1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

Anomorphic Filming - Dying?

Discussion in 'Movies' started by WillG, Mar 23, 2003.

  1. WillG

    WillG Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,298
    Likes Received:
    29
    I was a bit curious about something, I am not trying to start another Super 35 debate. But it seems like so many more 2.35:1 films are being done in Super 35 and not so much anomorphically anymore. I know that there are reasons to use Super 35, but it seems like anamorphic is slowly dying. Anyone have any insight into this?
     
  2. Max Leung

    Max Leung Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2000
    Messages:
    4,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I think things are changing on some fronts...documentaries are becoming more prominent and virtually all of them are shot digitally. A lot of them are done in the Academy ratio (4:3) and a few in 16x9.

    Could cost or perceived easier handling of non-anamorphic cameras be the reason?
     
  3. WillG

    WillG Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,298
    Likes Received:
    29
    I don't know, I'm really looking to get some insight. I know there are reasons that Super 35 is necessary nowadays, but one could argue that it really is fake widescreen, not that it matters so much I guess. But I would be a bit saddened if Everything went to Super 35
     
  4. BarryS

    BarryS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    0
    This seems to be the case. Nowadays, more often than not movies are shot for 1.85:1. 2.35:1 movies are usually Super35, so it does seem that anamorphic formats like Panavision are going the way of the Dodo.

    Of all the films nominated for major Academy Awards this year, only Pedro Almodovar's Talk To Her and Phillip Noyce's The Quiet American are anamorphic scope films.
     
  5. MatthewA

    MatthewA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    6,837
    Likes Received:
    699
    Location:
    Salinas, CA
    Real Name:
    Matthew
    Perhaps 65mm should make a revival. One can have greater depth of focus with it, if that's a concern.
     
  6. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,769
    Likes Received:
    2
    If Michael Coate is lurking, he may have some statistics on this, because he actually keeps track of such things. My own impression is that there are just as many scope films as always, but there are more 2.35:1 films, so the scope films represent a smaller percentage.

    M.
     
  7. Qui-Gon John

    Qui-Gon John Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2000
    Messages:
    3,527
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  8. WillG

    WillG Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,298
    Likes Received:
    29
    "My own impression is that there are just as many scope films as always, but there are more 2.35:1 films, so the scope films represent a smaller percentage."

    I'm not sure I'm following what you are trying to say
     
  9. Edwin-S

    Edwin-S Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    5,927
    Likes Received:
    273
    He seems to be saying that the number of films shot using anamorphic lenses isn't falling; the number of films using a 2.35:1 aspect ratio is rising. It gives the appearance that filming in scope is falling in popularity, when it really isn't.
     
  10. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,769
    Likes Received:
    2
    That's not what I "seem" to be saying; it's what I said. [​IMG]

    Again, I have no hard statistics, but my impression is:

    1. There are just as many (if not more) films being shot with scope lenses today as there were, say, 15 years ago.

    2. Today, however, there are many more films being framed for 2.35:1 using Super 35 that, in the past, might well have been framed for 1.85:1, because budgetary or technical constraints would have dictated against the use of anamorphic lenses. This is most noticeable among independent and low budget productions, but it can also affect big studio films (James Cameron is the most famous example, but there are others, including Scorsese).

    3. Accordingly, the total number of films framed for 2.35:1 is greater than it used to be. But the number of such films shot with anamorphic lenses hasn't seen a similar increase.

    M.
     
  11. Dick

    Dick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 1999
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    1,032
    Real Name:
    Rick
    Interesting that Spielberg shot MINORITY REPORT for 2.35:1, the first of his films in that ratio since the RAIDERS series, if I'm not mistaken.
     
  12. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,769
    Likes Received:
    2
    You're forgetting Hook. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. [​IMG]

    M.
     
  13. Jason Whyte

    Jason Whyte Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    1,442
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  14. BarryS

    BarryS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, Hook was Spielberg's last Panavision film. Unfortunate, though, since he almost always used to shoot in Panavision, until (I suppose) the advent of home video. The widescreen photography on such films as Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Raiders of the Lost Ark is beautiful. It's sad to see him give it up.
     
  15. Kevin Korom

    Kevin Korom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    1
    My understanding of Super35's current popularity is it lacks the optical distortions of anamorphic lenses. These optical issues raise havoc when adding CGI effects ala Harry Potter, LOTR, etc. You'd have to duplicate these effects in the digital domain, substantially increasing the difficulty of CGI production...
     
  16. Lou Sytsma

    Lou Sytsma Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 1998
    Messages:
    5,717
    Likes Received:
    230
    Real Name:
    Lou Sytsma
    Yep until digital effects progress to the stage where the use of anamorphic lens is not a concern this trend will continue.
     
  17. WillG

    WillG Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,298
    Likes Received:
    29
    What about if more films were shot digitally, such as Lucas did in ATOC. What is the principle there? Are there hard ARs for digital filming? I know ATOC was not shot in a matted widescreen format, since the FF version full blown P&S (Although I have never seen the FF version of this movie, I remember a comparison on the "Star Wars" website) Or, would 2.35:1 films shot digitally also have to utilize the anamorphic process?

    "The widescreen photography on such films as Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Raiders of the Lost Ark is beautiful. It's sad to see him give it up."

    I hope he decides not to break tradition and go Panavision for Indy 4
     
  18. Damin J Toell

    Damin J Toell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,762
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Real Name:
    Damin J. Toell
     
  19. Francois Caron

    Francois Caron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 1997
    Messages:
    2,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    Francois Caron
    Another reason so many widescreen films are shot in Super 35 is because there's no lack of lenses to choose from, and they're expendable during action scene shoots. Anamorphic lenses are simply too rare and expensive to be exposed to such hazardous conditions.
     
  20. WillG

    WillG Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,298
    Likes Received:
    29
    "Another reason so many widescreen films are shot in Super 35 is because there's no lack of lenses to choose from, and they're expendable during action scene shoots. Anamorphic lenses are simply too rare and expensive to be exposed to such hazardous conditions."

    Would you even need anamorphic lenses if you shot digitally, or can the amamorphic distortion be done by the digital camera itself?
     

Share This Page