Shooting Alexa 2.35/1 with Spherical Lenses

[Gary Adcock]

[Shawn Larkin] ” toying with the idea of shooting my next project on Alexa with Spherical Lenses and simply cropping to the 2.35(40)/1 frame.”

being done all the time, as this is the process for most digital projects. Set the frame indicators in the viewfinder and go.

“want to know what is the best way to treat the cropping of the images.”

That should be left to whom ever is doing the finishing, this will offer most flexibility and control through the process.

“Has anyone seen a filmout of material that was digitally “squeezed” from a full frame crop an into anamorphic image area on a film negative”

why do that? I do not understand your need for an anamorphic squeeze on the film print?

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

https://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

[Shawn Larkin]

Thanks. Just started to read some tech specs on viewfinder. All very clear now.

My Anamorphic Squeeze question is in relation to 35mm projection, which can only project 2.35/1 with Anamorphic Lenses. There is no hard matte to crop the projection area of a film print to anything wider than 1.85/1.

So you would have to squeeze the cropped Alexa image into a film negative during film out in order to project it “widescreen anamorphic.”

I’m sure this looks good, but I wanted to hear from someone that has done this before any thoughts or considerations.

Thanks in advance.

[Gary Adcock]

[Shawn Larkin] “My Anamorphic Squeeze question is in relation to 35mm projection, which can only project 2.35/1 with Anamorphic Lenses. “

It is my understanding that only a small number theaters are using anamorphic projection for film playback, with less and less every year.

The process of squeezing the image was controlled at the output stage by the lab handling the prints so choose your lab wisely.

I have done Alexa tests with this methodology, but my output were spherical not anamorphic.

Also I would at least look into the Hawk1.3 Anamorphic lenses, minimal distortions, less flare, yet it will allow you to use every pixel of the imager without having to crop or scale your final image unless you choose to.

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

https://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

[Shawn Larkin]

FYI: The vast majority of theaters in the world still project 35mm. And you get these choices with a non-4×3 film frame:

1) Hard Matte in 1.85 or 1.66 using Spherical Lenses
2) Full Projection Area using Anamorphic Lenses

With the newer crop of digital 2K and 4K projection, I do not know if Mattes with Spherical Lenses OR Anamorphic Lenses are being used OR if they just project the exact pixel aspect ratio of the show and adjust the Spherical Lens focal distance and screen curtain accordingly.

Do you know the standards here? This seems importnat to me.

Thanks for the Hawk Lens referral; they look quite promising. Are they the only company doing a 1.3 Anamorphic Lens now?

[Gary Adcock]

[Shawn Larkin] “FYI: The vast majority of theaters in the world still project 35mm. And you get these choices with a non-4×3 film frame:”

Yes I do know these things, however in this country (USA) the vast majority of 35mm film is NOT projected with anamorphic lenses, most new theaters do not even own Anamorphic projection glass.

“2) Full Projection Area using Anamorphic Lenses”

Again only valid with a theatre that supports this, I live in chicago and only 3 houses in town still offer anamorphic projection and it is a big deal to get them to use it ( expect at the Siskel Center) One of the issues I was told about was it required them to change the curtain setup to allow for full image so,they choose to not show films in that format.

“With the newer crop of digital 2K and 4K projection,”
I have never seen an anamorphic lens on a digital projector, not in the lab or in real practice, does not mean they do not exist, I have just not ever seen one.

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

https://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

[Fred Jodry]

Shawn, I`d supose that your dislike of the anamorphic lens`s quality is the fact that anything out of focus (as too near or far for the focus) comes out as an oval due to a circular iris. Why don`t you ask the lenses manufacturers and sellers if they make anamorphic lenses with irises that aperture in an opposite oval to compensate, or that simply don`t have the problem. You`re surrounded with other inquiring minds that want to know.

[Gary Adcock]

[Fred Jodry] “Why don`t you ask the lenses manufacturers and sellers if they make anamorphic lenses with irises that aperture in an opposite oval to compensate, or that simply don`t have the problem. “

Fred,
your replies always confound me,

do you understand how anamorphic lenses work?
have you ever heard of a lens mfg creating or using a non standard iris on optics?

Would you buy a set of what are already incredibly expensive lenses with custom mod’s to every iris? Better yet who is going to rent them outside of London and LA?

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

https://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

[Fred Jodry]

Gary, some of us own cameras and lenses where the lenses have sales prices higher instead of lower than the cameras. It`s what you get out that counts.
Shawn, talk with your film print maker. What he sends to what projectors is the answer. Picture quality going into the print does indeed matter because it is straddled with film grain. If the movie watchers see objectionable amounts of print grain because a clear image isn`t pushing it out of the way then this is a problem. My best suggestion here is that you think of your productions as a serial professional output in that you make beginning features that can push through the film print “sand and lightningstorms” without distraction. Later when the printer has pushed his stale film print stock out the door you can make features with much better excursions into low light or low contrast scenes. Personally I use film color separations for every stage of the operation from camera to print that`s available, especially “inter-negatives”. Film separations make very nice proofs too and are far easier to make on location. One trouble is that the Log C format on the ARRI is made to mate into the uneven setup of regular one- piece negative or inter-negatives outputs, a disadvantage. Since ARRI sold the Alexa as a camera that markets to sooner than film negatives, or live output of production, they have some catching up to do!

[Gary Adcock]

[Fred Jodry] “Gary, some of us own cameras and lenses where the lenses have sales prices higher instead of lower than the cameras. It`s what you get out that counts. “

Pretty Snotty answer- However I will match my glass anytime, since I only buy lenses, I rent cameras.

I own a set of 6 Cooke i/4’s, a 100 mm Arri Macro and a matched pair of Angenieux DP Rouge Lenses for stereoscopic work all in PL mount.

“Since ARRI sold the Alexa as a camera that markets to sooner than film negatives, or live output of production, they have some catching up to do!”

Since when has it be incumbent on the camera Mfg’s to handle anything in post? The Alexa Content is designed to be handled like film does, where as every ISO needs to have slightly different curves applied. While there are default LUT tables for Arri, the reality is that anytime a new camera system comes out it is necessary to retune the post setup for specific cameras and lighting combos,

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

https://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

[Fred Jodry]

“Since ARRI sold the Alexa as a camera that markets to sooner than film negatives, or live output of production, they have some catching up to do!” -Fred

Since when has it be incumbent on the camera Mfg’s to handle anything in post? -Gary

A: Since when? ARRI originally promised the Alexa to be intended dually to be a film camera replacement as well as to be a new item in Broadcasting. The day that I see 5 Alexas plug in those live set- up “LUT” boxes for them that were only covered once in the cow right after NAB this spring, then conspire their outputs into a mixing board for live coverage of an event the nature of the Daytona 500, while pickoff outputs simultaneously pour into recorders for later edited shows, then the pickoffs also are bumped down into advertising on maybe TV Guide, Glenn Hauser`s World Of Radio (which also covers TV), networked stations promos, and of course the usual DVDs and VHS`s, then these babies have cranked. Until then they`re just shooting flowers and apples on a table. Also until then, don`t blame Robert Monaghan, an awful lot of others who`ve put in their sweat and money, nor me. I`m wishing Mike Bravin and all the gang all the luck as Broadcasters do indeed have themselves plenty of blame for the stupid idea that for the last few decades, anything ARRI- film has, had nothing to do with them next to the Sony, etc., etc., junk. -Fred`s new answer

The Alexa Content is designed to be handled like film does, where as every ISO needs to have slightly different curves applied. While there are default LUT tables for Arri, the reality is that anytime a new camera system comes out it is necessary to retune the post setup for specific cameras and lighting combos, -Gary

Those live LUT boxes that were covered after NAB would do it, now do it LIVE. It`s also ridiculous tha some Alexa producers have ProRes firmware only and the others have ARRIRAW only firmware, and obviously can`t trade easily. another new Fred`s answer

Completely different subject, from Alexa`s forum not here:
More than 2 channels of audio?
If post, not live, how about either midi or timecode used on the Alexa, then post produced in a sound house? -A. N. F`. A.