It’s all about sensor size in Red One and Anamorphic lenses on it.
Red say: Physical Size 24.4mm x 13.7mm (Super35mm) 1.78
Active Pixel Array 4520 (h) x 2540 (v). This is 1.78
Full Pixel Array 4900 (h) x 2580 (v). This is 1.89
Ok, what’s Full Pixel and Active Pixel? Is the Full Pixel Array what we see as surrounding view in the viewfinder, what is not on the recorded image?
Then, what are the pixels and sensor sizes for 4K 16:9 and 4K 2:1?
And, As long as Anamorphic lenses are made for putting a 2.35 or 2.40 image in a Normal 35mm area which is 20,95 mm x 17,52 mm for Panavision and 22x18,6 for Arri, what comes out of putting then on the Red One camera? For its sensor doesn’t have the proportion.
Full is what is on the chip. Active is what you actually see including the look-around area outside captured picture, so ignore Full. But neither of these is the number you should use, since while you can define the resolution you use on the camera you cannot define it that large. 4K means 4096. To figure out the ratio of your image you divide by that to get the appropriate vertical resolution. In the case of 2:1 it is 2048. It's actually much easier to figure this out if you just do the math based on the fact that each photosite is a 5.4 micron square. Multiply that by 4096x2048 to get the physical size of the sensor.The sensor is about the same width as Academy aperture but is significantly shorter than the near Full aperture in the "standard" anamorphic 2.40 spec. So you will not get the proper framing or field of view from your anamorphic lenses. If a frame is natively 2:1 and you use a 2x anamorphic, the result after de-squeezing the image will be a 4:1 frame! If you wish to use 2x anamorphics to get a standard 2.40 frame, then you will need to crop the sides in post, which will also lower the effective resolution of the image. This is what Soderberg did in "Che." Or you could shoot on a Phantom HD or Arri D21 which do have sensors of the correct size. Mitch Gross
Also take into consideration that in Build 18, 2x Anamorphics are supported. This is equivalent to cutting the side off as Mitch has mentioned in post. Either way you slice it, its cropping.
4K 16:9 is 4096x2304 ( full active pixels)
4k 2:1 is 4096x2048
4k ANA is 4096x1364
On Anamorphic productions I've shot both 2x Lomo Anamorphics with Spherical in 4k 16:9 cropped to 2:40 in post for wide angle and telephoto shots.
Or you could just shoot with Hawk Vlite 1.3X
Anamorphic lenses designed for the RED sensor aspect as well as the F35 :
Very True. I'd be curious to know how many complete sets are in Spain? or Germany even? Very well designed glass.
Cinema Data Tech
Phantom | Red | Codex
No no no!!!
Anamorphics use the full height of the sensor, so you will use the full 2540 pixels high. You will multiply by 1.175 to get the correct width for 2.35:1 acquisition (anamorphic is 2.35 acquisition and 2.40:1 projection) 2540 x1.175 =2985 pixels wide
You will print this 1.175:1 image onto your film stock for distribution
The projector lens will unsqueeze it into 2.35 on the screen.
The logig is quite the same with the D21, which has a 1.33:1 sensor, and not a 1.175:1. So you crop less, but you still crop "pillar box" from 1.33 to 1.175.
The only solution to use the full sensor width is to use Hawk 1.3X anamorphic system.
With these VERY RARE lenses, you use the full 1.78:1 sensor, squeeze it by 1.33X to get 2.35:1 with a milder anamorphic effect.
Aside from all the numbers and math, pillar boxing is pillar boxing.... the interesting side affect is more depth of field, and the anamorphic distortion.... plenty of anamorphic lenses work well but its only the Panavision brand that easily give you those killer flares.Another thing to consider is old lenses on a digital acquisition camera... the lack of quality or anomalies that become obvious can be quite an issue. with that said though if your whole show is shot with these lenses you might be fine, just don’t start swinging lenses from old to new... it will become very obvious. That’s my 2 cents for 2009
Jim wrote:>>but its only the Panavision brand that easily give you those killer flares. Jim This might interest you Blue Flare to go: http://www.vantagefilm.com/en/news/news_2005-09_01.shtml Michael Bravin
I looked at some old Todd-AO lenses at Clairmont that had a good flare to them, also.Best, Graham Futerfas
I'd love to rent/try a set of these filters [Vantage Films "Blue-Vision"]....anyone know who would have a set in the US.cheers, Jeff Barklage, s.o.c.
Jim wrote:>>but its only the Panavision brand that easily give you those killer flares. I love it when a bug becomes a feature... Microsoft would be proud! Tom Tcimpidis
I have a Set of LOMO Anamorphics that I use on my Music Video's but at a stop of T2.8+. I know a few Music Video DPs who would love to try something else besides a Streak filter.Thanks for the post, Dane Brehm
Tom Tcimpidis wrote:>>I love it when a bug becomes a feature...? Microsoft would be proud! Yeah, I don't get what it is about the blue streak flare that people like in the PV anamorphics? It is a defect that has become a badge of honor I guess. Since so many shoot super 35 2.35 / 2.40 with the easy advent of the DI process, the blue streak shouts "I shot mine with REAL anamorphics!!"
Jeff Barklage wrote:>>I'd love to rent/try a set of these filters [Vantage Films "Blue-Vision"]....anyone know who would have >>a set in the US? Otto in LA has a set. Don't scratch 'em, I think they are 10k to replace.
>>I love the anamorphic look and feel but don't care at all about the blue flare or fanfare shoutingSo I'm imagining a _fictitious_ historical conversation regarding the design parameters for the Genesis between John Galt and a Sony engineer, and John's trying to explain the mystique of the PV flare to the Sony guy, who doesn't speak much English, and John finally ends the conversation sure that the engineer understands him. Months later, the first camera arrives, they boot it up and point it into a light, and there's that magical blue flare line... but... it's... vertical!
Todd-AO anamorphics what we use once shooting anamorphic flare elements (flashbulbs on black) for the trailer for "The Fan". Seemed some of the best horizontal flare to luminance matte in. Now there's probably software plugins without the optical serendipity.Mark Doering-Powell
Roberto Schaefer, asc
>>I love the anamorphic look and feel but don't care at all about the blue flare or fanfare shouting "I >>shot mine with REAL anamorphics!"
I agree with you Roberto, until you compare real anamorphic with super 35, you really have no idea. and by comparison I mean same situation swap cameras, process print project side by side. it’s a very different way of telling a story.
The Blue flare is just a cool side affect. but the reality is in my opinion that is, if you’re not shooting full aperture 35 and real anamorphic lenses your just spinning your wheels, like shooting an Imax film on an f900, sure you can blow it up, by why?
For the record, Panavision does not advise using anamorphic lenses on the genesis from what I am told at least.. basically the genesis is not full aperture, and again that pillar boxing..Isn’t that where this all began?
Anyway, all fun and games, I’m just saddened by the dumbing down and compromising that we are all subject to. I’m still a purist at heart, maybe that’s my problem.
I have shot multiple projects on RED with anamorphics and will keep doing so. I generally get lots of great comments about the artifacts created by the anamorphic lenses...but I have never been in a post house where the grader, client or anyone else has made comment or noticed any lack of resolution, or sharpness, even on those expensive post house hd monitors.
I don't shoot everything anamorphic for obvious reasons... but I find that it's nice to have the extra tools available when required.
Jim Matlosz wrote:>>RS wrote: "I love the anamorphic look and feel but don't care at all about the blue flare or fanfare >>shouting "I shot mine with REAL anamorphics!"
>>but I have never been in a post house where the grader, client or anyone else has made comment >>or noticed any lack of resolution, or sharpness, even on those expensive post house hd monitors"
After film out and project on a 40' screen?
RegardsChan Chi Ying
Roberto Schaefer, ASC:>>I love the difference in the look. I just don't care for the blue flare." I have to strongly agree with Roberto; I've never understood the love of these type of flares. Of course, it is a matter of personal taste; but I find them very distracting. I can think of one recent example that really had me shaking my head. In the latest Indiana Jones picture lensed by the talented Janusz Kaminski, whose work I usually greatly admire, there were so many flares throughout movie that really took me out of the narrative. In fact, there was one scene inside a tent with several practical’s in the shots, each creating it's own horizontal streak across the frame, making it sometimes hard to follow the action. By comparison, a couple nights before, I had the pleasure to also see projected the first Indiana Jones feature so beautifully lensed by Douglas Slocombe, BSC; it was also in Panavision anamorphic, but without all these distracting flares. While we're on the subject, I've always found it quite curious that animated productions often add CGI flares. I suppose this is in order to add to a sense of realism, as in for example the opening of "Wall-E". I would think this should suggest the opposite of reality, that it is a scene being photographed by a camera and film crew. So I also agree, as Roberto seems to suggest, there are messages being delivered by the inclusion of flares aside from just their aesthetic. Whether it's "this is being shot with a camera, and not CGI", or "look at me, I'm shooting anamorphic; (just in case you couldn't tell)". James Mathers
>>While we're on the subject, I've always found it quite curious that animated productions often add >>CGI flares.As a vfx guy, I've shot a number of "flare libraries" over the years so that compositors could "grace" their shots with the necessary flares ...sometimes it is to add the light source flare notably absent when filming miniatures against black velvet but helpful when you add the sun in the shot later...With regard to flares in Wall-E and other animated projects, I think this reinforces my spiel about "visual vocabulary" in the sense that the flare makes it look like a "real movie" even though we know that "no cameras were used in the making of this picture."
Mark H. Weingartner
LA-based VFX DP/Superv
I like the blue anamorphic flare just because it's a bit different.
The occasional flare can be interesting, but as with everything too much is distracting. It's the quirks that make it interesting, as long as the quirks remain minor characters and don't become the leads.
Mark H. Weingartner wrote :>> With regard to flares in Wall-E and other animated projects, I think this reinforces my spiel about >>"visual vocabulary" in the sense that the flare makes it look like a "real movie"... I agree. I think this goes to the more general issue of "reality" and "movie reality." Flares are part of that, but there are also such things as night exteriors looking blue, copious amounts of light and shadow in those same night exteriors, hospital rooms looking green, and numerous other visual representations that are different than what your eyes and brain might perceive in the real world, yet familiar enough as movie conventions that they aren't questioned. Mike Most
>>Flares, lens distortions, motion blur, and other artifacts of photochemical 24fps recording of live >>scenes have become so ingrained in the vocabulary that their presence is less noticeable than >>their absence.At the start of digitally captured projects, post houses would often apply film grain to create an illusion that film was the capture medium. When something of very high quality also has attributes which aren't normally considered desirable on their own (grain, flicker, etc), we will often associate these attributes with (in this case) film in attempt to diminish the new medium's shortcomings (dynamic range, gamut, etc). Greg Ciaccio
>>When something of very high quality also has attributes which aren't normally considered >>desirable on their own (grain, flicker, etc), we will often associate these attributes with (in this case) >>film in attempt to diminish the new medium's shortcomings (dynamic range, gamut, etc).With all due respect, IMHO that's a bit Eeyore :-) There are good technical reasons to add film grain irrespective of cultural conditioning - to dither the image, which can give the illusion of greater bit depth, make it easier to watch by giving it a kind of Brownian life, and protect against the ravages of 8-bit presentation (MPEG-2). Plus, the need to match digital sources and film sources together. Film is inherently very noisy, but it's a good noise, so we don't mind. The difficulty in my experience is the pseudo-randomness and sampling grid evident in most grain algorithms. http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Pooh-Benjamin-Hoff/dp/0140067477 Tim Sassoon
>> At the start of digitally captured projects, post houses would often apply film grain to create an >>illusion that film was the capture medium.…and, of course, digital matte paintings, CG elements, and multi-element comps as seen in photochemically shot motion pictures all have grain added to them so that they match...funny how people can complain about something being noisy and too clean at the same time... and be right. Mark H. Weingartner
The difficulty in my experience is the pseudo-randomness and sampling grid evident in most grain algorithms...which is why I have been encouraged to shoot full frame "grain maps" for different stocks for use in "re-graining."oops... another secret revealed Mark H. Weingartner
>>...which is why I have been encouraged to shoot full frame "grain maps" for different stocks for use >>in "re-graining."Another good reason to shoot a few seconds of full-frame 18% gray card, flat lit. It's a really good VFX practice, every bit as valid as taking "room tone" audio. Tim Sassoon
>>Another good reason to shoot a few seconds of full-frame 18% gray card, flat lit. It's a really good >>VFX practice, every bit as valid as taking "room tone" audio.Sufficiently defocus the gray card, the film grain will pop out. Do this for stills as well.
Well that clears things up!
We live in a blury holographic projection of grainy space-time. No evidence thus far of anamorphic flares.
CML has just published the "Little RED Book"
This book is an edited collection of conversation's during 2009 about ways to use the RED one and how to get around any problems you may encounter.
Impress others with your knowledge!
Be the envy of your friends!
Buy it today!
Available as an A5 book or a PDF if you just can't wait!