Just saw Star Trek...

Harrison Murchison · May 18th, 2009, 05:32 PM

Karl Urban impressed the hell out of me with his Bones. I though he took the cake for apeing the orginal cast member.

Uhura was a bit overdone and trying to infuse a love story with Spock was awkward.

Charles Papert · May 18th, 2009, 05:34 PM

A 25mm anamorphic lens has the same depth of field characteristic as a 25mm spherical lens, however due to the anamorphic element it will deliver twice the field of view. So you have to go to a 50mm anamorphic lens to deliver an equivalent shot, which of course has a shallower depth of field.

Fortunately anamorphics tend to be slower lenses, so you don't have to deal with the madness of T1.4. However, the use of a de-anamorphoser in the eyepiece causes the viewing system to lose some sharpness and thus it is tough to judge critical focus in the eyepiece.

Andy Wong · May 19th, 2009, 11:25 AM

I forgot about the change in field of view. Cheers, that makes sense.

But am I right to assume that if you're used to shooting 16:9 (with no cropping to obtain 2.39:1), and you wish to start shooting 2.39:1 by anamorphic lenses, then the DOF you're used to remains unaffected as the headspace should be the same? (Confusing question, I know)

David Mullen · May 19th, 2009, 08:13 PM

I'm not sure I understand the question. Standard 2X anamorphic lenses have a 2X horizontal compression factor, so a 50mm anamorphic lens sees the same horizontal view as a 25mm spherical lens, more or less (Super-35 uses a slightly wider gate that anamorphic, 24mm wide instead of 22mm wide, so the equivalent focal lengths when shooting Super-35 framed for cropping to 2.40 are not exactly half the focal length as an anamorphic lens. So if you were using a 50mm anamorphic lens, you'd use probably a 27mm spherical lens in Super-35 to match horizontal view, not a 25mm.)

What affects depth of field is the focal length you end up choosing, assuming you don't change the f-stop nor the distance to the subject when trying to match field of view. But this assumes you are composing for the same aspect ratio otherwise it's a bit apples and oranges.

Practically speaking, 2X anamorphic photography is almost like opening up two stops in terms of the loss of depth of field compared to spherical photography, hence why an f/4.0 in 35mm anamorphic looks similar to shooting at an f/2.0 in Super-35. It's a little more complicated than that because in theory, anamorphic lenses produce an oval circle of confusion so the depth of field is somewhat different horizontally than it is vertically. But rather than get confused by this, suffice to say that you are dealing with less depth of field with anamorphic photography because you are compensating for the wider view by using longer focal lengths.

Now when anamorphic was first used in early CinemaScope movies, some DP's and directors claimed erroneously that it had more depth of field -- because instead of a 50mm spherical lens, they used a 50mm anamorphic lens and got double the field of view, and thus a more wide-angle shot, making them think they were getting deeper focus. They weren't compensating for the wider view by using a longer focal length because one of the reasons for shooting CinemaScope was to see more horizontal information.

Andy Wong · May 20th, 2009, 04:51 AM

I'm guess what I'm trying to say is that, say I'm shooting 50mm spherical lens at a 16:9 aspect ratio. And I have my talent framed with the correct head space I want. And then I decide to shoot anamorphic to get a wider field of view. Because the compression factor of anamorphic lenses is only along the horizontal, to maintain my original framing of the talent (head space), I'm just gonna use a 50mm anamorphic?

In other words, the DOF is the same right? (without considering the nuances of CoF for anamorphic lenses)

David Mullen · May 20th, 2009, 09:29 AM

If you switch from a 50mm spherical to a 50mm anamorphic and don't change anything, then yes -- you're getting the DOF of a 50mm lens either way, more or less.

But since an anamorphic lens has double the horizontal view, it looks quite wide-angle compared to the spherical lens so I don't see a situation happening like you are describing. It's sort of a pointless "what if" question. You pick lenses generally for their field of view and their compression/expansion of space. This is why it is rare to use a lens much wider-angle than a 35mm in anamorphic photography, which is comparable in effect to something like an 18mm in spherical photography. You can't say "I'll just keep the same depth of field in anamorphic by using the same focal lengths as I would in spherical photography."

