Anamorphic sucks? Discuss.

keyser soze · Joined: 16 Jun 2023 Posts: 6

WOW! 6 months after original forte, this conflict has exploded again. So it goes with "Holy Wars" I suppose

'Anamorphicsts' and 'Spherists' - I like that. Suitably divisive, should become mainstream news in no time Very Happy

I have nothing further to add other than I stand by interpretation of OP's Rachel screengrab as religious iconography: my learned colleague makes the good point that it couldn't be if it were consistent throughout, however after a quick flick through https://film-grab.com/2010/06/23/blade-runner/ and https://highdefdiscnews.com/2019/01/22/blade-runner-the-final-cut-4k-uhd-blu-ray-screenshots/ and https://screenmusings.org/movie/blu-ray/Blade-Runner/ - I can see lots of lens flares but none with elliptical bokeh / backscatter, therefore the point stands, sir/madam, the point stands!! (interestingly looks like artificial lens flares have been added in post, in a couple)

And you're right; Rebel Moon was a disaster. Zack Snyder has just made so many terrible movies, I'm amazed he's still going - except I'm not, the trailers for his film look GREAT, ultra cinematic and very traditional Hollywood... I wonder why that is Wink

This has been fun. I'm gonna go poke around and make trouble elsewhere on the site, otherwise I have faith in God anamorphics will win out and the truth about sharp spherical will come to pass

MK3 · Joined: 28 Mar 2024 Posts: 3

I wonder why nobody said that Roger Deakins was not the cinematographer on Dune... Greig Fraser shot both parts.

And yes, current obsession with anamorphic lenses, especially in otherwise cheaply produced TV series is absurd and detrimental.

Anamorphic lenses are much harder to track and match in CGI, creating unnecessary extra costs that would be better spent elsewhere.

keyser soze · Joined: 16 Jun 2023 Posts: 6

And another insurgent pops up! WELL WELL WELL...

Firstly, if you came to advocate for CGI, this may be the wrong forum. Mwahahaha! For here is a place for cinematographers to discuss 'maintaining a close relationship with the image' not shoot boring green screen sound stages in 8k on Sigma or something, leaving the character for post to create. God I am so utterly fed up of working at Pinewood...

However you quite right about 'Deakins-mania', which it seems even I fell foul of myself on this occasion; of course it's the long standing working relationship with Villeneuve why everyone assumes that, and I suppose the resemblance to Sicario is undeniable

Speaking of which - you think it was a mistake for Fraser to use anamorphic? Because I think Dune I and II look absolutely amazing!! I believe Fraser used the same Panavision 75 as he did on 'The Mandalorian' before it. Not clear how much of the movie exactly but to my eye it was evident in about at least 40%+ of the shots

MK3 · Joined: 28 Mar 2024 Posts: 3

I know it's a board about lenses, but still, as much as camera work is cog in a final movie, so are the lenses. It's a decision that doesn't exist in a vacuum and can create implications for the final image besides its technical specs.

Cinema is very much budget dependent, I hardly think it's news.

Modern TV/streaming series are not only even more likely to be tight on budget (Even Mandalorian is still half as expensive per minute than say The Creator which was already considered low budget for a sci fi aaa production), but also much more tight on production and post-production schedule.

And I am not even talking about CGI chromakey flicks, I'm talking about shows like Mindhunters that had extensive amount of postproduction just to match the little details of the time period and not some visible VFX explosions. And btw. its shot with prime lenses.

This is why I said that anamorphic lenses, when used in budget and time sensitive environments in projects that still require a lot of postproduction effort are detrimental and can cause not only shitty CGI but generally influence overall process and budget and create a detrimental effect overall besides the visual effect.

Now to the visual aspect of the conversation of prime vs. anamorphic lenses.

For me its a philosophical discussion of the cinematic approach of Deakins vs. Lubezki. One doesn't want the camera to be noticed. The other one wants everyone to feel the camera all the time. Same could be said about natural acting vs method acting, say Morgan Freeman vs. Daniel Day-Lewis. With one you could say he just plays himself (while he is not), there is no acting noticable. When Daniel Day-Lewis acts, it screams "look here, thats a great actor working here".

This is how I feel about prime vs anamorphic discussion. Of course there is no dogma about it but more often than not people choose anamorphic for the easy "cinematic" look. They are even faking it in post over prime lense footage. Instead of focusing on the creation of a complex world that will take the viewer on a journey that make a cinematic experience they take the "look at me, this is cinema" approach.

In most situations the choice of anamorphic lense is not justified. In some it's downright detrimental. Take Gaimans "Sandman" Netflix adaptation. The normal anamorphic lenses were not enough for the creators, they took vintage lenses but shot in 8k digital, causing additional distortion and vignetting, and then fucked it up even further with wrong aspect ratio. The result - I wanted to care about the material since Neil Gaiman is one of the few living writer geniuses but it was just all style over substance. And shitty style at that.

Now to the Dune. I was thrilled to see Dune being shot by Deakins. When I went in I didn't even see that he had dropped the project early on. Frankly, i was confused by the cinematography. It looked like Deakins but then again it didn't. There are many cool shots but the problem was that this is what the movie was giving me - not immersion but "hey, how you like that epic shit?". Like they tried to be Deakins without understanding that the goal is to not be seen at all. Now I didn't have a problem with the anamorphic lenses there, but I liked the spherical look of Dune 2 better and was glad they switched the lenses for it. Overall, I think Fraser did a much better job there. Overall he managed to establish a realistic sense of scale and materiality, especially with huge machines and aircrafts, to make everything as immersive as possible.

RokkorDoctor · Joined: 27 Nov 2021 Posts: 1271 Location: Kent, UK

MK3 · Joined: 28 Mar 2024 Posts: 3