2.35:1 anamorphic? (instead crop)

Mathieu Kassovitz · May 15th, 2006, 09:27 PM

When it wants the 2.35:1 format, the DPs give it anamorphic.

Nevertheless, Mr. Lucas' Star Wars had 1080p crop with the HDCAM.

In 2/3" HD, there is also the ACV-235 device (Canon) to avoid the horizontal lost from the 1080 to 817. But with a S35 there will be quite different...

The Canon's anamorphic converter works by optically compressing the CinemaScope image to a standard HD aspect ratio of 16:9 (1.78:1). Is there any possibility to have something like this from an anamorphic lens to the RED sensor?

Also in order to have it at the LCD provided with the RED camera but with the correct 2.35:1 ratio. If it is so easy to get it from a software source as it occurs with the most simple PhotoShop tool!

This would automatically unsqueeze the picture and portray it as full widescreen in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

And the same thing can be easily implemented into the RED codec with the 1080p or eventually into 2k.

Avoiding crop, can RED provide 2.35:1 anamorphic?

But with the widescreen correct ratio by software, that is, unsqueezed how the audiences have it at the movie theater without hassles at the post production or still to monitoring?

Will there be?

edit:
It would be a great real digital tool vs. the anamorphic shooting as we know (35mm) and a special upgrade-improvement for the film world to the digital environment.

Mathieu Kassovitz · May 15th, 2006, 10:06 PM

Canon's ACV-235
http://www.usa.canon.com/html/indust...35_intro.shtml
http://www.usa.canon.com/html/indust...041204_7.shtml

ERG HD monitors
http://www.erg-ventures.com/products/35d/index.htm (to mount on the camera)
http://www.erg-ventures.com/products/80d/index.htm
http://www.erg-ventures.com/products/30d/index.htm

Aspect ratio function: When images are recorded using a lens that optically expands or contracts, the recorded digital image is also
distorted, and cannot be displayed correctly on an ordinary monitor. The HDM-EV35D (or the HDM-EV80D or still the HDM-EV30D) uses the aspect ratio function to correctly display the recorded original image.

Stuart English · May 15th, 2006, 11:02 PM

Mathieu,

The RED camera is very flexible, but an anamorphic 35mm lens is designed to map a 2.35:1 image to a standard 4 perf 35mm (1.33 aspect ratio) frame. So it is not a good fit to the 16:9 aspect ratio Mysterium sensor. If there were a 35mm equivalant to the Canon EC-HD cine to 2/3" optical adaptor, or once a complimentary RED 2/3" lens mount becomes available, then this workflow would be very acceptable.

An alternative way of working is to treat RED as if it were a digital 3 perf Super 35mm camera. That means you capture an oversized 1.78:1 master (16:9 aspect) out of which you can create 2.35:1 and / or 1.85 and 1.33 aspect ratio outputs. An advantage of this technique is that you use standard spherical lenses, which in general are lighter, faster and less expensive than anamorphic lenses.

Either way, lots of options.

Mathieu Kassovitz · May 15th, 2006, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart English

Mathieu,

The RED camera is very flexible, but an anamorphic 35mm lens is designed to map a 2.35:1 image to a standard 4 perf 35mm (1.33 aspect ratio) frame. So it is not a good fit to the 16:9 aspect ratio Mysterium sensor. If there were a 35mm equivalant to the Canon EC-HD cine to 2/3" optical adaptor, or once a complimentary RED 2/3" lens mount becomes available, then this workflow would be very acceptable.

Stuart,

but in this case, not from the 11 480 800 pixels of the RED sensor but from the 2 073 600 pixels (1920 x 1080) acting as a 2/3" one (simple ENG camera; it doesn't matter if they are the F900 numbers) and not taking advantage of the huge size of the RED sensor.

MK

*EDIT*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart English

An alternative way of working is to treat RED as if it were a digital 3 perf Super 35mm camera. That means you capture an oversized 1.78:1 master (16:9 aspect) out of which you can create 2.35:1 and / or 1.85 and 1.33 aspect ratio outputs. An advantage of this technique is that you use standard spherical lenses, which in general are lighter, faster and less expensive than anamorphic lenses.

So, cropping to 2048 x 871 (2.35:1 ratio) as maximum of quality if 2K.

And in this case, is it possible to have it from the 4520 x 1920? (the 2.35:1 ratio from the 4520 x 2540 sensor) still using the 2K scaled (not windowed, of course) recording?

