do). Third, and perhaps most importantly, they make empty sets look very full, which helps if you are a small budget (which John Carpenter is always).
If I was a filmmaker, I would put anamorphic lenses on a pedestal and jack it to them and forget about everything else. I would use nothing else,.
I totally disagree thats its his most obvious "anamorphic" film , Starman, Christine even Big Trouble all look archetypically scope.
Anamorphic lenses usually result in softer images because of aberration internal flaring and the fact the lenses tend to be a couple of stops slower than spherical ones. This results in relatively shallow depth of field for the same light levels ( by virtue of having to open up the slower lens). This is mainly why they appear soft not because the lenses themselves are soft per se. Give them enough light and the images should appear quite sharp.
Anamorphic shoots use pretty much the entire academy film frame to generate the image (1828x1556 2k) , Super35 (spherical) uses a crop across the fullap film frame (2048x155 2k) and may or may not expose the entire fullap frame during shooting.
Dean Cundey is about as far away from an "amateur" as you can get.
Some Super35 films shoot 3 perf (2048x1156 at 2k) to save film stock. This is becoming more common from what I've seen.
Spherical lenses are not 16:9 as and of themselves , they are 1:1 (square pixel if you want to think of it digitally). Anamorphic is 2:1. Spherical lenses used in professional film production are as far away from a camcorder lens as the international space station is from a garden shed.
Given the disadvantage of shooting anamorphic for the somewhat limited improvement if film area usage given the possibility of resolution limitations I see hardly any films shot scope these days (I've worked on only about 3 scope films out of around 100 in my career so far).
I for one would not use anamorphic over Super35 unless I wanted a specific "look". I don't regard anamorphic lenses as being inherently superior to Super35 just "different". Scope lenses are also very heavy in practical terms.