Also, you'd have to use a unique 1.3X anamorphic to fit 2.40 onto a 16x9 sensor -- most anamorphic lenses have a 2X squeeze, which gives you a 3.56 : 1 image on a 16x9 camera, so you end up cropping the sides to get back to 2.40.

The anamorphic format uses a 1.20 : 1 negative area and the lens has a 2X optical squeeze.

Plus again, you really should be comparing things composed for the same aspect ratio.

Assuming you can get a 1.3X anamorphic lens for your 16x9 camera... that would give you a 2.40 image (once unsqueezed) on a 16x9 recording. So let's say you had a 50mm spherical lens on a 16x9 camera and then you switched to a 50mm 1.3X anamorphic lens, getting a wider angle view horizontally. You say that you would keep the vertical framing the same, but if you were matching aspect ratio, you'd have to crop the vertical area of the 16x9 spherical version to get the same aspect ratio (2.40). So once you do that, you aren't even comparing two images with either the same vertical or horizontal view, so what's the point? Both versions are using a 50mm lens, but they don't have to same view in either direction once you match aspect ratio.

But to answer your question, the DOF is affected by the lens being a 50mm, let's say, whether or not it is an anamorphic lens or not.

Andy Wong · May 20th, 2009, 11:09 AM

Thanks, that makes a lot more sense to me. I guess because I have yet to experience anamorphic photography, I haven't considered the practical implications of looking at things with double the horizontal view. But your explanation of 35mm anamorphic approximating to 18mm spherical was golden -- which was what Charles basically told me but I didn't click on. Cheers guys. :)

Thomas Smet · May 27th, 2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Ganglfinger

Everything about the movie was stunning, the best ST made to date, however.....
They completely screwed up everything in regards to the star trek story line. Not just a few inconsistancies... totally absoutely screwed up!!!

It is a shame because the character development, casting, acting, production and everything else were perfect. They just alienated a huge Star Trek fan base for no good reason.

The storyline was totally changed because of the time travel factor. Everybody's lives were forever changed by what happened in the begining of the movie. In the past we all know about, the crew got to know each other in a very different way. This helps open up StarTrek to a whole new future that we can explore in future movies or TV series. If the timeline stayed the same there wouldn't have been much to work with since they would have had to force fit all the facts. Now they can just enjoy the characters and create all new stories that none of us know.

This method does a good job by still making the origional series and movies valid from a certain point of view. They are valid in that alternate timeline but now there is a new timeline. It's like living a full life and then going back in time to now live a whole new life. Very well done in my opinion. I can't wait to see if they take ST to the next level.

Ethan Cooper · May 28th, 2009, 08:34 AM

Saw it last weekend and thought it was very well done. These are my thoughts for what it's worth:

1) Does every shot NEED anamorphic lens flares? Half way through the movie my wife leans over to me and asks, "what's with all the blue things on the screen". If it's distracting to the average viewer, don't do it as much. Just a suggestion.

2) Loved Kirk, Spock, and Chekov (really liked Chekov for some reason)

3) Bones. I didn't really like Bones in this one. Something about him just didn't work as well as the old Bones.

4) Where was the old Star Trek Movie music? Did I just miss it? I was hoping to hear that somewhere just to feed my nostalgia. Not a big deal.

5) What's with J.J. Abrams and time travel/alternate dimensions? I think he's obsessed.

6) Out of focus old Spock. How did they let that go? How did that stay in the movie for as long as it did? As a production guy I was appalled that was allowed to go in a big budget movie. And they kept cutting back to it. Wow. I read what Charles wrote about anamorphic focus being tough but someone didn't see this on the dailies and request a re-shoot, or schedule Nemoy for a green screen session sometime later or something.

7) Why did they give Scotty a JarJar sidekick?

Aside from these mostly nitpicky things I thought it was really well done, very entertaining.

Dennis Stevens · June 5th, 2009, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

The storyline was totally changed because of the time travel factor. Everybody's lives were forever changed by what happened in the begining of the movie. In the past we all know about, the crew got to know each other in a very different way. This helps open up StarTrek to a whole new future that we can explore in future movies or TV series.

Exactly. For example, in the alternate timeline the buttons on the consoles will be labeled with their function.

As a kid watching the old series, the consoles all had these random lights and buttons. I wondered if they just memorized what the buttons did? Why not just put labels on everything?

Smarta** comments will be discontinued. Great movie.