And just afterwards to scale down to 2048 x 871 (from the 4520 x 1920 bien sur...)? -- 2K scaled...

...but with the 2.35:1 ratio (4520 x 1920 = 8 678 400 pixels scaled down to 1 783 808 = 2048 x 871 pixels) not just from the 2 359 296 pixels (2048 x 1152)? -- but at the end the same ratio of 2048 x 871 though not directly from the 8 678 400 pixels as it happens in the case of native cropped (in the sensor from where it is originated) as 4520 x 1920...

That is:

4520 x 1920 [1st step] to 2048 x 871 [2nd and final step]
better results than
4520 x 2540 (4K+) [1st step] to 2048 x 1152 (2K at RED 1.78:1 or 16:9 sensor) [2nd step] to 2048 x 871 [3rd and final step]

This is what it's possible to extract following not the same but similar conclusion from the 2K scaled vs. 2K windowed comparison...

Am I right?

Merci

MK

Rob Lohman · May 16th, 2006, 04:34 AM

Mathieu: I've slightly formatted your post

I'm not with RED but option 1 sounds like the better option to use quality wise,
since you do a single resample instead of two.

However, there are two advantages I can come up with at the moment to do the
second option:

1) since it is a CMOS bayer sensor they could do a interpolation instead of a full resample

2) it will reduce the data flow significantly. That reduces storage requirements and should give you a faster post workflow

Stuart English · May 16th, 2006, 10:03 AM

Mathieu, Rob.

Either workflow would work, main difference is Option 2 would let you record internally to the RED camera, and so be more mobile.

Option 2. Image 4K, scale and record as 2K, and crop to a Digital Cinema 2K widescreen is supportable in REDCODE and by the Digital Magazine.

Option 1. Image 4K+ widescreen, then scale to 2K widescreen later. This requires an external RAW recorder at the moment (can't rule out for ever a future internal recording capability for this video format though) It also needs more sophisticated post tools but the image quality is potentially better as the captured image is uncompressed 12 bits per pixel RAW data.

Option 2. is much more portable and may therefore be more practical. In practice the actual image difference may not be very noticable - it depends on your final display medium and how you get the data to that medium.

Lots of choices... but we'll have to do a controlled test of these before we can comment much further...

Rob Lohman · May 16th, 2006, 10:39 AM

Thanks Stuart. Is that 12 bit or 10 bit log?

Stuart English · May 16th, 2006, 11:14 AM

RAW data is 12 bit, but could be reformatted as 10 bitlog if desired

REDCODE Wavelet encoding is always 10 bit, either 10 bit log (as used for RGB 2K) or 10 bit Linear (as used for 4:2:2 1080p, 1080i, 720p)

Robert Sanders · May 16th, 2006, 02:21 PM

There's just something really wonderful and epic the way anamorphic lenses look. The curvatures at the ends of the frame, the crazy lens flaring, the hyper breathing in rack focus shots....I adore that look.

Mathieu Kassovitz · May 16th, 2006, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Sanders

There's just something really wonderful and epic the way anamorphic lenses look. The curvatures at the ends of the frame, the crazy lens flaring, the hyper breathing in rack focus shots....I adore that look.

Who knows work with it doesn't want anything else ;)

A simple question (how about that?):

Wouldn't it be possible:

1st) scaling down from 4520 to 3386 pixels to get 1.33:1 (4:3) in order to squeeze to 2.35:1 anamorphic?

2nd) scaling down to 1440 x 1080 (1.33:1 and well-known to the F900 shooters as Robert)

i) and after unsqueeze to a format like 2538 x 1080 (2.35:1)?

ii) into the 1920 x 1080 HD format? -- similar to the Canon's or the ERG ventures' efforts and respective achievement;

Still having the REDCODEC as available as we need to handle with it (maybe a trade partnership with one or more NLE providers at both Mac & PC sides or even with an innovative company as Mr. David Newman's Cineform is).

If Canon has got it with the ACV-235 device and the ERG ventures with its HD monitors to a workflow of just 1080p...

2.35:1 anamorphic? (instead crop)

...why not also RED? (we would thank you!)

*EDIT* fixing link

Mathieu Kassovitz · May 16th, 2006, 11:08 PM

About lightweight and inexpensive anamorphic lenses, here is a bet:
http://www.slowmotioninc.com/sales/anamorphic_lens.htm

Buy a 24.5mm T2.1 and a 50 - 160mm T4.9 Lightweight and you will have the world in your hands...

