Re: Can an anamorphic movie still looked vertically stretched when projected with an anamorphic lens?


Simon Howson wrote:
> Martin Hart wrote:
>
> > I can't think of anything, using modern lenses, that would cause this
> > effect in projection. If there was not an anamorphic lens in use it
> > would be very, very obvious. It just might have been one of those days
> > when you get an idea into your head and convinced yourself that things
> > looked squeezed.
> >
> > Now someone can post something that totally explains how this happened.
> > I'd be interested in hearing it myself.
> >
> > Marty
>
> I don't know for sure, but The Island is notable for using some very
> wide angle anamorphic lenses. Michael Bay had Panavision make anamorphic
> attachments so that certain wide angle spherical lenses could be used as
> anamorphic. From the Auguest issue of American Cienmatographer:
>
> The production used a range of Primo anamorphic primes, and at Bay's
> request, Panavision also created an Angenieux 24-240mm anamorphic zoom
> and special adapters that would convert spherical _21mm and 17.5mm
> close-focus lenses into anamorphic lenses._ "I've always felt anamorphic
> is not good for shooting inserts - when you want to get right in on
> something, you have to step back and use a long lens, and the result can
> be very flat and boring," says Bay. "With these adapters, we could focus
> about 2 inches from the lens, and that helped give the inserts a little
> style." http://www.theasc.com/magazine/aug05/island/page2.html
>

....

Interestingly that article says he shot the movie in anammorphic
2.40:1.

I always thought that standard AR for sidescreen (like Panavision or
Super35) was 2.35:1 so possibly if the projection houses had only
lenses designed for that AR, a 2.40:1 image would not stretch enough
horizontally?

Pure speculation on my part - I don't know enough about post production
processes to know whether or not the AR is corrected during printing

.

Relevant Pages