Arriflex Anamorphic Prime Lens on XL2

[Eniola Akintoye]

Can somebody please tell me if an Arriflex Anamorphic Prime Lens is used with an XL2. will it give a film look like that of a 35mm adapter?

Or what sort of lenses like this, can somebody buy to achieve a film look apart from the usual 35mm adapter being sold nowadays?


http://cgi.ebay.com/Anamorphic-50mm-...dZViewItemthat

[Justine Haupt]

The ebay link is messed up... is this it? http://cgi.ebay.com/Anamorphic-50mm-...QQcmdZViewItem

An anamorpic lens stretches a wide-screen frame onto a 4:3 frame, if I'm not mistaken, thus giving a 4:3 camera true widescreen capability (the image has to be unstretched in post). As such, a lens like that would be lost on an XL2, which can already shoot native widescreen.

On 35mm lenses in general, I hate to sound negative, but without a mini35 I don't think there would be much change in depth of field and none in grain characteristics with a lens like that, which is the whole crux of the matter. You could always try to find a really fast lens, but still, that will only go so far (and not very, at that).

Now, a lot of people have been making there own mini35s (see the alternative imaging methods board)... I'm working on one myself. If you're willing to spend $60-$400 (depending on how crazy you get) and take the time to make a good design, this might be something worth considering.

I understand you specifically asked for solutions other than mini35, but they really do "go the distance" in the film-look department. I mean, if you're willing to spend the money on an Arriflex lens, than you could make an adapter comparable to the P+S Technik, with image erecting mirrors, and oscillator and relay lens for the XL2.

If you're not mechanically minded like that, there have been some great 3rd party mini35s for as little as $300, I think, and really decent ones for around $1000... still less than an Arriflex lens. Again, check out the alternative imaging methods board for info on all this stuff.

[Zack Birlew]

I thought that film cameras themselves were widescreen only because they capture a much larger frame and have to be cropped to widescreen for framing purposes. If this is accurate, then shouldn't the Arriflex Anamorphic lenses not affect anything at all when using a natively widescreen camera other than to give a much wider field of view?

I could be wrong, but in any case, wouldn't it just be easier to set the camera on 4:3 mode and use the lenses then? I would think that you would still get a better DOF film-like look using one of those lenses due to the differences in how it responds to light, even though just slightly better since it is just a digital Mini-DV quality camera.

I don't know, I'm just talking.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

The 16x9 mode of the XL2 is much better then the 4/3 mode, because you also capture more resolution and pixels.

You could use the anamorphic lens WITH the 16/9 mode of the XL2, to get a very epic scope format, even bigger then that of 2.35 (I think something of 2.66 or so, you'll get)

[Justine Haupt]

Originally Posted by Jack Felis

I thought that film cameras themselves were widescreen only because they capture a much larger frame and have to be cropped to widescreen for framing purposes. If this is accurate, then shouldn't the Arriflex Anamorphic lenses not affect anything at all when using a natively widescreen camera other than to give a much wider field of view?

I could be wrong, but in any case, wouldn't it just be easier to set the camera on 4:3 mode and use the lenses then? I would think that you would still get a better DOF film-like look using one of those lenses due to the differences in how it responds to light, even though just slightly better since it is just a digital Mini-DV quality camera.

I don't know, I'm just talking.

I believe they can do it by cropping or with the anamorphic lens, but they're separate... the anamorphic lens has a lens element that's "warped" vertically, to stretch the image and fit it into the entire frame on the film, so cropping isn't needed and all the film is used. Imagine paying X thousands of dollars for all that 35mm film and processing and having to know that about a third of the emulsion wasn't even exposed?

EDIT: I wanted to make sure I knew what I was talking about and found a pic:
http://rafcamera.com/mcl/anam/50-1.jpg
You can see the internal elements appear stretched (the drawn red circle is unrelated).

Mathieu, that's true, I hadn't thought of using it to get even wider widescreen -- that's actually quite appealing. And another thing with using 4:3 mode instead, the image would appear "zoomed in" a little because a smaller 4:3 area is used on the XL2 chips.

But still, in the end, does anyone really think the image quality (aside from aspect ratio) or DOF would really change?

[Charles Papert]

Without an adaptor like the Mini35, all 35mm lenses will deliver a telephoto image due to the 4.4x magnifcation factor. Anamorphics have a built-in 2x vertical stretch to convert the Academy aperture to 1:2.35. They are also usually fairly slow (exposure-wise) and heavy, so there's not much reason to use them unless you have an adaptor.

Imagine paying X thousands of dollars for all that 35mm film and processing and having to know that about a third of the emulsion wasn't even exposed?

Justin, that's exactly how the 1.85 aspect ratio is achieved. It's one of the reasons that the 3-perf system is gaining popularity, where the actual height of the 35mm frame is reduced from 4 perfs high to 3 perfs, which is still slightly larger than the 1.85 aspect ratio. A 25% gain in running time and 25% savings in raw stock is the result.

[Bill Turner]

The first point, which has been made, is that adding any lens directly to the camera without the use of a device like the Mini35 and others, that images a larger format lens on a screen and then "photographs" that image capturing the field of view and depth of field of the larger format will not duplicate that look-- so this 50mm Anamorphic lens for a 35mm Arriflex camera is of no use in that respect.

Since it is an anamorphic lens with a 2X squeeze (it uses cylindrical elements which have power in the horizontal direction only) it photographs a 50mm field of view vertically and a 25mm field of view horizontially. On a 35mm cine camera this image is stretched back out by an anamorphic lens on the projector to achieve the 2.35 wide screen aspect ratio. Using a 2X anamorphic on a 1.85 (16:9) video camera would make no sense except as an experimental oddity.

[Matthew Cherry]

Originally Posted by Justin Haupt

Imagine paying X thousands of dollars for all that 35mm film and processing and having to know that about a third of the emulsion wasn't even exposed?

You sound like my father complaining about widescreen movies on his television.

I hate those black bars...

But you do realize that with the black bars you're actually seeing the WHOLE movie as you would in the theaters?....

Yeah, I know, I saw the thing about it on AMC....

Then why don't you like it?....

Because I paid for a big TV and I'm not using a third of it!

I think I heard mom calling....

[Eniola Akintoye]

So are we all agreeing to the fact that we can not achieve a DOF at all by just using the Arriflex Anamorphic Prime Lens or any other true 35mm Film Camera lenses to achieve a DOF just like the ones we will achieve from a 35mm adapter?


Oh by the way Justin, I have a Micro35 M2. I just don't like the fact that I have to be adjusting everything inside before it can work properly, eg ground glass, etc. I intend to meet with Wayne in the U.K so that he could set up my XL2 correctly with his own G35 adapter as well as the M2.

[Charles Papert]

Matthew:

Funny story aside, there is obviously a serious motivation to maximize the image area used in both film and video (i.e. the advantage of using a 16:9 native camera vs letterboxing 16:9 inside a 4:3 frame). 35mm anamorphic is great because it uses the entire area of the negative (Academy) to shoot the horizontally compressed image, however the drawbacks of the more complicated optics are a detriment. The Super35 format was invented by reclaiming the part of the negative that was reserved for the soundtrack, which allowed a 2.35 sized image to be exposed using standard spherical lenses. Since less of the negative was being used than anamorphic, this could lead to grainier images but the tradeoffs were considered worth it by filmmakers like James Cameron who was an early champion. In recent years the film stock has improved to the point where this is not as much of an issue and Super35 is more common for feature work, even though a certain percent of the negative is being "thrown away", except where 3-perf is used (which requires modifying the camera movement substantially).