Cinemascope addiction?

Quote:
I guess I would have to be the odd man out and say. "Yes!"


I also think that John Ford said "more" with his Academy Standard framing than *anything* done by either Speilberg or Lucas or Jackson regardless of whatever frame that triumvirate has chosen.




ted

Here's another reason (as if you need one), but from another perspective. Anamorphic cinematography is the biggest and brightest 35mm format, and the most challenging to do well/right (maintaining focus is a BEE-OTCH due to the shallow depth of field). All of the camera department has to be specifically very experienced with the format due to its many indiocyncracies, and still have to really be on their game every minute. When you see a picture shot anamorphic (and there are not as many as there used to be since the Super 35 path to anamorphic release has gotten so good) that is really done well, it's all the more reason to relish the experience...because some very skilled folks busted their chops to deliver it that way.


Here's a little homework for you. There is a rather small pool of First Assistant Cameramen who are career First ACs because they are at the top of their game and the most difficult game; anamorphic. Search the credits of the top blockbuster anamorphic pictures. You will consistently see names of First Assistant Camermen like Michael Weldon, Baird Steptoe, Richard Mosier, Alan Gitlin, etc. It is a rather small elite. The First AC's most visible contribution is focus.


As a camera operator I can tell you it is the most fun, but also the most difficult at times. Focus is the buggaboo again. On a spherical show, it is easy for the operator to see the focus and help the First AC during the shot by whispering a little coaching ("Deeper, closer"). Unfortunately, the viewing optics for anamorphic are a bit strange, and seeing the focus can be difficult. The operator has the choice of viewing in normal geometry (deanamorphized) or squeezed. The 2.35 viewfinder image is much smaller (greatly letterboxed) which makes the image too small to see fine focus detail. Watching squeezed gives a full-height image, but framing and watching for things takes some getting used to with such drastically squeezed geometry.


My point is that sometimes the AC is on his own and I am often amazed at how they somehow find the focus with little to go on but experience. Fortunately, there is new technology that is coming on line to help them.


Just a bit of inside triva.


Cheers

Theories and observations about Scope: I have noticed the depth of field focus issues – they appear to me to be more natural looking than the “everything is in focus†flat films – there is something unnatural about everything being in focus regardless of how “far away†it is. Blue horizontal flares from bright objects in scope files – I assume this is an anamorphic camera lens artifact – these add atmosphere to some files: “The Thing†and Christine are examples. I would assume that sometimes they are not intentional and are not wanted – an example might be Solaris, there is a scene with a blue flare over the eyes of a character – but in thinking about what happens with that character later (perhaps overanalyzing it) – it might be foreshadowing. I’m sure there are other anamorphic artifacts that I will notice as I watch more. Something else that occurs to me is that while our eyes have a very large horizontal and vertical field – our attention is focused in a scope shaped area. Also – this might sound funny: vehicles – the windshield on vehicles is more scope shaped than flat, and it has a border around it just like our scope screens – is this conditioning us in some way? OK – I might have wandered off into the “Land of Scope†a little here….

Yup, those are some artifacts...that sometimes are "tolerated" and even maybe add to night effects (headlights, etc). It is known as gate flare. The light coming right into the lens zings off the edge of the stainless steel aperture gate in contact with the film. The anamorphic frame area is so big there is not the equivilant of overscan; the edge of the photgraphed frame is right out there at the edge of the aperture gate. The intense light zings off the shiny steel and streams across the frame of film. The cylidrical anamorphic element makes it only stream across in the axis of the squeeze (horizontally).


An optical aritfact in night scenes is the give-away that the show was shot anamorphic rather than spherical super 35. Distant out of focus points of light will not be spherical fuzzballs; they are vertically aligned eliptical fuzzballs.


Some directors love anamorphic while others hate it (Jim Cameron), finding the artifacts distracting. One additional idiocycracy that affects the DP (director of photographer aka cinematographer) is that most anamorphic lenses are slower than spherical lenses, and per the depth of field issue, you don't want to be at too low a stop. Also some lenses series become very unreliable regarding focus below a certain stop. This means more light is needed; more and bigger lighting gear, more $$, etc.


Lenses are even quirky by serial number. The ACs I mentioned in the previous post actually get to know them by SN and "collect" them to be used as "their" lenses on the movies they do. Panavision is very cooprerative on this with those high powered ACs.


The AR is more friendly to car windshield shots helping eliminate seeing above the cab and the hood, although sometimes that works against you. On Twister there are a ton of those kinds of shots. We had to be careful though to not see off the edges of the windshield to the outside. This was because the weather was supposed to be dark and stormy when the weather that summer ('95) was terribly hot, sunny, dry drought. All the windows were tinted down dark, and we slammed a lot of light in through the front and stopped down the camera. This meant we had to have Helen sit a little closer to Bill than might seem normal to help. It was not so easy for Bill to do the same since the steering wheel kind of gives it away.

As a director, I love the 2.4 format and can appreciate the pros and cons of both anamorphic and Super 35. First of all, Super 35 with an optical extraction is really not preferable to me as a general rule unless the increase in grain is serving some aesthetic point. Super 35 via a digital intermediate levels the playing field a bit. You lose some of the cool optical anomalies that you get with anamorphic -- horizontal flaring, the elliptical bokeh, vignetting -- but you do get deep-focus possibilites that you can't get with anamorphic. A lot of guys love the shallow DOF look, many friends included, and I do as well if used carefully. It's very easy to slide into that Ridley/Tony Scott super-compressed thing -- total cliche from the 80s. But check out the way David Fincher composes shots. He works exclusively in Super 35 and prefers the 27mm as a starting point and rarely goes long unless it's an insert. A 27mm in 1.85 is too wide, but in 2.4 it looks just like (to me) the human field of vision. It's very pleasing to my eye. The same effect is not exactly possible in anamorphic (without a huge amount of light, and even then you'll get distortion along with the DOF).


As with all matters creative, I say the form must follow the function. So, depends on the story.