Anamorphic S8

[Alex]

That's kind of like saying if God had intended us to shade lights, he would have made them with barn doors.

Wide angle has many amazing characteristics.

Some of the most creative time-lapse shots use wide angle. Even just steadying a shaky camera is a valid reason to use one...(assuming telephoto is not required)

Watch a car race with wide angle lenses attached...pretty exciting stuff.

-Alex

------------------

Sorry Nigel, as Ekoe and Mr. Obvious pointed out below, I mistook the word anamorphic for aspheric, the wide angle lens I talk of is called an aspheric wide angle lens.

I've never used an anamorphic lens.

-Alex

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited August 21, 2001).]

[ekoe]

alex,
anamorphic is not just wide angle. i don't understand your post.

nigel,
i hear what you say, but within a single grain, there is optical clarity. putting too much information on film results in overexposure, as film reacts to light. anamorphic simply compresses the optical image. the degradation of signal occurs due to aberration of the lenses.
your lense is already doing what an anamorphic lens would do.
from a purist approach, of course it's not legit. but it's a great concept that works. and it's fun. it certainly beats masking a frame/neg.
also, to the best of my knowledge, this is the same technology incoporated in broadcast/professional 16:9 switchable video lenses.
e

------------------
a movement is accomplished in six stages, and the seventh brings return.

[Matt Pacini]

You guys are making assumptions that are not the reality of anamorphic.

It is in fact higher resolution, IF one is going to end up with any widescreen aspect ration.
The reason is, that there are two ways to end up with widescreen:

1. Shoot anamorphic, utilizing the entire image area of the film, while squeezing the wide information onto the almost square image area of the film.

2. Shoot non-anamorphic widescreen, which means YOU HAVE TO CROP THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE IMAGE AREA!!!!
This reasults in a huge loss of image area, and it is THIS which results in less resolution.

If you're intending to end up with just regular TV/video aspect ration, then stick with non-anamorphic.
Matt Pacini


------------------

[MrObvious]

Yes, Alex seems to think Anamorphic is simply wide angle, because he suggested the Eumig Nautica PMA lens as a low-cost anamorphic option. I have that lens and it is a wide angle lens, not an anamorphic. Weird.

Anyway, I was hoping to win a particular auction but I fell asleep and missed it.

Anyway, some day.

Marc S.

------------------

[MrObvious]

P.S.

I don't think you can say that true anamorphic has MORE resolution... it has more information, but the SAME resolution. The film grain and lens combination has a standard resolving power. The grain size is not increasing or decreasing, correct?

So if your resolution stays the same while your projected image is expanded... your resolution density is actually decreased.

Marc S.
(hack)



------------------

[mattias]

if you're after 16:9, you'd have to cut as much off the sides on an anamorphic shot as you would top and bottom on a spherical one. you need a special 16:9 squeezer to fully utilize the negative (or positive) area.

/matt

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrObvious:

Yes, Alex seems to think Anamorphic is simply wide angle, because he suggested the Eumig Nautica PMA lens as a low-cost anamorphic option. I have that lens and it is a wide angle lens, not an anamorphic. Weird.

Anyway, I was hoping to win a particular auction but I fell asleep and missed it.

Anyway, some day.

Marc S.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't seem to think anamorphic is merely wide angle.

Yes, I did make a mistake, I was thinking aspheric when I read anamorphic.

-Alex

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MrObvious:
[B]P.S.

"I don't think you can say that true anamorphic has MORE resolution... it has more information, but the SAME resolution. The film grain and lens combination has a standard resolving power. The grain size is not increasing or decreasing, correct?"


(Matt Pacini responds):
Again, this depends on whether you are gooing after widescreen or not.
If the answer yes, then you either crop off the top & bottom, (thereby losing resolution) or you use Anamorphic, and use the entire area of the film.

If you are NOT going widescreen, then don't shoot anamorphic, because then you must crop from the sides to get back to the almost square aspect ratio.

Also, keep in mind that when you telecine Super 8, they crop some of the frame horizontally, because I guess it's actually a little wider than true 1.33:1 aspect ratio, therefore, if you use anamorphic, you can use this extra image area.

Matt Pacini

------------------

[MrObvious]

Indeed. The only reason I would use anamorphic would be for widescreen purposes, and in my case, for projecting only. It is true that a 2x anamorphic will produce much more projected image area than the 16X9 format, necessitating cropping of the sides. So if that's what you're after, the advantages are minimal in my opinion.

But if you intend to shoot anamorphic and project anamorphic, as I do, I think it's really worth a look.

I just bought a Singer 16-D lens (identical to the Kowa 16-D, I'm told) and I already have a bracket for my Beaulieu R16 that will hold it very nicely in front of my 10mm, 25mm, and 75mm primes. I'm gonna shoot some old 400ASA reversal stock in 16mm and see how it projects. Obviously the principles are the same for super 8, unfortunely I don't have a bracket right now. Maybe in the future. Anyway...

I'm going to move into a loft space in the next few months and I simply can't wait light up a 30' x 12' wall with an anamorphic projection from 40' away.

Ooh-la-la!

Marc S.

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MrObvious:
[B]
"It is true that a 2x anamorphic will produce much more projected image area than the 16X9 format, necessitating cropping of the sides. So if that's what you're after, the advantages are minimal in my opinion."

(Matt Pacini responds):
You are assuming that all anamorphic adapters are 2X aspect ratio, and they're not.
They have them in all widescreen formats from 1.66:1 to 2.35:1.
Also, you're assuming that all projectors project at 16x9 (or at least it sounds like your saying that) and they don't. In fact, I don't think there is a projector that is 16x9, is there?
16x9 is not any kind of universal format, certainly for projection.
Maybe for HDTV, but one could still letterbox in that format from a wider original if they wanted to.
Keep in mind, that I'm looking to possibly digitize my footage hi-res., and at some point output to 35mm neg for theatrical projection, so I could go 2.35:1 or whatever I wanted to at that point, and either letterbox, or crop for video.
I'm weighing the options, but at this point, since my awesome anamorphic lenses don't fit, I'm back to shooting 1.33:1 again!


Matt Pacini

------------------