Bryan Daugherty · June 5th, 2009, 09:20 PM

I don't know if you are a "Firefly" fan, but David Tudyk ("Wash"), the pilot from that series, said in a special feature on the DVD that no matter what was going on, he had a series of buttons that he went to "make things happen." I would imagine on the old ST series it was much like that too. Now push this button, now that...make it look complicated...and repeat.

I really like the Enterprise update, she was always a great ship but now she looks like the flagship of a multi-planetary fleet...all the way around just awesome, can't wait to go see it again...

May 18th, 2009, 05:34 PM	#17
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	A 25mm anamorphic lens has the same depth of field characteristic as a 25mm spherical lens, however due to the anamorphic element it will deliver twice the field of view. So you have to go to a 50mm anamorphic lens to deliver an equivalent shot, which of course has a shallower depth of field. Fortunately anamorphics tend to be slower lenses, so you don't have to deal with the madness of T1.4. However, the use of a de-anamorphoser in the eyepiece causes the viewing system to lose some sharpness and thus it is tough to judge critical focus in the eyepiece. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

May 19th, 2009, 08:13 PM	#19
David Mullen American Society of Cinematographers Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 123	I'm not sure I understand the question. Standard 2X anamorphic lenses have a 2X horizontal compression factor, so a 50mm anamorphic lens sees the same horizontal view as a 25mm spherical lens, more or less (Super-35 uses a slightly wider gate that anamorphic, 24mm wide instead of 22mm wide, so the equivalent focal lengths when shooting Super-35 framed for cropping to 2.40 are not exactly half the focal length as an anamorphic lens. So if you were using a 50mm anamorphic lens, you'd use probably a 27mm spherical lens in Super-35 to match horizontal view, not a 25mm.) What affects depth of field is the focal length you end up choosing, assuming you don't change the f-stop nor the distance to the subject when trying to match field of view. But this assumes you are composing for the same aspect ratio otherwise it's a bit apples and oranges. Practically speaking, 2X anamorphic photography is almost like opening up two stops in terms of the loss of depth of field compared to spherical photography, hence why an f/4.0 in 35mm anamorphic looks similar to shooting at an f/2.0 in Super-35. It's a little more complicated than that because in theory, anamorphic lenses produce an oval circle of confusion so the depth of field is somewhat different horizontally than it is vertically. But rather than get confused by this, suffice to say that you are dealing with less depth of field with anamorphic photography because you are compensating for the wider view by using longer focal lengths. Now when anamorphic was first used in early CinemaScope movies, some DP's and directors claimed erroneously that it had more depth of field -- because instead of a 50mm spherical lens, they used a 50mm anamorphic lens and got double the field of view, and thus a more wide-angle shot, making them think they were getting deeper focus. They weren't compensating for the wider view by using a longer focal length because one of the reasons for shooting CinemaScope was to see more horizontal information. __________________ David Mullen, ASC Los Angeles

May 20th, 2009, 09:29 AM	#21
David Mullen American Society of Cinematographers Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 123	If you switch from a 50mm spherical to a 50mm anamorphic and don't change anything, then yes -- you're getting the DOF of a 50mm lens either way, more or less. But since an anamorphic lens has double the horizontal view, it looks quite wide-angle compared to the spherical lens so I don't see a situation happening like you are describing. It's sort of a pointless "what if" question. You pick lenses generally for their field of view and their compression/expansion of space. This is why it is rare to use a lens much wider-angle than a 35mm in anamorphic photography, which is comparable in effect to something like an 18mm in spherical photography. You can't say "I'll just keep the same depth of field in anamorphic by using the same focal lengths as I would in spherical photography." Also, you'd have to use a unique 1.3X anamorphic to fit 2.40 onto a 16x9 sensor -- most anamorphic lenses have a 2X squeeze, which gives you a 3.56 : 1 image on a 16x9 camera, so you end up cropping the sides to get back to 2.40. The anamorphic format uses a 1.20 : 1 negative area and the lens has a 2X optical squeeze. Plus again, you really should be comparing things composed for the same aspect ratio. Assuming you can get a 1.3X anamorphic lens for your 16x9 camera... that would give you a 2.40 image (once unsqueezed) on a 16x9 recording. So let's say you had a 50mm spherical lens on a 16x9 camera and then you switched to a 50mm 1.3X anamorphic lens, getting a wider angle view horizontally. You say that you would keep the vertical framing the same, but if you were matching aspect ratio, you'd have to crop the vertical area of the 16x9 spherical version to get the same aspect ratio (2.40). So once you do that, you aren't even comparing two images with either the same vertical or horizontal view, so what's the point? Both versions are using a 50mm lens, but they don't have to same view in either direction once you match aspect ratio. But to answer your question, the DOF is affected by the lens being a 50mm, let's say, whether or not it is an anamorphic lens or not. __________________ David Mullen, ASC Los Angeles

