Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
80Mbit MJPEG 4:3 for 2x anamorphic shooting
  • 100 Replies sorted by
  • @ed_lee83

    Your video is about 3.75:1.

    To calibrate your anamorphic lens, photograph a perfect square or circle. (You can generate one on the computer.) Then stretch a single frame in an image program like FCP, AE or Photoshop until the image is correct. From the amount of stretch, you can work out the power of your lens.


    Even though shooters still call it "235," modern anamorphic is 2.39:1. Check the wikiP:

    "from August 1993 (SMPTE 195-1993), slightly altered the dimensions so as to standardize a common aperture width (0.825-inch, or21.0 mm) for all formats, anamorphic and flat. At these modern dimensions, of 0.825 × 0.690 inch (21.0 × 17.5 mm), or 1.19:1, the unsqueezed ratio remains at 2.39:1.

    Anamorphic prints are still often called Scope or 2.35 by projectionists, cinematographers, and others working in the field, if only by force of habit. 2.39 is in fact what they generally are referring to (unless discussing films using the process between 1958 and 1970). With the exception of certain specialist and archivist areas, generally 2.35, 2.39, and 2.40 mean the same to most professionals, whether they themselves are even aware of the changes or not."
  • @lpowell,

    That would look great without the letterboxing. All of my unstretch factors I use for changing the 2X anamorphic image into less wide ratios all fit within a 1920 x 1080 frame. So does that mean that I could still use those for the 2560 x 1080 pixel dimension screen since to fit those same dimensions within a 1920 x 1080 frame, the image is pushed backwards along the "Z" axis within the 1920 x 1080 image which contributes to the letterboxing effect.

    I have an X/Y unstretch factor based on the 1920 x 803 2.39:1 aspect ratio( not exact but pretty close) not shown in video above



    Like it says, 2.39:1 from 1970 onwards, 2.35:1 prior to 1970

    "The first SMPTE definition for anamorphic projection with an optical sound track down the side (PH22.106-1957), made in December 1957, standardized the aperture to 0.839 in by 0.715 in (1.17:1). The aspect ratio for this aperture, after a 2x unsqueeze, rounds to 2.35:1. A new definition was created in October 1970 (PH22.106-1971) which made the vertical dimension slightly smaller in order to make splices less noticeable (as anamorphic prints use more of the negative's frame area than any other modern format) when projected. This new aperture size, 0.838 by 0.700 inches (21.3 by 17.8 mm), or 1.19:1, makes for an unsqueezed ratio of 2.39:1 (more commonly referred to as 2.40:1)"

    I get what you mean, That some people still call 2.40:1 or 2.39:1 by a 2.35:1 aspect ratio
  • @bleach551 - Unfortunately for 2X anamorphic lens users, digital video formats have evolved to strongly favor 1.33X anamorphic ratios. This started with the DVD anamorphic format, which squeezes an 854x480 square-pixel 16:9 video frame into a non-square-pixel 4:3 SD resolution of 720x480. The early 1.33X anamorphic adapters enabled NTSC DV camcorders to shoot in this 16:9 aspect ratio using 4:3 SD video tape. When these camcorders were upgraded to HDV resolution, the same 1.33X anamorphic ratio was hard-wired into their non-square-pixel 1440x1080 HDV tape formats. When unsqueezed by 1.33X, the 1440x1080 HDV format produces a standard 1920x1080 video frame.

    Nowadays, 1.33X anamorphic adapters have been repurposed for use with modern camcorders that shoot at a native 16:9 aspect ratio. This produces a "21:9" (actually 64:27) aspect ratio that works out to exactly 2:37:1. This digitally-generated widescreen aspect ratio neatly bridges the discrepancy between the legacy 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 cinemascope frame sizes and provides a rationalized 2560x1080 widescreen standard for the future.

    Given these standards, I think the most practical way to work with 2X anamorphic adapters on the GH1/GH2 is as follows:

    1. Shoot in 4:3 MJPEG VGA 1920x810 anamorphic mode with a 2x anamorphic adapter.
    2. In post, stretch the frame size to 2160x810, producing undistorted square pixels.
    3. Crop the 2160x810 frame to 1920x810, producing a 2.37:1 aspect ratio.

