|
Originele vraag:
ik ga een korte film draaien op S16 voor projectie.
het schijnt dat er zoiets bestaat als een voorzetlens die het beeld anamorphic maakt.
kent iemand dit?
of kent iemand anamorfe lenzen voor S16 (aaton).
of zou ik 35mm (anam.)- lenzen kunnen gebruiken?
ik heb al enkele films gedraaid op S16 en dat scope gemaakt in de blow up.
(=half S16 negatief) maar deze film bestaat (ook) uit veel totalen en soms kom je toch wel de grenzen van het materiaal tegen.
en daarbij lijkt me anam.S16 een interessante optie om eens te onderzoeken.
zeker voor dit filmpje.
merci alvast,
richard
=========================================================================
ANAMORPHIC S16
Ik heb een keer met die voorzetlens gedraaid (jaar of 3 geleden)
Hij kwam uit Frankrijk, je moet de "gewone" lenzen dan anders
kalibreren.
Ik heb hem gebruikt icm de Zeiss Ultraprimes.
Om het beeld tijdens het draaien op de videoass. te kunnen zien heb
je een bijgeleverd
kijkertje nodig of een monitor die je naar 2.35 kunt omschakelen.
Ik weet niet wat het met de scherpte doet in projectie want ik heb
het als effect voor een t.v commercial gebruikt.
Camera Rentals weet er alles van en ook waar je hem kunt huren.
Vr groet,
Lex Brand
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ik weet niet of er al gereageerd is , maar ik heb ooit iets gehoord
van een fransman met een eigen set (en die dan zelf meekomt en met de
trein reist (?)
Het andere wat ik weet is van Isco; een voorzetlens die je kon
gebruiken voor een brandpunt vanaf 20mm, een minimale opnameafstand
had van 2 meter. Zelf nooit mee gedraaid, maar wel geresearched. Die
isco's kom je nog wel een tegen op Ebay voor een paar honderd euro,
maar het fijne weet ik er niet van. Misschien kan Remko Schnorr je
wel helpen (hij heeft e.e.a. op anamorphic gedraaid)
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
. (en ik heb het sterke vermoeden dat Bert Pot er ook
wel iets over weet.
Ja, je kunt de 35mm scopes gebruiken, maar je bent beperkt in je
groothoekbereik.
Succes !
Mick (zowel ik als Edwin verstegen hebben een transvideo adapter om
je videoassist te desqueezen)
Mick van Rossum
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Dunton zal het zeker weten,maar hij heeft net zijn zaak verkocht
aan Panavision ,maar werkt nog wel daar, Londen en Wilmington. Jeroen
(vroeger van Ken en Camera Rentals )heeft een jaar voor hem gewerkt en
wet vast ook precies wat er wr te krijgen is, zijn e-mail is:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Veel succes, Rogier
Ik heb net een film gedraaid op Joe Dunton's 35 anomorphic lenzen, die
altijd door Alan Parker en dariusz Kohndji gebruikt worden. Erg mooie
lenzen en Joe is zo bevlogen als het over anamorphic gaat dat hij je
zeker zal helpen als hij kan.... Elite, de russische lenzen maker
heeft ook anamorphische lenzen....?!
Rogier Stoffers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volgens mij is er iets van Hawk voor 16mm.
Ik weet niet of het een voorzetstuk is of gewoon lenzen.
HEB HET ZELF NOOIT GEZIEn.
GROETEN NIELS
Niels Boon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waarschijnlijk heb je dit al gelezen, mocht het niet zo zijn, dan bij deze. Gaat vooral over 35 anamorfische lenzen op super 16 en een paar alternatieven. Ook schijnen ze er bij verhuurbedrijf Joe Dunton in Londen veel van te weten. Misschien interessant. Groeten,
The problem is that standard cine anamorphic lenses have the classic 2X compression ever since Cinemascope was first released. Since Full Aperture standard 16mm is .404" x .295" (1.37 : 1), if you use a 2X anamorphic lens, the unsqueezed image will be 2.74 : 1. In 16mm scope projection, it is usually 2.66 : 1 (1.33 : 1 doubled horizontally.)
Since 35mm anamorphic projection is closer to 2.40 : 1, you will be wasting some of the sides of the 16mm frame to crop it down from 2.74 : 1 (unless you blow it up with a matte to preserve the unsqueezed 2.74 negative area's full image onto a 2.40 projected area). So the question is if you are better off just shooting in Super-16 and cropping vertically to 2.40 : 1.