Stephen C. Webb · May 17th, 2006, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathieu Kassovitz

Who knows work with it doesn't want anything else Wouldn't it be possible:

1) scaling down from 4520 to 3386 pixels to get 1.33:1 (4:3) in order to squeeze to 2.35:1 anamorphic?

No, because the sensor is 16:9 it is too small vertically to use for anamorphic. Anamorphic lenses are designed to target a frame size of 22x16mm - the Mysterium is 24.4x13.7mm, so with an anamorphic lense you'd end up wil a cropped image (probably giving somewhere around 2.6:1 or greater).

Marvin Emms · May 17th, 2006, 12:59 AM

Some of these ideas are a little difficult to follow Mathieu, you use some terms quite creatively.

"1) scaling down from 4520 to 3386 pixels to get 1.33:1 "

Since scaling does not change the aspect ratio of the image, only of the pixels, I think you mean 'cropping' and while theoretically this would work, practically it may result in a lit area needing custom lenses anyway.

If you can get a lens that will squash a 2.35:1 picture into a 16:9 super 35 sensor then the hardware part of the problem is solved. Equally if you can get a lens that will squash a 16:9 picture anamorphically into full frame acadamy super 35mm (4:3) then on Mysteriums 16:9 sensor this gets you workable anamorphic 2.35:1 over almost its full area and resolution. A 16:9 anamorphic lens can't be that rare a commodity can it?

I am specifically not a fan of 2.35:1, I feel it takes the emphasis too much off people, but do you need any adjustment to the software to work with it?

Mathieu Kassovitz · May 17th, 2006, 03:00 AM

*EDIT*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen C. Webb

No, because the sensor is 16:9 it is too small vertically to use for anamorphic. Anamorphic lenses are designed to target a frame size of 22x16mm - the Mysterium is 24.4x13.7mm, so with an anamorphic lense you'd end up wil a cropped image (probably giving somewhere around 2.6:1 or greater).

ok but Canon's ACV-235 is working from a smaller 2/3" sensor and resolution: 1920 (1440?) x 1080...
/*EDIT*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin Emms

Some of these ideas are a little difficult to follow Mathieu, you use some terms quite creatively.

"1) scaling down from 4520 to 3386 pixels to get 1.33:1 "

Since scaling does not change the aspect ratio of the image, only of the pixels, I think you mean 'cropping' and while theoretically this would work, practically it may result

Whatever... ok, then, cropping and squashing.

However, 3386 x 2540 = 8 600 440 pixels (lesser than 11 480 800 with a loss of 2 880 360 pixels). The best idea would be to have it from the 16:9 sensor (4520 x 2540) the same than the Canon with the ACV-235.

Quote:

a lit area needing custom lenses anyway

Considering ACV-235 as optical device, does it works with a 16:9 ratio from the 1920 x 1080 (resolution provided) ? And doesn't it from the 1440 x 1080 before the pixel shifting, is it possible? If not, 3386 x 2540 is higher than the 2/3" sensor, right?

So, why cropping (2048 x 871) ? If it's possible from the 1080p -- 1920 or even 1440?

With the anamorphic squashing into the 1.33:1 academy format (4:3 ratio), apparently it just deals 1440 x 1080 = 1 555 200 pixels
(lesser than 1 783 808 = 2048 x 871).

But after being anamorphically unsqueezed there will be an equivalent of 2 741 040 pixels (2538 x 1080). Therefore, higher.

Quote:

2.35:1, I feel it takes the emphasis too much off people, but do you need any adjustment to the software to work with it?

That's exactly 'the' point. It's not necessary to take away the crop solution but also an anamorphic one to the 2.35:1 format.

Two 2.35:1 different ways from 4520 x 2540 (4K+):
A) scaling down to 2048 x 1152 [1st step] and cropping to 2048 x 871 [2nd step]
B) cropping to 3386 x 2540 [1st step], scaling down to 1440 x 1080 [2nd step] and unsqueezed by software* to 2538 x 1080 [3rd step]

The second (B) option is better than the first (A) one, isn't it? Although lesser sensor area resolution it will have better final resolution, essential to any 35mm film-out blow-up.

* I'm not a R & D software engineer but I think it would be possible to handle with a 1440 x 1080 lighter workflow supported by any present NLE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Sanders

There's just something really wonderful and epic the way anamorphic lenses look. The curvatures at the ends of the frame, the crazy lens flaring, the hyper breathing in rack focus shots....I adore that look.

As Robert is saying, there are quite differences... So many... Any anamorphic shooter knows it!

