Anomorphic Filming - Dying? (1 Viewer)

[Francois Caron]

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

The general rule is you photograph whatever you're filming in the best possible resolution. How that is accomplished with digital equipment depends on your target format of your piece and the format and resolution of the image capture device inside the camera. Whatever gives you the most pixels horizontally and vertically is preferable. Once the recording is inside the editing machine (computer), you can rescale (usually downscale) the image in any format you wish with little or no loss of resolution.

But as mentioned before, if you plan to add digital effects to your movie, you're better of working with non-anamorphic lenses regardless of the resolution just so that you can capture nice straight lines across the entire image. Anamorphic lenses normally can't record a scene totally "flat", often introducing curvature in all the straight edges. Merging digital effects to an image with curved edges is still too difficult to accomplish properly.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I hope he decides not to break tradition and go Panavision for Indy 4

I think there's some confusion in both of these posts... While the "Filmed in Panavision" moniker in credits is traditionally an indication of an anamorphic production, it isn't in and of itself the anamorphic process. Other comanies make anamorphic lenses, and Panavision makes spherical lenses ("Filmed with Panavision Cameras and Lenses") as well. That said, Spielberg has stated officially that he will be shooting Indy 4 on film, and I see no reason that it wouldn't be 2.35:1 and more likely than not anamorphic. Minority Report proved that he's still using the wider aspect ratio. I can't recall out of hand whether that was an anamorphic production or not.

 

[jessi01]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben

You're forgetting Hook. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

M.

Yeah hook is also a nice flick..

 

[David Sal]

To update, Spielberg last two films were 2.35: Munich and Indiana Jones 4.

Maybe will Tin Tin too, because the trailer is 2.35.

 

[Nathan V]

Good revival. Recent anamorphic films that come to mind offhand- Punch Drunk Love, Passion of the Christ, Mission Impossible 3, There Will be Blood, Darjeeling Limited. Always good to see Spielberg using 'scope. I'm curious to see what ratio War Horse and Lincoln end up being in. I mean, who would shoot a horse movie in 1.85?


Regards,

Nathan

 

[Lord Dalek]

Munich was shot in Super 35 (as was Minority Report). Indy 4 was Spielberg's first movie in true scope since Hook.

 

[whattodonow]

Could anyone give me links to guides for things like this? I want to join your debates, but I unfortunately have no knowledge of any of these things, I'd love to learn about it though. Like super 35, Anomorphic, 35 mm, ect.... thank you!

 

[WillG]

Recent anamorphic films that come to mind offhand- Punch Drunk Love, Passion of the Christ, Mission Impossible 3, There Will be Blood, Darjeeling Limited.

One thing about those movies, Anderson (Wes and P.T.), Abrhams and Gibson all have been characteristically loyal to anamorphic.

 

[David Sal]

Spielberg´s War Horse teaser is out and is 2.35. So it looks like another 2.35 widescreen release for him. Let´s hope is true scope. And it looks spectacular!! http://www.hd-trailers.net/movie/war-horse/

 

[Todd Erwin]

TinTin was obviously not "shot" in scope, since it is a performance capture movie, marking Spielberg's first all-digital production.

Originally Posted by David Sal

To update, Spielberg last two films were 2.35: Munich and Indiana Jones 4.

Maybe will Tin Tin too, because the trailer is 2.35.

 

[Geoff_D]

Chris Nolan loves anamorphic, and Michael Bay has been very loyal to it while making the Transformers flicks (IMAX and 3D parts aside). Matthew Vaughn's mad for it too.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Originally Posted by David Sal

Spielberg´s War Horse teaser is out and is 2.35. So it looks like another 2.35 widescreen release for him. Let´s hope is true scope.

Its Super 35. You can tell since the Lightspots are spherical, not ovular.


Anyhoo this doesn't necessarily guarantee the film is 2.40. There was a trailer for War of the Worlds in 2.40:1 yet the film was made in 1.85.

 

[BrettB]

There was a trailer for War of the Worlds in 2.40

Not a big deal but do you have a link? I don't recall this.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Originally Posted by BrettB



Not a big deal but do you have a link? I don't recall this.

No links, sorry. All it was was the final trailer cropped to 2.40:1.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The trailers for many movies are produced in both 2.39:1 and 1.85:1 ratios, because they play before movies of differing aspect ratios. I think most trailers for 2.39:1 films are letterboxed for the 1.85:1 prints and most trailers for 1.85:1 films are pillerboxed for the 2.39:1 prints, but there are definitely exceptions.

 

[Todd Erwin]

With the advent of digital projection, this has become the norm. Back in the film projection days, trailers were often cropped to match the feature presentation's aspect ratio.

Originally Posted by Adam Lenhardt

The trailers for many movies are produced in both 2.39:1 and 1.85:1 ratios, because they play before movies of differing aspect ratios. I think most trailers for 2.39:1 films are letterboxed for the 1.85:1 prints and most trailers for 1.85:1 films are pillerboxed for the 2.39:1 prints, but there are definitely exceptions.