If you do some calculations, you'll see that you'd end up cropping regular 16mm shot with a 2X anamorphic lens from .404" x .295" to something like .353" x .295", which unsqueezed with a 2X anamorphic projector lens would get you close to 2.40 : 1. .353" x .295" is around .104 sq. inches.
If you crop the Super-16 Full Aperture (.493" x .292" / 1.69 : 1) to 2.40 : 1, then you'd only be using a .493" x .206" area of the negative, which is a total area of almost .102 sq. inches.
So there isn't much advantage, negative area-wise, to 16mm with a 2X anamorphic IF you have to end up with a standard 2.40 : 1 35mm scope image. You might as well shoot Super-16 and crop to 2.40 : 1 (or shoot in 2-perf 35mm...).
The ideal scenario would be to shoot in Super-16 with a 1.33X anamorphic lens, which gets you close to 2.40 : 1 in width with the least amount of anamorphic squeezing. But there aren't really any professional anamorphic lenses with this squeeze factor (the closest was Technirama's 1.5X squeeze and Ultra Panavision's 1.25X squeeze.)
There has been some Super-16 films shot with an adapted 1.5X Kowa anamorphic projector lens attachment. Even though that gives you a final unsqueezed image of 2.54 : 1, even cropped down to 2.40 : 1, you end up using a total negative area of .136 sq. inches -- which is more than the other two methods (2X anamorphic 16mm versus cropped Super-16 spherical).
As for blowing this up to 35mm anamorphic, your best bet would be to do it through a digital intermediate to keep the grain down, which also saves you from dealing with converting any non-standard anamorphic squeeze (if you use a 1.5X anamorphic projector lens attachment on the camera) to the standard 2X squeeze.
If you shoot in standard 2X anamorphic in regular 16mm, one advantage is simply that a spherical lens can be used on the optical printer (if you go that route instead of a digital intermediate) to copy it to 35mm, where the image will still contain the standard 2X compression for scope projection. If you decided to shoot in spherical Super-16 and crop to 2.40 : 1, you might have a hard time finding a Super16-to-35mm optical printer with a 2X anamorphic lens. I've heard some people having to blow-up from Super-16 to Super-35, and then crop & blow-up again to anamorphic.
David Mullen Cinematographer / L.A.
Joris Kerbosch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wat betreft S16 scope.. Wat dacht je van 35mm 2 perf, zelfs als je daarbij
naar 1.85 gaat heb je nog steeds 1,8 x meer negatiefoppervlakte dan bij S16!
Groet, theo
Theo Bierkens
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adri Schrover draait op dit moment met die voorzetlens. Die komt uit Parijs,
Thierry Tronchet, >
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Het is een flinke toeter; frontlens 114mm, ongeveer 15cm lang. Hij dekt uit
vanaf 25mm, daarvan maakt hij een 12mm beeldhoek ongeveer.
Flossie Bartels heeft twee dagen bij mij staan testen om alles op orde te
krijgen.
Groet, Edwin
Edwin Verstegen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bij mijn weten is het al wel eens gedaan, inderdaad met een voorzetlens.
35 mm Lenzen lijkt mij linke soep: je hebt dan geen wijde lenzen, want in 35mm Anarmorphic is een 55mm al wijd en op 16mm is dat dan een telelens.
Bovendien zijn 35mm Anamorphic lenzen optimaal afgesteld voor het opnameformaat/beeldcirkel van 35mm. Het feit dat bij anamorphics de focus in het horizontale vlak ergens anders ligt dan in het vertikale vlak, zou op 16mm naadloos aan het licht komen.
Overweeg wellicht 2-perf; er is een ArriLite in Parijs die tot 2-perf is omgebouwd.
Een vriend van mij is specialist op Anarmorfoten. Met hem als producer draaide ik in het verleden twee korte films op 35mm Ultrascope Anarmorphoten.
Hij heet Adriaan Bijl en hieronder zijn nummer en site. Hij zal het geen probleem vinden als je hem belt. Let op: hij is lang van stof en verliefd op Anarmorphoot.
http://www.entermorfic.com/
Bert Pot
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dag Richard, Ik heb bij camera rentals een anamorfic zoomlens gezien ooit,
jaren geleden.
