Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Anamorphic sucks? Discuss.
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2022 9:20 pm    Post subject: Anamorphic sucks? Discuss. Reply with quote

I feel I've reached a point in my life - with a minority of years left to care about what people think - where I can speak what I've only dared think, or whisper, previously. For instance:

- I don't like the look of anamorphic.

There. It's out in the open. I don't like the flare. I hate the bokeh. Everything we've been told is desirable looks unnatural and wrong to me. TV lensed without it often looks better than big-budget movies with it. I think it's a fad, and a bad one. I predict the price of anamorphic equipment will plummet and that many current and recent films will age badly as future generations of filmmakers consider that we ruined potentially fine movies by subscribing to this foolish, overpriced fashion.

Am I alone?


Last edited by 16:9 on Wed Dec 27, 2023 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are not alone.

I really dislike the bokeh and flare.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2022 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well that's good to know. That is the purpose of forums, after all.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just you and me, though, Mark. We'll be vindicated one day . . .


PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2022 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anamorphic doesn't suck at all.

What sucks is the cheesy use of the artifacts introduced by anamorphic lenses by hacks like JJ Abrams.

However, go look at some of the 50s and 60s widescreen classics and you will see how anamorphic can produce absolutely stunning imagery.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2022 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's all about the ratio, not the squeeze . . .
Anamorphic presents the dilemma of better resolution v horrible distortion + flare.
We have enough resolution now. We should move on.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2022 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For instance - Blade Runner: great film. In fact, heretical to diss it [sound of rattling cages].

But isn't the bokeh distracting and unnatural? For me, it's a prettier film shot with spherical lenses.



PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2022 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Anamorphic doesn't suck at all.

What sucks is the cheesy use of the artifacts introduced by anamorphic lenses by hacks like JJ Abrams.

However, go look at some of the 50s and 60s widescreen classics and you will see how anamorphic can produce absolutely stunning imagery.


I think it may depend on the particular anamorphic lens' construction, esp. with regard to the position of the aperture relative to the anamorphic/cylindrical elements. Probably, some anamorphic lenses will result in stretched bokeh /elliptical bokeh balls after projection, other anamorphic lens constructions will leave the bokeh looking normal with round bokeh balls once projected. To my eyes elliptical bokeh balls after projection are a complete no-no, but that's an personal aesthetic preference.

I think for anamorphic lenses with normal looking bokeh you need the aperture to be in front of the anamorphic/cylindrical group, so that the bokeh on film is stretched and therefore rendered normal again during projection. If the aperture is behind the anamorphic group then the bokeh on film will be "spherical" and will therefore look elliptical once projected.

I'm not a cinematographer though, so I don't know for sure if there is just one configuration or whether both exist...


PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.rogerdeakins.com/camera/anamoriphic-lens/


PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Elsewhere on Roger Deakins' site he says with reference to lensing Blade Runner 2049: “I have never shot a film where I think anamorphic would have been preferable.” When I watch the original Blade Runner, I know exactly what he means.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But is three people enough to start a movement?!


PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2022 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

16:9 wrote:
Elsewhere on Roger Deakins' site he says with reference to lensing Blade Runner 2049: “I have never shot a film where I think anamorphic would have been preferable.” When I watch the original Blade Runner, I know exactly what he means.


He prefers to shoot full frame and crop to the preferred aspect ratio. Sensible.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2022 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think anamorphic can look good, or it can look bad, it's just a matter of how you use it.

Sweeping vistas where you employ deep depth of field and mise-en-scene compositions, anamorphic works fine

Indoors in low light or at nighttime where you have a shallow dof and bright oof highlights, there you get funny looking bokeh and blue flare lines - JJ Abrams love this shit, Star Trek Discovery is absolutely crammed with it and looks so cheesy


PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2023 11:49 am    Post subject: Cry havoc! Reply with quote

Sirs

I have made an account especially to debunk this absurd and preposterous notion

Outrage, I say! Outrage!!

Firstly, given this phenomenon started with him, if you are taking your cues from Roger Deakins, let us be quite clear; the craziness he talks about dissing anamorphic and his preference for lenses to "accurately reflect what the human eye sees" is, I genuinely believe, his way of testing who LOOKS WITH THEIR EYES and who just repeats what they heard other people say; consider he was nominated for his first Oscar for Cinematography for "The Assassination of Jesse James", a film which obscures establishing shots / montages to the point of utterly breaking the "suspension of disbelief" by recreating the 100 year old vintage look with tilt-shift focus or some ingenious variation thereof.