If solved (hardware) as just a case of software (to monitoring as well), can't we have both solutions (2.35:1 crop and 2.35:1 anamorphic) there (REDCODEC and RED LCD) ?

Merci

MK

Robert Sanders · May 17th, 2006, 02:36 PM

By far the easiest solution is to shoot 2:35 safe and crop the image. It also gives you a couple extra options. For instance, I've grown accustomed to having extra picture information above and below the crop lines so I can reframe the image if need be. With anamorphic you're stuck with the framing.

However, there are no software plugin solutions that I know of that can emulate that wonderfully fantastic anamorphic look. There's a certain "je ne sais quoi" to the image that is absolutely unique to Hollywood blockbusters.

So, how does one use anamorphic lenses on the RED? If the CCD and image aspect ratio is full raster, square pixels...and we know that anamorphic lenses target a square target...logic would surmise that the far edges of the frame would get roll off, vignetting and/or zero exposure.

Sooo...one could crop the 16x9 image to 4x3 and then deanamorphisize the image to it's correct 2.35 aspect ratio.

May 15th, 2006, 09:27 PM	#1
Mathieu Kassovitz Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: paris Posts: 244	2.35:1 anamorphic? (instead crop) When it wants the 2.35:1 format, the DPs give it anamorphic. Nevertheless, Mr. Lucas' Star Wars had 1080p crop with the HDCAM. In 2/3" HD, there is also the ACV-235 device (Canon) to avoid the horizontal lost from the 1080 to 817. But with a S35 there will be quite different... The Canon's anamorphic converter works by optically compressing the CinemaScope image to a standard HD aspect ratio of 16:9 (1.78:1). Is there any possibility to have something like this from an anamorphic lens to the RED sensor? Also in order to have it at the LCD provided with the RED camera but with the correct 2.35:1 ratio. If it is so easy to get it from a software source as it occurs with the most simple PhotoShop tool! This would automatically unsqueeze the picture and portray it as full widescreen in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. And the same thing can be easily implemented into the RED codec with the 1080p or eventually into 2k. Avoiding crop, can RED provide 2.35:1 anamorphic? But with the widescreen correct ratio by software, that is, unsqueezed how the audiences have it at the movie theater without hassles at the post production or still to monitoring? Will there be? edit: It would be a great real digital tool vs. the anamorphic shooting as we know (35mm) and a special upgrade-improvement for the film world to the digital environment. Last edited by Mathieu Kassovitz; May 15th, 2006 at 11:06 PM.

May 15th, 2006, 11:02 PM	#3
Stuart English RED Workflow Wizard Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 112	2.35:1 production Mathieu, The RED camera is very flexible, but an anamorphic 35mm lens is designed to map a 2.35:1 image to a standard 4 perf 35mm (1.33 aspect ratio) frame. So it is not a good fit to the 16:9 aspect ratio Mysterium sensor. If there were a 35mm equivalant to the Canon EC-HD cine to 2/3" optical adaptor, or once a complimentary RED 2/3" lens mount becomes available, then this workflow would be very acceptable. An alternative way of working is to treat RED as if it were a digital 3 perf Super 35mm camera. That means you capture an oversized 1.78:1 master (16:9 aspect) out of which you can create 2.35:1 and / or 1.85 and 1.33 aspect ratio outputs. An advantage of this technique is that you use standard spherical lenses, which in general are lighter, faster and less expensive than anamorphic lenses. Either way, lots of options. __________________ Stuart English RED Workflow Wizard stuart@red.com

May 16th, 2006, 04:34 AM	#5
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,527	Mathieu: I've slightly formatted your post I'm not with RED but option 1 sounds like the better option to use quality wise, since you do a single resample instead of two. However, there are two advantages I can come up with at the moment to do the second option: 1) since it is a CMOS bayer sensor they could do a interpolation instead of a full resample 2) it will reduce the data flow significantly. That reduces storage requirements and should give you a faster post workflow __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

May 16th, 2006, 10:03 AM	#6
Stuart English RED Workflow Wizard Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 112	2.35:1 options Mathieu, Rob. Either workflow would work, main difference is Option 2 would let you record internally to the RED camera, and so be more mobile. Option 2. Image 4K, scale and record as 2K, and crop to a Digital Cinema 2K widescreen is supportable in REDCODE and by the Digital Magazine. Option 1. Image 4K+ widescreen, then scale to 2K widescreen later. This requires an external RAW recorder at the moment (can't rule out for ever a future internal recording capability for this video format though) It also needs more sophisticated post tools but the image quality is potentially better as the captured image is uncompressed 12 bits per pixel RAW data. Option 2. is much more portable and may therefore be more practical. In practice the actual image difference may not be very noticable - it depends on your final display medium and how you get the data to that medium. Lots of choices... but we'll have to do a controlled test of these before we can comment much further... __________________ Stuart English RED Workflow Wizard stuart@red.com