May 28th, 2009, 08:34 AM	#24
Ethan Cooper Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Houma, La. Posts: 1,400 Images: 5	Saw it last weekend and thought it was very well done. These are my thoughts for what it's worth: 1) Does every shot NEED anamorphic lens flares? Half way through the movie my wife leans over to me and asks, "what's with all the blue things on the screen". If it's distracting to the average viewer, don't do it as much. Just a suggestion. 2) Loved Kirk, Spock, and Chekov (really liked Chekov for some reason) 3) Bones. I didn't really like Bones in this one. Something about him just didn't work as well as the old Bones. 4) Where was the old Star Trek Movie music? Did I just miss it? I was hoping to hear that somewhere just to feed my nostalgia. Not a big deal. 5) What's with J.J. Abrams and time travel/alternate dimensions? I think he's obsessed. 6) Out of focus old Spock. How did they let that go? How did that stay in the movie for as long as it did? As a production guy I was appalled that was allowed to go in a big budget movie. And they kept cutting back to it. Wow. I read what Charles wrote about anamorphic focus being tough but someone didn't see this on the dailies and request a re-shoot, or schedule Nemoy for a green screen session sometime later or something. 7) Why did they give Scotty a JarJar sidekick? Aside from these mostly nitpicky things I thought it was really well done, very entertaining. __________________ ∅ -Ethan Cooper

June 5th, 2009, 09:20 PM	#26
Bryan Daugherty Major Player Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Lexington, Ky - USA Posts: 552	I don't know if you are a "Firefly" fan, but David Tudyk ("Wash"), the pilot from that series, said in a special feature on the DVD that no matter what was going on, he had a series of buttons that he went to "make things happen." I would imagine on the old ST series it was much like that too. Now push this button, now that...make it look complicated...and repeat. I really like the Enterprise update, she was always a great ship but now she looks like the flagship of a multi-planetary fleet...all the way around just awesome, can't wait to go see it again... __________________ 3x-HD1000u - Ikan 8000HD- custom i7 PC - Vegas Pro 13 and 11 64 bit - Premiere Pro CS4 - and a whole mess of other equipment...

May 18th, 2009, 05:32 PM	#16
Harrison Murchison Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Seattle Posts: 243	Karl Urban impressed the hell out of me with his Bones. I though he took the cake for apeing the orginal cast member. Uhura was a bit overdone and trying to infuse a love story with Spock was awkward.

May 19th, 2009, 11:25 AM	#18
Andy Wong New Boot Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: UK Posts: 20	I forgot about the change in field of view. Cheers, that makes sense. But am I right to assume that if you're used to shooting 16:9 (with no cropping to obtain 2.39:1), and you wish to start shooting 2.39:1 by anamorphic lenses, then the DOF you're used to remains unaffected as the headspace should be the same? (Confusing question, I know)

May 20th, 2009, 04:51 AM	#20
Andy Wong New Boot Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: UK Posts: 20	I'm guess what I'm trying to say is that, say I'm shooting 50mm spherical lens at a 16:9 aspect ratio. And I have my talent framed with the correct head space I want. And then I decide to shoot anamorphic to get a wider field of view. Because the compression factor of anamorphic lenses is only along the horizontal, to maintain my original framing of the talent (head space), I'm just gonna use a 50mm anamorphic? In other words, the DOF is the same right? (without considering the nuances of CoF for anamorphic lenses)

May 20th, 2009, 11:09 AM	#22
Andy Wong New Boot Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: UK Posts: 20	Thanks, that makes a lot more sense to me. I guess because I have yet to experience anamorphic photography, I haven't considered the practical implications of looking at things with double the horizontal view. But your explanation of 35mm anamorphic approximating to 18mm spherical was golden -- which was what Charles basically told me but I didn't click on. Cheers guys. :)