Further, many of the artefacts he constantly uses throughout his work (namely ultra shallow depth of field, lens flares ((have you seen "Dune" ??)), aspect ratios wider than 4:3 and so on) are all originally anamorphic looks which have since been replicated to spherical. Here's a list of films off the top of my head in which I believe he used anamorphic lenses, such as Arri/Zeiss, Panavision 70, Panavision Ultra Vista 1.65x + Panavision H-series on Dune and so on;

"Skyfall"
"The Assassination of Jesse"
"No Country for Old Men"
"O Brother, Where Art Thou?"
“Sicario”
"Dune"

As for not wanting to break the suspension of disbelief and reveal what the human eye sees, that's utter tosh. Read this if you don't believe me: https://ipoxstudios.com/dune-2021-composition-techniques-part-two-analyzed-cinema/ How about you guys?? Do you see the world in Root 6 with Rebated Square and Phi Proportions?? I sure don't!! It takes careful location scouting, framing and no doubt a bit of VFX / set design to get it like that and you have to be stood at the exact right spot with the exact right framing. So before anyone mentions Roger Deakins, let's just toss that out now. He's not a saint. He did not invent the proud tradition of cinema we have enjoyed for 100 years. He is just one of the first DPs to get famous, extremely talented though he may be.

Now then, here's an impromptu list of directors working today (I can't even make a list of pre-90s because it would be pretty much every director you've ever heard of) very well known for their preference to use anamorphic:

Paul Thomas Anderson
Martin Scorsese
David Fincher
Michael Bay
Sam Mendes
Zack Snyder
Peter Jackson
Christopher Nolan
Quentin Tarantino
J.J. Abrams
Wes Anderson
Ridley Scott
Denis Villeneuve
Steven Spielberg

Are you quite sure you "hate" all of these films looks?? Are you even able to name 10 films you think were undeniably 5 stars, made in the last 30 years, that doesn't include some by the filmmakers on this list who used anamorphic for it??

Anyone claiming they don't like anamorphic plainly doesn't know B&W cinema all that well. Anamorphic practically invented cinema as we know it today; before anamorphic, it was all 4:3, all in focus / barely shallow, no barrelling, no pin-cushioning, no swirl and, incidentally, no colour. If you want to see the 'closest possible thing to real life' watch the news. That is NOT the "cinematic" look, which is the opposite, ie cinema is full of artefacts used purposefully to tell a good story.

I am ready to go 12 rounds on this and have many other excellent points to make... how the 2.35:1 aspect ratio affects set design and framing could make a book of its own... how shows like "Rings of Power" spend hundreds of millions on production value and still come out looking tacky as hec because they were shot on SPHERICAL... in considering the opening frames of "Citizen Kane" (are you and Deakins saying you don't like "Citizen Kane" because it has slow fades, fish-eyes, extreme close-ups and fast zoom out in the opening sequence??)... but honestly, I'm hoping I won't have to resort the other 1 million arguments I have in my armoury if anyone wishes to insist they don't like anamorphic.

You do like anamorphic. You must, because you love film, you love the artform and the two are inextricably linked like primate DNA is in Homo sapiens.

Are you persuaded, sirs?? Can you open your heart, disavow yourself from this errant musing and embrace the beauty of anamorphic for now and evermore??

Yield, I say! Yield!!

ps. Bladerunner screengrab looks awesome. Are you quite mad, sir?



PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2023 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well keyser soze ( Wink ),

First, welcome to the forum!

Second, I can't speak for others but my dislike of the anamorphic 'look' pertains to the vertically 'stretched' bokeh only; and as I said, not all implementations of anamorphic cinematography will result in this 'stretched' bokeh; some do, some don't.

The Blade Runner screen-grab shown earlier in the thread demonstrates exactly what I mean; the vertical elliptical bokeh balls behind Sean Young look VERY distracting and unnatural to me, if they were round instead it would look far more natural to my eyes.

That is not to say I don't like the film; it is in fact one of my favourite films.

Thus, whilst I definitely dislike the stretched bokeh, it doesn't mean I therefore dislike a film. Unfortunately when I see the elliptical bokeh in a film, I do get an internal voice saying 'bummer, that's a shame...'

I am myopic so when I take off my glasses I can very easily study my eyes' bokeh shape, which definitely is round, not vertical elliptical.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2023 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mark

Firstly, thank you so much for receiving my fighting talk with the spirit in which it was intended; just joking around here

Nevertheless, in all seriousness, there does seem to be two schools of thought emerging from major feature film production (12 years on-set)

One is that everything can be done in post, so long as source material is as clear and realistic as possible. Spherical is used and artefacts minimised.

