Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
iwander_lust

Unsqueezing footage

Recommended Posts

I have tested mine at 58mm and 85mm and the results were pretty much the same at 1.41 stretch factor - at least with my lenses and setup - that would be a 70.9% squeeze. I have found several other reports online that confirm this as well. Unfortunately that gives you an akward 2.5 aspect ratio that I have been cropping down to 2.4 or 2.35, taking advantage of the extra resolution for slight reframing. Sometimes you can get away with using 1.5 but I noticed that 1.5 didn't look right when shooting people which is why I tested to begin with. I find that 1.41 looks way better in those situations and I can't bring my self to use 1.5 anymore since I know it is wrong. 

 

 

I have to chime in here after reading a couple of these posts, especially this one quoted above...  I've recently been shooting with my Isco pre 36 a lot lately, and I too started noticing that 1.5x made people look weird as well, it's just NOT right.  To the point where I spent several hours one day and specifically shot stuff to test this theory.  I came to a conclusion of 1.43x after many painstaking hours in photoshop doing photo comparisons of anamorphic vs non.  And yes, the next question comes down to what aspect ratio to shoot at with such a strange aspect ratio as 1.43x, and get it as close to 2.4.0 as you can out of the bucket...  my next experiment...

 

Isco's seem to be a 1.4Xx stretch NOT 1.5x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

2.54:1 is close to some older anamorphic processes.  Unless you're doing something commercial or going to DCP you don't really have to sweat hitting 2.35:1 - 2.40:1 exactly.  Getting a viable 16:9 version of something becomes the big headache no matter the anamorphic ratio, for some commercial applications.

 

It's not unheard of for lenses to be mismarked or the original designers to just be off in their estimation.  Apparently there are a slew of Ultra-Panavision lenses listed as 1.33x when it's actually a 1.25x compression format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My new workflow for proper aspect ratio:

 

shoot at 1920x1152 desqueeze to 2754x1152  @ 1.435x for actual 2.39.1 (for Iscorama)

 

The design condition for an anamorphic lens is always at the infinity focus state (afocal rule). So if a lens is stated at 1.5x it means this is true only for an object focused at infinity. 

 

Objects focused at close range will exhibit lower stretch, perhaps as low as 70% of the rated stretch at say 0.5m. This is the reason behind the mumps phenomenon in projected films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Objects focused at close range will exhibit lower stretch, perhaps as low as 70% of the rated stretch at say 0.5m. This is the reason behind the mumps phenomenon in projected films.

 

Panavision fixing this problem buried Cinemascope.  What was surprising to some Cinemascope engineers was learning that they did it, in those first Panavision anamorphics, with the very same B&L optics used in Cinemascope lenses.  I'd be very surprised if they didn't have a patent lock on doing this sort of variable astigmatising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that Panavision fixed the problem, I would go as far as saying that they botched it

 

anyone seeing the many focus pulls in these two recent movies for example:

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1430132/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1413495/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

 

will immediately witness that something is not right and is far from the complete fix offered in the new ARRi/Zeiss Master series.which are seamless optical perfection and that it has taken the industry 60 years to get the proper solution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They (Panavision) fixed the problem with Cinemascope being incapable of proper looking close-ups (mumps).  That is a simple truth.  Decreasing the breathing associated with anamorphic focus pulls is a different matter (that's not what you were talking about when I replied) and more a matter of taste.  The value of what Arri/Zeiss did is directly proportional to your like or dislike of the Panavision system.  For me it was a "problem" that didn't need to be solved, but, bravo.

 

 I like the look of anamorphic focus pulls in my favorite films from the '70s and '80s, which would not be meaningfully enhanced by the fairly clinical look these seem to bring, and would therefore never use these lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I wouldnt call the huge variation (referring to the examples quoted) in image height a breathing issue, but more a full-on zooming effect, which is quite similar to key framing out magnification changes in post.

 

Thankfully the ARRI/Zeiss solution fixes both as claimed in the bullet points at their site

http://www.arri.com/camera/cine_lenses/prime_lenses/anamorphic.html

 

Sure, they have a modern look but it is very easy to steal the transfer function and colour palette of any lens these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two crappy movies do not negate Die Hard, Apocalypse Now, Christine, Rushmore, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Blade Runner, etc., etc., etc. 

 

These Arris can't be digitally made to look the same any more than Panavision's own Primos can reasonably substitute for the C or B series or competitive post-Cinemascope packages from Kowa, etc.  These new anamorphics are for people who want what they have to offer.  There are, after all, folks who like Hawks or other mid/rear optic anamorphics.  They're not appealing to everyone.  The classic lens packages are not going to be collecting dust on rental shelves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wtf... my Isco is 1.4273 

 

Stupid isco-people should have had in mind that their amateur equipment will be intended for use in huge productions in the future...

 

On the other hand that news will put a lot of pressure on the price tag :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evining, forgive my stupid question, I am new to the anamorphic world, would you please help me out please?

I am trying to squeeze my first video which I have recorded in raw with magic lantern, the max resolution I can achieve  with my canon 60D is 1728x972 16:9 .

How should I go about it?

I am using an iscomorphot 8 1.5x with an helios 44  58mm.

I am using AE as software , how do I achieve that 2.65:1 ratio?

By now what I did is scaling down the footage by 67% on vertical axis and on the composition settings I have put width 1728 and hight 650.

Am I doing right? Or I am missing out something?

Or should I record 1920x1080 to have the proper cinemascope ratio?

I thank you very much in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...