Home of Professional Cinematography since 1996

 

Anamorphic Solutions & Uprezzed Outputs

Published : 28th November 2003


Has anyone yet shot anamorphic and 2.35:1 on HD ?

I've come to the conclusion that I have to use frame line guidance on the viewfinder, gaffer on the monitor, then at the film burn stage anamorphise the image. In effect throwing away nearly 300 lines of vertical resolution. Has anyone got another solution that uses the whole image at the front end. In the UK Panavision argue that it isn't worth using an optical solution because the chip is too small.

Also, has anyone done any tests comparing the Sony 1080 and the uprezzed 720 Varicam when it's output to 1080. I have to admit to a preference to Varicam colours so I'm interested in taking that through this process.

Terry Flaxton
UK DP
http://www.flaxton.btinternet.co.uk/
http://www.flaxton.btinternet.co.uk/indigocinematography.htm



If you're going to drop 300 lines to get to 35mm CinemaScope, then I'd be even more concerned about shooting 720P instead of 1080P to begin with.

The Thomson Viper uses a mega-pixel CCD design that allows all 1920 x 1080 pixels in recording to be used for a 2.35 image - sort of an electronic anamorphosis in that it looks stretched to fill a 16:9 monitor unless you do something to the display.

Getting an anamorphic lens to focus sharply through a prism block onto three CCD's has been the main problem with using anamorphic lenses in HD, plus the fact that they would have to be a 1.33X squeeze instead of the standard 2X squeeze of 35mm anamorphic lenses.

David Mullen
Cinematographer / L.A.



Terry Flaxton wrote :

>Has anyone yet shot anamorphic and 2.35:1 on HD ?

That is essentially what you must do - do not do squeezed HD - go spherical. You can easily custom program the frame lines into your Sony HD monitor if it has the right boards.

One example :

2.39:1 95% safe zone ~1824x764 rez. this was in an f900.

The only additional advice I have is that you should keep booms and equipment well away from the frame lines as theatrical projection/framing is not 100% exact. I kept thinking when a boom almost touched, "ah we can dirt fix that" or do a slight blow-up, and everyone agreed. Well, things don't always get fixed (its more expensive in HD post) therefore you frame precisely during your film-out to make sure the close boom stays out.

The above framing also gives you some wiggle room for operating, so you can see equipment encroaching from the sides.

Spherical can also help you a little when you compromise a 16:9 and 4:3 video master. If you keep the dolly track out of the bottom of the frame of "HD Full Ap" then you can help yourself a little when you try to bring a 4:3 frame over the widescreen. It can take the curse off some pan-n-scan. Basically the same approach you take with Super-35 widescreen.

Actually, has anyone ever done 4:3 or 16:9 pan-n-scan from an HD master framed cinemascope? What post-route or bay was this done in? Online? It’s not the DaVinci bays anymore like it is when you master off of film. Which is unfortunate since it involves more sessions for the DP to attend, when it could all be done in color.

Anybody have experience in this ?

Mark Doering-Powell
LA based DP



David Mullen :

>Getting an anamorphic lens to focus sharply through a prism block onto >three CCD's has been the main problem with using anamorphic lenses >in HD

Maybe this sounds silly - using a film lens adaptor like the pro35 or the angenieux/zeiss on a SD camera with progressive scan in 4:3 - then it works fine with anamorphic lenses, but only for tv because its not HD...

I’ve seen some nice images shot on a miniDV with mini35 adaptor and a cinemascope zoom lens - really nice!

+++ Florian Rettich Medientechnik +++



>Has anyone yet shot anamorphic and 2.35:1 on HD ?


Yes. Get a Viper form Thomson. Never throw away the vertical resolution again.

Dave Stump

VFX Supervisor/DP
LA. Calif



I believe Sony did this using an HD chip in the Vialta Telecine with an optical converter and at one time wanted to promote an "anamorphic on HD" format I guess 2.35 on 1.77. Does any one know if this ever progressed ?

Dave Blackham
Consultant
UK