planning a 35mm anamorphic shoot, and there seem to be a ton of questions.
are just a few, and I would be grateful for any advice :
Using a BL3, can I shoot using a silent gate, or do I specifically need
the anamorphic gate. As I understand it, the silent gate has the full
anamorphic height, but more width. Would this extra width be eliminated
in the production of a print, or would the removal cause complications
or extra cost?
My second unit camera is a Russian Konvas. It has an anamorphic gate,
but I am not utterly confident that it is positioned correctly vertically.
It will clearly need testing. Can anyone tell me what the tolerance is?
I imagine that with such a small area between frames, and with very little
space between camera area and projected area, the tolerance would be very
small, but does anyone have any figures?
Anamorphic viewfinders for the BL3 seem very hard to come by. I was intending
to shoot with the image squeezed in the viewfinder. Has anyone had any
experience of this? I imagine it will be possible, but just take a little
more care in framing.
not unusual for a camera to have a Full Aperture gate -- the question
is whether the lens is optically centred for Full Aperture (Silent) or
for the Sound Apertures (Academy / 1.85 / anamorphic). With anamorphic
photography, just like with Academy and 1.85, the lens should be centred
for the projected area and not Full Aperture because the print will have
one edge of the Full Aperture covered up by the optical soundtrack. Anamorphic
photography is contact printed just like 1.85 photography.
My second unit camera is a Russian Konvas. It has an anamorphic
>gate, but I am not utterly confident that it is positioned
could it when the anamorphic gate is almost Full Aperture vertically?
for the lack of a de-anamorphizer for the viewfinder, I once shot an anamorphic
short film this way and got used to it. At least it's a bigger image,
easier to judge focus. I can't imagine shooting a whole feature that way
unless I had a video assist that correctly unsqueezed the image so I could
double-check my compositions now & then.
Spurrier wrote :
to shoot with the image squeezed in the viewfinder. Has >anyone
had any experience of this? I imagine it will be possible,
but >just take a little more care in framing.
are some operators who prefer to operate with the squeezed image to prevent
"ping pong-ing", ie. having to scan to the frame edges. Easier
to keep an eye on all of the action in a compressed frame.
pong-ing can lead to googly eyes which is a very serious condition.
shot a lot of VFX elements in 'scope with standard eyepieces, and one
thing that drives me nuts about it (especially with Fries cameras where
you have to struggle to see the whole frame at the best of times) is that
when I am trimming in green screen masking, flags, etc, the squeezed image
fakes me out - if I am trimming something vertical I can call out the
distance in feet, but when it is an east-west adjustment it is hard to
judge because of the squeeze. Likewise, movement looks funny because it
is only compressed in one direction - I have to resort to the videotape
to confirm that what I saw will look right when it gets to editorial.
of this is "deal-breaking", it just adds to the list of things
to confirm before moving on. I don't know if I would trust myself to shoot
a whole movie without an unsqueezable eyepiece.
perception is reality, I am a lot thinner when viewed squeezed...as long
I am standing up
H. Weingartner wrote:
perception is reality, I am a lot thinner when viewed squeezed...as
>long as I am standing up
of the early Cinemascope promo pictures was of a squeezed Marilyn Monroe
-- the one I saw, in Pop Photo circa 1953, was titled "Narrowin'