May 16th, 2006, 10:39 AM	#7
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,527	Thanks Stuart. Is that 12 bit or 10 bit log? __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

May 15th, 2006, 10:06 PM	#2
Mathieu Kassovitz Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: paris Posts: 244	Canon's ACV-235 http://www.usa.canon.com/html/indust...35_intro.shtml http://www.usa.canon.com/html/indust...041204_7.shtml ERG HD monitors http://www.erg-ventures.com/products/35d/index.htm (to mount on the camera) http://www.erg-ventures.com/products/80d/index.htm http://www.erg-ventures.com/products/30d/index.htm Aspect ratio function: When images are recorded using a lens that optically expands or contracts, the recorded digital image is also distorted, and cannot be displayed correctly on an ordinary monitor. The HDM-EV35D (or the HDM-EV80D or still the HDM-EV30D) uses the aspect ratio function to correctly display the recorded original image.

May 16th, 2006, 11:14 AM	#8
Stuart English RED Workflow Wizard Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 112	12 bit or 10 bit log ? RAW data is 12 bit, but could be reformatted as 10 bitlog if desired REDCODE Wavelet encoding is always 10 bit, either 10 bit log (as used for RGB 2K) or 10 bit Linear (as used for 4:2:2 1080p, 1080i, 720p) __________________ Stuart English RED Workflow Wizard stuart@red.com

May 16th, 2006, 02:21 PM	#9
Robert Sanders Starway Pictures Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Studio City Posts: 391	There's just something really wonderful and epic the way anamorphic lenses look. The curvatures at the ends of the frame, the crazy lens flaring, the hyper breathing in rack focus shots....I adore that look. __________________ http://www.starwaypictures.com http://starwaypictures.blogspot.com/

May 16th, 2006, 11:08 PM	#11
Mathieu Kassovitz Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: paris Posts: 244	anamorphic lenses offer to indies About lightweight and inexpensive anamorphic lenses, here is a bet: http://www.slowmotioninc.com/sales/anamorphic_lens.htm Buy a 24.5mm T2.1 and a 50 - 160mm T4.9 Lightweight and you will have the world in your hands...

May 17th, 2006, 12:59 AM	#13
Marvin Emms Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: UK Posts: 204	Some of these ideas are a little difficult to follow Mathieu, you use some terms quite creatively. "1) scaling down from 4520 to 3386 pixels to get 1.33:1 " Since scaling does not change the aspect ratio of the image, only of the pixels, I think you mean 'cropping' and while theoretically this would work, practically it may result in a lit area needing custom lenses anyway. If you can get a lens that will squash a 2.35:1 picture into a 16:9 super 35 sensor then the hardware part of the problem is solved. Equally if you can get a lens that will squash a 16:9 picture anamorphically into full frame acadamy super 35mm (4:3) then on Mysteriums 16:9 sensor this gets you workable anamorphic 2.35:1 over almost its full area and resolution. A 16:9 anamorphic lens can't be that rare a commodity can it? I am specifically not a fan of 2.35:1, I feel it takes the emphasis too much off people, but do you need any adjustment to the software to work with it?

May 17th, 2006, 02:36 PM	#15
Robert Sanders Starway Pictures Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Studio City Posts: 391	By far the easiest solution is to shoot 2:35 safe and crop the image. It also gives you a couple extra options. For instance, I've grown accustomed to having extra picture information above and below the crop lines so I can reframe the image if need be. With anamorphic you're stuck with the framing. However, there are no software plugin solutions that I know of that can emulate that wonderfully fantastic anamorphic look. There's a certain "je ne sais quoi" to the image that is absolutely unique to Hollywood blockbusters. So, how does one use anamorphic lenses on the RED? If the CCD and image aspect ratio is full raster, square pixels...and we know that anamorphic lenses target a square target...logic would surmise that the far edges of the frame would get roll off, vignetting and/or zero exposure. Sooo...one could crop the 16x9 image to 4x3 and then deanamorphisize the image to it's correct 2.35 aspect ratio. __________________ http://www.starwaypictures.com http://starwaypictures.blogspot.com/

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode