anamorphic lenses and transfers

Post by **rurgis** » Sat Jun 21, 2003 4:52 pm

ahoj!
i was scrolling through different posts here, and a question popped up.
film(super 8 of course) shot with anamorphic lens attachments(like the ones from widescreensentre, or others), and transfered with a workprinter or whatever- how will it work?
do you need a lens attachment on your workprinter as well, or is it possible to reverse the image compression in an editing facility?

also- does anamorphic lenses affect the image quality in any way (other than the ratio)?

anyone who can help?

-jah

"despite its high costs- living remains popular"

Post by **rhcvatni** » Sat Jun 21, 2003 5:56 pm

You can do whatever you want to video in post, don't you know that. EVERYTHING! Of course you could fix it by putting a anamorphic lens on the projector/workprinter, but the only reason for doing this would be to project it or to transfer it to video in letterboxed 4:3. using an anamorphic lens lets you capture a wider image, but using all of the available resolution for a frame of super8 or whatever format. The image is stretched across the (ca.) 4:3 area. This is pefect for widescreen work and if you use an 16:9 lens/adapter the streched image will look normal(wide) on a widescreen tv and streched only on a 4:3 tv.

Post by BK » Sat Jun 21, 2003 6:43 pm

Capture normally as you would with a non anamorphic film, this gives you the 'best' quality. Then you can re-size in post, most of the more recent video editing programs even let you preview in the 16:9 ratio.

If you haven't seen it yet. The sample clips I uploaded a while back:-

ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video ... 0Scope.mpg

ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video ... 0Scope.mpg

Camera was Canon 1014E with Kowa 8Z Cinemascope lens, the film was projected onto white cardboard using a Eumig 810D projector, captured with Sony 3CCD TRV900, resized to fit TV ratio with some cropping in Avid Xpress DV.

Bill

Post by **rhcvatni** » Sat Jun 21, 2003 7:56 pm

Capture normally as you would with a non anamorphic film, this gives you the 'best' quality.

No it won't. If your final product will be in 16:9, using anamorphic lenses WILL provide the best result. You won't be able to adjust the frame in post as you would if you shot it non anamorphic 4:3 though, but that would be a tradeoff. Quality for whatever. A lot of times with hand held stuff it might not be framed "perfectly", and so shooting non anamorphic will let you adjust it in post. If your final product is 2,35 then the 16:9 lens will also give you option. If you just shoot normal 4:3 and crop it, you're just throwing away resolution. If you intend to transfer to video by means of anything but a professional telecine(that doesn't include WP) then I see little reason to go with the anamorphic lens though. You're degrading the quality so much with the transfer that the extra resolution won't matter.

Post by **sunrise** » Sat Jun 21, 2003 9:28 pm

I don't get rhcvatni's post.

Filming 16:9 format using anamorphic lens will give a sqeezed 4:3 frame, thus using the full frame and resolution of the film negative. If you're doing a DIY transfer, which seems to be you case, scanning the full frame in 4:3 will give you the full resolution and use the full camera chip (which is the what the anamorphic lenses from widescreen centre are for).

Do as much post production you can in the biggest resolution possible, and let the transfer to your final format be the last thing you do (of course doing previews along the way). Most computer editing software lets you do the correction of the aspect ratio easily.

As far as I know, the difference between the 2 formats are the pixel aspect ratio, if you do full screen 16:9. But someone might correct me on this.

Even if you plan to do letterbox 4:3 the best thing is to wait as long as possible with the correction of the format, so that you work in the highest possible resolution untill making your final version.

Another characteristic of anamorphic lenses is that you will get a loss of light. This can be a problem, but doesn't have to be if you have sufficient lights.

sunrise

Post by **rhcvatni** » Sat Jun 21, 2003 10:21 pm

I don't get rhcvatni's post.

Filming 16:9 format using anamorphic lens will give a sqeezed 4:3 frame, thus using the full frame and resolution of the film negative.

Well, so far we agree, although I would call it stretched and not sqeezed.

If you're doing a DIY transfer, which seems to be you case, scanning the full frame in 4:3 will give you the full resolution....

I Didn't get that DIY was the only option, but we still completely agree on the matter. The thing is, I think DIY's are so god damn crappy that I can't understand why the hell anyone would care about the extra resolution.

....and use the full camera chip (which is the what the anamorphic lenses from widescreen centre are for).

Hmmm. Do they say that? well the chip(whichever one in whatever system) is something that comes later on in the process. The anamorphic lens is made so that you can expose a wide image on the strip of film and use the entire area (all the resolution) available.

Post by **teadub** » Sat Jun 21, 2003 10:32 pm

i think rhcvanti and bk are saying the thing. maybe there's a misunderstanding somewhere along the line. shoot anamorphic, transfer 4x3, edit "squeezed", then digitally adjust your aspect ratio (for example in Final Cut under motion go the "aspect" and a change of one whole unit would go from from 1:33 to 2:66)

Shoot anamorphic. 1.5x (2:1 approx) 1.75x (2.25:1 approx) or 2x (2.66:1 approx), I am not sure about the newer 16x9 from the widescreen centre or century optics or optex. I think i depends on a few things anyway. Most camera's gate isn't a true 1.33:1 or a true 1.37:1 from what I hear. Cropping a bit is usually needed

light loss for most anamorphic 8 lenses is about 1/3rd of a stop, like the ones from kowa.

Post by **Petteri** » Sat Jun 21, 2003 10:47 pm

I just have to add, that "TV" resolution for different PAL formats are (as Sunrice said already):

4:3 - 720x576
16:9 - 720x576

Maybe this will help you to understand this question ;-)

But to Teadub... No the gates are not exact !

Here you can see picture taken from S8 frame with both (4:3 & 16:9) formats drawed into it:

http://puisto.org/kaita/kadonneetruudut/kuvasuhde.jpg

As you can see, when transfering with WP (or similar, as long it can read the actual film without any gates) it's no matter which format you will use, because you will lose abt. same amount information anyway ;-)

Petteri

Post by **sunrise** » Sat Jun 21, 2003 10:52 pm

The tecnical explanition from the widescreen centre is as follows:

A television has from a broadcast transmission 650 horizontal lines of information. Which is 562,900 pixels or picture elements. If a camcorder has a 'widescreen' setting it will cut off some of these lines to make the image more rectangular. The maximum horizontal resolution is now, at best, 487 lines or 421,742 pixels. A reduction of 25 percent. These 487 lines are then stretched up and down to fill the 750,750 available pixels on the widescreen TV. You can see that the electronics has to make some of the missing information up.

A Widescreen lens instead uses all the available imaging pixels in the camcorder. And optically gathers more picture area onto the cameras CCD chip. The full amount of pixels are then only stretched outwards to fill the screen. This is difficult to explain but hopefully the pictures of our shop in London above may help.

The Widescreen Centre started business in the 1970's making widescreen lenses and with this New Widescreen 16:9 Lens for video camcorders we are returning to our roots. The lens is Ã‚Â£345.00 and will need a step ring to attach the lens to the camera filter lens thread, if present. If not a slightly different method is required. For more details call either of our shops or email us.
(from their web-site)

My point is that when doing post production keep as much image information (resolution) as possible until the final version. This is especially important if you do colour correction or other fancy stuff. It will give you more to work with and look better in the end.

I'm not shure about the DIY thing, but an attachement to a workprinter lens seemed pretty DIY to me.

Rhcvatni is right that DIY transfers are generally crap, but that's maybe a reason to do as much as you can in post to compensate...

sunrise

Post by **ericMartinJarvies** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 2:51 am

sunrise,

do you guys sell a mount that would allow the 16:9 adapter to remain in one position, which the focus ring/focal length is adjusted/turned clockwise/counterclockwise? perhaps a step ring that has a borrom pole that can mount to a mattebox or something, so it can remain at it same position on the 360 degree portion of the equasion. then, the mouting pole should be able to slide forward or backward(awy or towards the camera) when you adjust the actual lens' focus ring or focal length. the 16:9 attachment is thereby attached to this mount in a fixed position, and the mount is attached to the filter threads of the lens using a rotating ring, and turn when the lens is adjusted, but does not allow the 16:9 attachment to turn. and because on most lenses, when adjusting the focal ring or focal lenght, the lens extens outward and inward, the mount would natuurally have ot accomodate for this. understand what i am saying? if so, have you guys worked out or made a product like this? if so, how much does it cost? and when can i buy it?

Post by **MovieStuff** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 3:07 am

Man, you guys sure make this overly complicated! ;)

Look, it's really very, very simple. It doesn't matter if you use the WorkPrinter or do this on a Rank or DIY off a small screen:

1) You shoot anamorphic on film and then you transfer it to video using the full height and width of the video frame.

2)If using something as simple as Premier, all you have to do is go into the "video motion" function and, in the bottom right hand corner, there is a small square that represents the video frame. You simply grab the handles at each corner and squeeze the image from top to center and from bottom to center until you get the look you want.

The options of distortion are unlimited, even in Premier. There are other programs that make it even easier to see what you are doing. But the main thing is that you are able achieve the look you want and the end result looks perfect doing it this way and you gain nothing by trying to use a lens during transfer except adding more glass between the camera and the projector. Compressing the image electronically from top and bottom is cleaner, in my opinion.

Roger

Post by **ericMartinJarvies** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 3:46 am

roger,

i do not understand. you say you further compress(or squeeze/adjust) in a nle application. so, by nature of the anamorphic lens, the image is squeezed onto the regular frame. now on the computer, you have this same squeezed image. would you not want to unsqueeze at this point so the image is wider? i have yet to mess with anything nle wise, and will need to make both tv and widescreen versions of my dvd. i thought that when i filmed using a anamorphic lens, i would then transfer the footage regularly, and on the computer i would stretch the image(so it would not longer appear squeezed), and use that for the widescreen version of my dvd, and then take the center portion of that frame and crop it to the tv size for my normal tv viewing version. where is the error of my reasoning here? is it that the widescreen version stays squeezed, and it is the actual dvd player that s t r e t c h e s it upon playback? if so, then that would make sense regarding what you had explained above.

Post by **MovieStuff** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 4:17 am

ericMartinJarvies wrote: now on the computer, you have this same squeezed image.

correct

ericMartinJarvies wrote:would you not want to unsqueeze at this point so the image is wider?

That's what I described. Let's say that the image is of a square but the anamorphic lens makes it look like a vertical rectangle because it is squeezed from the left and right. If you transfer that to video, using the entire video frame and no anamorphic lens, it will look exactly the same. Ideally, you would like to "stretch" it left and right but can't because your image is ALREADY at the left and right limits of the video frame. So, the only thing you can do is squeeze it from the top and bottom, which will make the vertical rectangle into a square again. Get it?

ericMartinJarvies wrote: where is the error of my reasoning here? is it that the widescreen version stays squeezed, and it is the actual dvd player that s t r e t c h e s it upon playback?

No one mentioned anything about having the DVD player being part of this process. I am talking about creating a letterboxed wide screen image on standard video from an anamorphic film original. If that's what you want, then there is no need to use an anamorphic lens during transfer and several reasons why you shouldn't.

Roger

Post by **Petteri** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 8:50 am

ericMartinJarvies wrote:

where is the error of my reasoning here? is it that the widescreen version stays squeezed, and it is the actual dvd player that s t r e t c h e s it upon playback?

Yes that's how it works! When you make your DVD, there is a IFO file for video, where is specified is the video 4:3 or 16:9 (squeezed or not). That's how your DVD player knows when to stretch it ;-)

Roger!
If you would like to make letterboxed widescreen, you do not need anamorphic lens to do that. Look my picture! Just "crop" the S8 frame as wide as you can (with WP). Now you have more information on the sides, but you have on top and bottom of the frame a bit of next/earlier frame. Add letterboxes on top/bottom of frame, or crop it and there you go

Of course with lens you can get wider angle or even 2.35:1 but.....

Petteri

Post by **rhcvatni** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:19 pm

Petteri wrote

If you would like to make letterboxed widescreen, you do not need anamorphic lens to do that. Look my picture! Just "crop" the S8 frame as wide as you can (with WP).

I tought we covered this allready. No you don't NEED an anamorphic lens and They didn't NEED an anamorphic lens when they started making them way back before I was born(not too long ago). The point is that the anamorphic lens let's you use ALL the available solution(third time I'm writing this) of the frame when you have a camera gate that's approx 4:3. Even if you're going with letterboxed in 4:3 this method will provide a better end result than just cropping and throwing away resolution.

Roger wrote

Let's say that the image is of a square but the anamorphic lens makes it look like a vertical rectangle because it is squeezed from the left and right.

I don't get what you're saying here. The image is square but the anamorphic lens only sees a wide portion of that square and it STRETCHES that wide portion UP and DOWN to fill the entire square.

Ideally, you would like to "stretch" it left and right but can't because your image is ALREADY at the left and right limits of the video frame. So, the only thing you can do is squeeze it from the top and bottom, which will make the vertical rectangle into a square again. Get it?

Ideally you would like to reverse what the anamorphic lens has done and that would be to turn the anamorphic lens 90 degrees when PROJECTING, thus squeezing the stretched "square" image and making it look like a vertical rectangle (Wide). (And of course this can also be done in a computer)

Petteri wrote

Yes that's how it works! When you make your DVD, there is a IFO file for video, where is specified is the video 4:3 or 16:9 (squeezed or not). That's how your DVD player knows when to stretch it

Yes Eric got it right(almost). SDTV resolution is the same for widescreen tv's and regular tv's . That means that the image is always "square". you can have a regular full frame 4:3 image, a letterboxed 4:3 image or a streched 4:3 image. The latter takes advantage of the widescreen tv and uses all the availabe resolution of the VIDEO frame, whereas the letterboxed version makes your widescreen TV throw away the top and the bottom.