Er was toen een franse cameraman die ermee ging draaien, de lens was niet
van Camera Rentals.
Ze waren volgens mij aan het testen, met een nederlandse focus puller, weet
niet meer wie dat was.
Adri Schrover was er volgens mij ook bij betrokken...
Succes met je zoektocht.
groet van Remco.
Remco Bakker
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heb het ooit eens gedaan voor een videoclip, het was een oude
Anamorphe zoomlens die Holland Equipment had liggen, was voor 35mm.
Is gewoon te gebruiken maar je beeldhoek wordt kleiner (de helft)
Groetjes Menno
Menno Westendorp
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey,
Dit is wat je bedoeld:
Kish Optics Front Mesmerizer
Axisfilm in Londen heeft er een.
Groeten, Herman
Herman Verschuur
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anamorphic 16mm.
I am relatively new to using anamorphic lenses.
If I take a anamorphic lens with a PL mount and use it with a an arri
sr (sr3) how much of the film am I using?
Is the lens just over a standard 16mm frame or can I use it as over a S16 frame?
Do I get the same off center problem I would if I were to be using S35?
Any recommendations or thoughts on how to get the best image quality
out of a S16 and anamorphic lenses?
Thanks for any thoughts,
Marc Ruiz
Director
Miami
Whether your camera is set-up for Super-16 or regular 16mm, the PL-mount
lens should cover the whole negative aperture.
The problem is that standard anamorphic cine lenses normally have a 2X
squeeze. So if the final 35mm unsqueezed scope image is 2.40 : 1, this
means that the projection aperture, and the effective camera aperture
(what gets used) is 1.20 : 1. For a 4-perf 35mm camera, this means
that the anamorphic aperture is about the same width as Academy but the
same height as Full Aperture (Super-35), and is offset like Academy/1.85.
If you consider a regular 16mm aperture to be 1.37 : 1, then the
anamorphic lens would create a 2.74 : 1 aspect ratio when unsqueezed.
And the Super-16 aperture, which is 1.68 : 1, would create a 3.36 : 1
aspect ratio when unsqueezed.
Since 35mm scope projection is 2.40 : 1 (2.39 : 1 to be exact), whether
or not you use a Regular 16mm or Super-16 camera, you won't even use the
whole width of the regular 16mm frame because you'd be trimming 2.74 : 1
down to 2.39 : 1 later. Unless you plan on letterboxing the image on
the print and on home video to 2.74 : 1...
This is one reason why there isn't much advantage to using a standard 2X
anamorphic lens on a 16mm camera versus just shooting Super-16 with
normal lenses and cropping to achieve 2.39. In the first case, you have
to crop horizontally and the second case, vertically -- except that it's
a lot easier to work with normal spherical lenses.
David Mullen, ASC
Los Angele
On Nov 13, 2006, at 11:38 PM, David Mullen wrote:
> This is one reason why there isn't much advantage to using a standard
> 2X anamorphic lens on a 16mm camera versus just shooting Super-16
> with normal lenses and cropping to achieve 2.39
Which I've done before for DVD release, and it works out pretty well.
The
image is grainer than regular S16mm, but tolerable if you take the same
precautions that you'd normally use when shooting S16mm for a 35mm
blow up.
Too bad no one makes a set of 16mm primes with a 1.43X squeeze!
Jessica Gallant
Los Angeles based Director of Photography
West Coast Systems Administrator, Cinematography Mailing List
http://www.cinematography.net
Jessica Gallant >Too bad no one makes a set of 16mm primes with a 1.43X
squeeze!
Talk with Joe Dunton in Wilmington or London, I believe he has had
experience with this. www.joedunton.co.uk
Vinny
Cineworks-Miami
I investigated the options for a short being shot here in the UK back in
September and found that Joe Dunton cameras proved to be the leading
authority. Standard anamorphics on a super 16 frame working at a 2 times
squeeze does result in you not being able to use the full negative area but
can still give good results, and in fact I have shot some work on feature
back in october being shot exactly this way. JDC are developing a 1 and a
half squeeze system but at the moment this is more of a filter type affair
which fits in front of existing spherical lenses and has some resultant
limitations. I wish you well with it and would like to hear what the latest
is on this subject.