    For 1080p resolution on the GH2 only, I'd suggest the following 2X anamorphic workflow:

    1. Shoot in 4:3 MJPEG VGA 1920x1080 anamorphic mode with a 2x anamorphic adapter.
    2. In post, stretch the frame size to 2880x1080, producing undistorted square pixels.
    3. Crop the 2880x1080 frame to 2560x1080, producing a 2.37:1 aspect ratio.
  • @lpowell,

    Thanks alot for your very detailed answer! I will modify my workflow.
  • Looks like I need to go back to anamorphic school again.

    @AdR Yeah thanks, I had thought I was shooting in 4:3 but turns I wasn't hence the wrong ratio. I've re-uploaded the way I usually export with a Lomo anamorphic 2x. Actually f*ck it, I don't really know what I'm doing.

    1. So I should change the 480p setting in PTools to 1920x810? Is that stable?
    2. Change my sequence setting (FCP) to 2880x1080
    3. How do you mean by 'cropping' it? Exporting it as 2560x1080?

    thanks everybody in advance for their guidance
  • My advice would be to drop this convoluted method of doing 2.37:1 and just use 1440x1080 in 4:3 mode to get 2.66:1 with a 2x anamorphic.

    That way you are getting 1080 lines of resolution in the source footage, not 810 and about 300 extra real lines of horizontal res as well. 1440x1080 looks actual. 1920x810 in-camera still gives you 4:3, it is not true 1920 resolution horizontally more like 1280 and then you even crop into that afterwards! Doesn't seem worth it, as well as the 200 line loss vertically in the source footage.

    More res to play with off-camera = better looking image after you scale it afterwards in the NLE. 2.66:1 is 1920x720 in Premiere Pro or FCP. You can also stretch instead of squeeze for displays that support >1920 horizontal.

    Shooting at 810 or 820 in-camera loses you nearly 200 lines of resolution from the get-go so unless it is giving an undistorted live-view from the anamorphic, which I don't think it is, I'd pass on that.

    Also framing a shot is a pain in the ass when you have to bear in mind a slight crop at the edges. 2.66:1 looks very similar to 2.37:1 or 2.35:1 so I think the disadvantages of the edge chop outweigh the advantages.

    At the moment I am using the Zacuto EVF's anamorphic 2x setting but that is designed to work with 16:9 and the MJPEG mode is not available with a monitor connected to the HDMI socket.

    I would love a shootout between my 1440x1080 2.66:1 method and 1920x810 with crop for 2.37:1 and see which looks best :)
  • of course, it is the same thing to shoot 16:9 in 1920x1080 AVCHD mode and only use 1440x1080 in post, stretching this out to 2.66:1. It is the same difference resolution-wise, correct?

    (And not that I'm a lazy composer . . . quite the opposite . . . but you could technically take the 1440 out of the 1920 from somewhere other than the center of the image.)

    you just have to have some method (even just a crude cutout over your screen) to show 1440 "safe" lines.
  • @EOSHD "My advice would be to drop this convoluted method of doing 2.37:1 and just use 1440x1080 in 4:3 mode to get 2.66:1 with a 2x anamorphic."

    Since 1440x1080 is a square-pixel aspect ratio in MJPEG VGA mode, with a 2X anamorphic lens you would still need to double the horizontal width to 2880 in post-production. To my eyes, this results in a less sharp image than stretching a 1920-wide frame to 2880. Even though the camera is not fully capable of optically resolving 1920 pixels of resolution, it has the advantage of generating the 1920x1080 frame from the uncompressed 12-bit image sensor data. Stretching by 200% in post is limited to using the 8-bit compressed data packed into the MJPEG image.

    Shooting in anamorphic at 1080p only works well for online distribution, such as YouTube or Vimeo. The choice to shoot in 810p makes good sense when you're targeting Blu-Ray or any 1920-wide format. In that case, you will not be sacrificing any vertical resolution, since your final widescreen 2.37:1 render will inevitably be letterboxed within a 1080p frame with only 810 lines of effective resolution. In addition, with 810p the viewfinder displays the exact framing of your shot, so there is no need to estimate the letterbox margins that would need to be imposed on a 1080p frame.
  • Thanks @LPowell

    I'll test both methods and see which I prefer.
  • I feel we are tying ourselves in knots of unnecessary workflow complexity here.

    MJPEG 480p @ 1920x720 gives you undistorted 2.66:1 straight off the card.

    It's a succinct and simple solution and the best currently available using the 4:3 MJPEG mode. My suggestion is to forget about 2.35:1 or 2.37:1 and cropping... 2.66:1 looks pretty similar.

    I've also tested the workflows above with my Isco anamorphic, like MJPEG settings 1920x1080, 1920x810, 1440x1080, none of them squeeze you more detail out over 1920x720 so let's keep things simple huh!!

    Full details on my blog:
  • Anamorphic 35mm cinema lenses are 2x. The flares, bokeh and distorted blur all get their look from the strength of the optical "squeeze." To get the closest results to 'Scope, shoot like EOSHD recommends, then crop the 2.66:1 down to 2.39:1. You'll be getting the 2x optical qualities, but at the proper aspect ratio.
  • I was wondering, are there any affordable anamorphic lens option out there? I love the idea of shooting this way instead of pseudo letter boxing stuff but I suffer from a condition called "I Am Poor"....and from what I have seen these lenses are way too expensive.
  • go for a Kowa or similar model. EOSHD can help you out. otherwise, the Century is much easier to use, but does not flare as nicely, and is a bit spendier.
  • Certainly Kowa 8Z, Sankor 16C are good if you are poor!! Depends how poor. CineMorph filter from Vidaltantic is cheaper than a real lens but I personally think it has a few drawbacks. Seek out a Proskar 2x anamorphic they are currently the cheapest of all but they're pretty sharp.
  • A century optics anamorphic converter sold on E-Bay over the weekend for $749. Might possibly have been more except that the sale ended at 4 in the morning (pacific standard time). A few days earlier, an LA7200 sold for $770, which I thought was a bargain. Maybe it's just my impression, but people seem much more willing to shell out big bucks for the Panny/Century converters as opposed to the true anamorphic lenses. Maybe it's because of scarcity of the really nice, true anamorphics, or maybe it's that people perceive the Panny/Century option as much less of a headache to use. But I'm not sure that's accurate.

  • @Roy

    I think the prices are high because you can simply "focus through" with your "Taking" lens with theses anamorphic adapters( Panasonic LA7200 and Century optics) and because of the 2.35:1-ish de-squeeze . They have the easy of use of the Iscoramas. I have to focus both my Nikon "taking" lens and my Kowa 2X for Bell and Howell in unison at the same focal point, I've gotten use to that now, but I still wish I could have a 2X or 1.5X "focus through" type anamorphic adapter with the same quality as my Kowa.
  • If all you want is to take full advantage of resolution, the LA7200 and Century are the best. They give you no-hassle wider aspect ratio without need for cropping or strange focus.
  • @B3Guy,

    I still prefer the image of my Kowa 2X for Bell and Howell over anything else accept an iscorama, Dual focusing warts and all. If Isco Gottingen Iscorama came out with a cheaper focus through 2X, 1.5X anamorphic adapter ($1500 or so) I would replace my Kowa for that.
  • The LA7200 and Century optics lenses have a limited use for me, I only use them for wide angle landscape shots, you can't really get fast apertures or shallow DOF with them without close focus + diopter.

    The look you get from a Kowa or Sankor is far superior for most filmmaking, but you cannot rack focus during a shot and they take longer to nail focus with. Locked off shots are doable fine.

    The reason the Iscorama is so expensive is because it has the best aesthetics (LOMO aside) yet you can focus just the anamorphic, and it doesn't breathe like the LOMO OCT18s do.
  • @EOSHD I've heard that "breathing" expression before. What does it mean?
  • @Mark_the_Harp

    Normally it mean change of FOV during focusing.
    Samyang 35mm has quite noticeable breathing, for example.
  • "breathing" is a zoom on a fixed focal length (or on a zoom lens that is holding one focal length.) Some lenses have a slight (some not so slight) zoom effect when the focus is adjusted. This "zoom when focusing" is called breathing, and is one of the most noticeable difference between many photography lenses (most breathe at least somewhat), and cinema or video lenses (which do not breathe.) I would guess that the optics in cinema lenses are more complicated in order to eliminate breathing and this is one reason they're so darn expensive.
  • @B3Guy

    Interesting thing is that according to guys who actually use pro cinema lenses many of them have breathing.

    Also the less breathing you want the more complicated will be design, same for distortions.
  • that is interesting. (of course, I was speaking from hearsay. I wish I wasn't :-)

  • Has anyone tried a 60p anamorphic setting for slow motion work?