Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
1920x810 -- the new "Cinemascope (2.35:1)" alternative.
  • JayB38JayB38

    With all the talk of "anamorphic" and achieving the widescreen look, what do you think of dslr camera or video cameras giving the options of both 1920x1080 and 1920x810 - particularly that of the Samsung NX dslr cameras. I think it would (I don't know) solve all the pros/cons of achieving the widescreen/anamorphic look. I've wondered as to why we're still into the 16:9 mode in the first place since most films are mosly 1.85:1 to 2.40:1.

    I hope I'm not making this an unnecessary post.

    a nice thought though, I can dream can I?

  • 32 Replies sorted by
  • CFreakCFreak

    @symph Nice job making that lens work!

  • symphsymph

    Did anyone encounter or worked with this Angenieux lens? The type is Angenieux AN.H 14x5.6 P.ESM. I could find nothing about this lens. Guess its from the eighties, B4 mount 1/2" I made an B4 to MFT mount and a support arm cause its a heavy lens. Thanks for watching and reading, with regards

    P7154443_800x451.jpg
    800 x 451 - 43K
    P7190294_800x450.jpg
    800 x 450 - 71K
    P7200318_800x450.jpg
    800 x 450 - 62K
    P7214456_800x456.jpg
    800 x 456 - 61K
    P7214466 angenieux_800x451.jpg
    800 x 451 - 52K
    P7214467_800x451.jpg
    800 x 451 - 63K
  • symphsymph

    First test with the Angénieux anamorphic zoom lens adapted to M43 Its a heavy lens end rare to find, 1:1.4 to 16 and closed diafragm. 5.6 to 78.5mm ( 11,2-157mm 2 times extender covering the m43 sensor)

  • stoneystoney

    I don’t have anamorphic lens, but if I had 1.33x one, I would imagine 1.33 times wider FOV with my bare eyes because the camera’s LCD would display vertically stretched image instead of normal looking view. E.g. imagine 35mm horizontal FOV when using a 50mm lens.

    Invert the logic. I could treat my lens 1.33 times longer than what it really is. E.g. treat a 25mm lens like 35mm focal length. Then I would frame based on the extended focal length without using anamorphic lens. Or I could frame with a 35mm lens first then swap it with a 25mm lens from the same standing point. After the cropping, it wouldn’t look like cropped.

  • bwhitzbwhitz

    @jeffharriger "Many top notch filmmakers have shot Super 35 and opted for faster spherical lenses cropped later, Scorsese with "Age of Innocence" and "Casino", Tarantino with "Kill Bill", and so on."

    Robert Rodriguez does this also. Once Upon a Time in Mexico was shot on 2/3" Sony HD and cropped to 2.4:1.

    It makes sense for some things. You lose resolution, but if you shoot a bit wider than you would for 16x9, it's really flexible for re-aligning shots in editing. It's almost the only way I shoot now.

  • LPowellLPowell

    @JayB38 Yes, the 100Mbps MJPEG settings I developed for the GH2 work fine at 1920x810 with the latest version of PTool. You can find it in either of these patches:

    http://www.personal-view.com./talks/discussion/479/gh2-mjpeg-100mbps-low-light-1080p-settings/p1

    http://www.personal-view.com./talks/discussion/2099/100mbps-flow-motion-v1.11-failsafe-patch-with-hbr-25p-50p-modes/p1

  • johnnymjohnnym

    Thing is : you can shoot in AVCHD 2x anamorphic right now, and you wouldn't have less resolution than when it was 4:3. But it seems such a waste, doesn't it? Cropping down from 3.56 to 2.4 aspect ratio. What would be really cool : AVCHD 4:3 with higher vertical resolution say 1920x1440 or 2560x1920. That way maybe part of the softness of shooting anamorphic could be compensated for (given your lenses are sharp of course) I hope the BMCC will be able to shoot at full sensor resolution which has a 1.18 aspect ratio. That way we can shoot 2x anamorphic and arrive at 2.36 and have the vertical resolution of 4K (actually even a little more).

  • JayB38JayB38

    Would LPowell's anamorphic settings work on the new PTools? I've tried EOSHD's, and it's okay. I'll post some test shots today and post them here.

  • jeffharrigerjeffharriger

    oops, Gabel said exactly what I did.....

  • jeffharrigerjeffharriger

    I may be wrong, but I think it's been YEARS, maybe decades, since any "Hollywood" movie was actually 2.35:1, it's really 2.39:1, or just call it 2.4:1 nowadays. Going with 1920X800 is easier math and really a little more accurate for Cinemascope and all. As far as cropping, that's pretty standard, too. Many top notch filmmakers have shot Super 35 and opted for faster spherical lenses cropped later, Scorsese with "Age of Innocence" and "Casino", Tarantino with "Kill Bill", and so on. Same exact principle. 1:85 must only be hanging on for the sake of not replacing every bloody aperture plate in every projection room, otherwise 1:78 is just so close...

  • stoneystoney

    BTW 1920 x 818 gives 2.35:1.

  • stoneystoney

    See the 1st post from this thread about how to draw anamorphic lines on LCD screen protector.

    http://personal-view.com/talks/discussion/2311/lenses-for-2.351-cropping

  • ChainsawFilmsChainsawFilms

    Going back to the original post, I really see no point in having a 1920x810 mode on a camera. Just shoot 16:9 and crop it if you want the cinemascope aspect ratio. Gives you some wiggle room to reframe, and makes those close-ups even closer :)

  • KihlianKihlian

    @Ralph_B +1

  • stoneystoney

    @plasmasmp Let's say one uses 35mm lens & 1.33x anamorphic lens. He could use 25mm lens to get similar horizontal FOV from the same standing point. My gut feeling is that the latter would be sharper. Other differences would be the unique looks from anamorphic lens that are hard to be manipulated during post-processing.

  • Ralph_BRalph_B

    Guys, wouldn't you like to have a camera that gives you the option to shoot 2540 x 1080, which is a 2.35 aspect ratio. Put your votes in. Remember, camera manufacturers might be reading this thread.

  • rozrozrozroz

    again, does anyone knows what's my cheapest option for a SINGLE FOCUS x2 anamorphic lens?

  • GabelGabel

    @rozroz: Yeah, that's what he means. The AF100, FS100 (with firmware 2) and most decent monitors (like SmallHD) comes with them. Very practical to have. I often do spherical 2.39:1 (as a 1.33 anamorphic wasn't good enough and I need a system where I can focus during a take) and it works well. Keep in mind a majority of films in 2.39:1 today is shot spherical Super 35, like Lord of the Rings, Kill Bill and anything done by Roger Deakins (who disliked anamorphics) and I don't think it's a "fake" look, it becomes fake once you add in the flares...

  • rozrozrozroz

    oh, you mean like different 'safety zones' to help you while shooting? yea that can be a nice feature.

  • RRRRRRRR

    @rozroz I'm not talking about loosing info, I'm talking about using the native frame and having guidelines (just like the ones already present in the camera but for different frame formats) to help with framing (cropping in post). De-squeezing anamorphic shots for preview would also be nice, granted. But that is an entirely different function. (changing pixel aspect ratio for the preview)

    You are completely correct that frame size alone is no replacement / alternative for the "anamorphic look".

  • rozrozrozroz

    @RRRR, ok, if people have serious use for those frame formats and prefer to LOSE ALL THE CROPPED INFO THEY SHOT ANYWAY, fine. just wanted to make sure no one will confuse this with real anamorphic look, because real anamorphic lens take all the sensor info and squeeze it in the 'cropped' frame. that's the whole difference. no use calling it ALTERNATIVE, cause it's not even close.

    if it's just a plain cropping feature, you are right.

  • RRRRRRRR

    @rozroz what would make sense is built in guidelines for different frame formats, 1:1, 3:4, 1:85, 2:21:1, 2.35:1, 2.40:1 a.s.o.. Easier and more precise than black tape.

  • rozrozrozroz

    i seriously don't get the 'just a crop with no real anamorphic lens' debate. anamorphic means that you use an anamorphic lens, as stonebat says. just a cropped mode, no matter which size, is pretty useless. why don't you just put a black tape on the lcd?

    if there only was a way to break the 16:9 AVCHD code and make it a 4:3..... it would make the whole x2 lens market go sky high. (lucky i already have a Kowa :) ) BTW- is there a cheap single focus x2 lens? couldn't find one.

  • RRRRRRRR

    Personally I see no benefit from shooting in 1920 x 810 (over 1920 x 1080). If I plan to crop I don't mind having the extra information on the edges. It can be very helpful for slight adjustments of shots done in haste. I would like to have frames/guidelines for different aspects in preview though - for shoots I know I will crop.

  • JayB38JayB38

    @rozroz - agreed!

    Not to be off topic, referring to the patch, the only way to get the 4:3 to take advantage of 2x lens is through MJPEG w/ high bit-rate. I tried the AVCHD with my Sankor 16F, though the 3.55:1, it's cool for some, it's just don't look right IMO for that anamorphic look. I got Sony Vegas, and it's a pain to stretch to get the correct fit.

    Maybe I'm over-thinking this.

Add a Comment