Simon Vickery
DoP Edinburgh, Scotland
------------
I have shot many films in Anamorphic 16mm for Tacita Dean. I have three Lomo lenses with double mount PL and BNCR. They fit on my Arri SR or my ACL but I only use the standard 16mm aperture. The format is just excellent! The reason for this is that Tacita and I have always resisted transferring anything into the video or digital domain. Our films are always projected in a gallery so that it is imperative that we employ std 16 to be compatible with the equipment which is most available in the art world. But the most important reason for using 16mm anamorphic is that the quality that projected film gives is far better than any video or digital projection. You only have to go and see our film "Disappearance at Sea" at Tate Modern where it has been beautifully presented on permanent display in the new hang third level. It is on a permanent loop and the print is changed frequently. The projector is all part of the art work and gives a good feeling of satisfaction to se it and hear it purring away and projecting abeautiful image. All our films have also been recently on show at the Schaulager gallery in Basel. The've been also show in major galleries round the world. Schaulager presented all the films beautifully in exactly the right conditions. I think ther are about Seven anamorphic films altogether. BTW Tacita has just won the Hugo Boss Prize for all her work, just announced! 15th Nov 2006 You can see info about our work at www.tate.org
Getting back to the lenses, we have regularly supplemented our lenses with anamorphics from Joe Duntan. Disappearance at Sea was shot all on one lens. That was a 24mm Ziess with an Arri bayonet mount. It fitted on my SR2. There is no noticeable difference between my Lomos and Joe's anamorphics that you can detect on projection so I've always been happy to mix them. My Lomos are 35mm,50mm and 75mm. We did have a bit of a problem with an 18mm anamorphic when one of my assistants did some shots of some architecture. If care is not taken with the angle of shot there can be some disagreeable distorting with such a wide angle.
I do not see any reason for using the super16 area, specially as the lenses we use cover 35mm so they cover super16. We could use techniscope but then who has a techniscope projector... I do but that's another story.
If we shot in Techniscope it would either have to be printed back to 16mm or go through a DI which we are not prepared to do yet. I don't think you would get anyone now to do a 16mm anamorphic 16mm print from 2 perf Techniscope for less than a small fortune. Technicolor said that they still had the machines to physically print from Techniscope to 35mm Anamorphic but the setup charge is very high. I was researching this for a feature I was DP second unit on recently but in the end they are going the DI route. That was Gallowwalker. Deluxe started to do the processing and Arion were able to do some transfers for a DI so its all possible. Just speak to Neil Mockler at Arion. The benefit of Techniscope is that your capture medium is film and so you can use good film lenses, which is the very high quality now. Then, with a Digital Interface you can do lots of composite and motion control and CGI. Grading and manipulation is very accessable and easy. Then it goes back onto a 35mm anamorphic print for the cinema or stays in the digital domain for digital projection.
John Adderley
www.adderley.net
Isn't it sometimes so strange when you read about a topic like this, them bam, the phone rings and you find yourself in the middle of a Super 16 Anamorphic music video w/ JDC Wilmington lenses. Stranger than fiction.
We did prep and tests today here in Houston and yes, David Mullen the framing charts we shot were 3.36:1, short and wide. I am still unsure what the final post route is, but am looking forward to this unusual format.
By the way, since we are S16mm, does anyone know of a anamorphic eyepiece extension for an SR 3? Is there such a beast? I seem to remember a thread a while back where one was mentioned. May just be my wishful imagination. Thanks for your indulgence.
Sincerely,
John Sheeren
Philip Hering
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The question is does anamorphic lenses exist for either super or >standard 16?
You can use any PL-mount anamorphic lens for 35mm shooting if your camera has a PL-mount. The trouble is the aspect ratio -- anamorphic lenses normally have a 2X squeeze, which creates a 2.66 : 1 to 2.74 : 1 image on regular 16mm (depending on if you believe the 16mm aperture is 1.33 or 1.37) and a 3.32 : 1 to 3.38 : 1 image on Super-16 (depending on if you believe the S16 aperture is 1.66 or 1.69).
Since 35mm anamorphic projection is 2.39 : 1, you'd be cropping the sides of the frame even if you shot regular 16mm, and Super-16 is completely pointless if you are going to put a 2X anamorphic lens on the camera.
So it's a choice between shooting regular 16mm with a 2X lens and cropping the sides slightly, or shooting Super-16 with a spherical lens and cropping the top & bottom. Graininess is similar in both cases, with the spherical lens method being more convenient but the anamorphic lens approach getting you those unique distortions and flares. You'd have to find anamorphic lenses with short enough focal-lengths to get your wide-angle shots in 16mm.
There has been some discussion about a 1.5X anamorphic adaptor made by Isco, I believe, that has been attached to a zoom lens for shooting in Super-16, although even that is too much squeeze -- it would be more like a 1.33X anamorphic lens to squeeze scope onto Super-16.
And then you have the problem that the 35mm version would still need to have a 2X squeeze, so if you did the blow-up optically, you'd have to convert 1.5X or 1.33X squeeze to 2X -- most people would probably un-squeeze to a spherical element and then add a 2X squeeze to another generation (like going to a Super-35 IP and then an anamorphic IN). Sort of makes doing the blow-up work digitally more appealing at that point.
Now that we're starting to see some 16:9 single-chip HD cameras, I think it makes the case for someone to start building new sets of anamorphic lenses with a 1.33X squeeze for people who want a CinemaScope image without cropping. Such lenses could also be used to squeeze 16:9 or 1.85 onto regular 16mm and 35mm/S35, or 2.39 onto Super-16 and 3-perf S35...
Panavision? Vantage? Clairmont? Are you guys listening?
David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
S16 Anamorphic: Aspect ratio: 1: 2.33. Much talked about option, but very few people have actually done it.
The technical problem (assuming you are going to blow up to 35mm) being the aspect ratio of the neg. is not the 3:4 of 35mm anamorphic so either it is not a straight enlargement or the sides get cropped (missing the point of S16).
Most freely available anamorphic lenses are either BNCR or PV mount, initially designed for 35mm cameras and in themselves as big as most 16mm cameras. No adapters available from BNCR or PV to PL mount (for Arri2/3) or Aaton mount. Smaller high quality experimental AS16 lenses do exist in PL mount (re: DP).
The standard 16mm viewfinder shows the operator a sideways squashed image, though an analogue video assist monitor can be easily modified to show the correct aspect ratio this makes for a cumbersome shooting kit. An Arri 35mm eyepiece extension with anamorphic adapter should also fit SR2/3 but with reduced brightness. Unfortunately there is no similar solution for Aaton 16mm cameras.
Once you have acquired a neg., getting a telecine in the correct aspect ratio may be a problem, and more difficult to shop around for the best quote. If the end result is video the neg. will be too wide, if the end result is film a non-standard-optical-blow up, or digital blow up to 35mm is required, at considerable cost. If shooting S16 and transfer to 35mm print without appreciable loss of quality is the intention, then care in choosing the 16mm neg. is essential. That means slow speed stocks with negligible grain and the consequent need for more light in interiors etc., increasing shooting costs above the current trend for fast stock and natural light.
Appropriate lenses from Panavision, Optex.
Cameras: SRII/SRIII (for the eyepiece adapter).
35mm anamorphic lenses have a 2X squeeze factor, so if you shoot with a format like S16, you will end up with a 3.32 : 1 image when unsqueezed. If you use regular 16mm, you would end up with a 2.66 : 1 or so image. Anyway, what this means is that you don't have to add any squeeze in the blow-up to 35mm since it already has it, but you will be cropping the sides of the S16 image quite a bit, not even using the whole width of the regular 16mm area of the negative.
If you shot S16 and cropped the top & bottom of the frame to achieve 2.35 and then add the 2X squeeze in the blow-up, you probably will get similar results to using anamorphic lenses and cropping the sides. Perhaps better depending on the quality of the spherical versus anamorphic lenses you use.
As for mixing them, you can do the blow-up for each piece separately but you should find a place that can blow-up from spherical S16 to anamorphic 35mm directly. Some places have to blow-up from S16 to S35 and then blow that up to 35mm anamorphic in another step to add the 2X squeeze in a 35mm-to-35mm stage.
Mitch Gross and I tested S16 cropped to 2.35 versus regular 16mm with anamorphic lenses for Metropolitan Labs, which offers a direct blow-up (crop & stretch) from S16 to 35mm anamorphic. I never saw the results but Mitch tells me that the two approaches gave similar results, graininess-wise.
David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
Herman Verschuur
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