This, I believe, is why so many big budget productions with so much production value look tacky as hec ie "Rings of Power"

The older, traditional method is the one I advocate; artefacts are a cinematic language which, if used purposefully, tell the story better than real life could ever hope for

Van Gogh shared similar views about colours, describing "a deeper truth, richer colours in the world than the world actually presents" at a superficial level (not a direct quote but something like that)

Addressing your argument, yours is essentially the same as Roger Deakin's; that anything which breaks the suspension of disbelief is undesireable

Many top directors do share that view, obsessed as they are with 'immersing the audience in the world of the story'

Tarantino is certainly not one of them. Neither is Wes Anderson.

As for the other greats of our time, they cannot help but use endless techniques which once would have broken suspension of disbelief; scoring, conemtporary music, tracking/crane, or even the entire genre of science fiction to name but a few

Thus the question is not "does a technique break suspension of disbelief" so much as is "has this technique entered cinema literacy, yet?"

Now, to get specific, let's address elliptical lens flares.

I personally never noticed when watching Blade Runner; think back to the first time this film came out / you saw it. Are you quite sure it even did break the suspension of disbelief? Or is there a possibility you were so struck by the beauty and striking hairstyle and costume of Rachel that you were too busy drinking it all in? And this is something you've come uncomfortable with by getting too much in your head after multiple re-watches (will of course take you at your word if you truly do remember being disappointed on first viewing)?

Further, now you have shown us this wonderful screengrab, the mis-en-scene is unmistakeable: the elliptical flares here are clearly supposed to be reminiscent of CANDLES, playing up the religious iconography prevalent throughout the film; the temple-like structure / pyramid the Tyrell corporation has for an HQ, the choir-like synthetic scoring so masterfully performed by Vangelis, the existential question posed by the story itself "Could mankind ourselves ever breathe life into clay??" and so on

That's my reading of the text anyway.

Here's another great example of elliptical lens flares in "Saving Private Ryan", which would actually have been an even better example of the point you are trying to make, as it was shot on spherical (this scene) at high frame rate, specifically because Spielberg wanted the audience to experience what it was actually like:



Remember; this scene was actually shot on spherical, evidencing the issue is not anamorphic necessarily but how light and focal lengths are blended. I'm sure you're familiar with light streaking filters which can also be used on spherical.

So the real question is, did you have the same problem when watching this scene? Did it spoil the astonishing and powerful emotions that were channelled through the medium? Personally, as with Blade Runner, I don't remember any of that; I just remember being totally awe struck and, frankly, terrified, thus indeed, lost in the world of the story

Finally, although I very much appreciate your moderated viewpoint, let's be clear: the forum is called "Anamorphic sucks. Discuss." and I hate that

New is not necessarily better and this fad is making many movies look terrible imo. Let's start a [re-]revolution here, on a website I truly believe holds greater knowledge and authority than any mainstream site

Reclaim anamorphic! Reclaim cinema!!


PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2023 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

keyser soze wrote:
Hi Mark

Firstly, thank you so much for receiving my fighting talk with the spirit in which it was intended; just joking around here


You will find that most members here apreciate a sense of humor! Wink. But it is a very international membership, so sometimes things do get misunderstood or lost in translation.

keyser soze wrote:
Addressing your argument, yours is essentially the same as Roger Deakin's; that anything which breaks the suspension of disbelief is undesireable

Many top directors do share that view, obsessed as they are with 'immersing the audience in the world of the story'

Tarantino is certainly not one of them. Neither is Wes Anderson.

As for the other greats of our time, they cannot help but use endless techniques which once would have broken suspension of disbelief; scoring, conemtporary music, tracking/crane, or even the entire genre of science fiction to name but a few

Thus the question is not "does a technique break suspension of disbelief" so much as is "has this technique entered cinema literacy, yet?"


I have no problem with films breaking suspension of disbelief. I like Wes Anderson's & David Lynch's films, as well as Makoto Shinkai's animes e.g.

keyser soze wrote:
Now, to get specific, let's address elliptical lens flares.

I personally never noticed when watching Blade Runner; think back to the first time this film came out / you saw it. Are you quite sure it even did break the suspension of disbelief? Or is there a possibility you were so struck by the beauty and striking hairstyle and costume of Rachel that you were too busy drinking it all in? And this is something you've come uncomfortable with by getting too much in your head after multiple re-watches (will of course take you at your word if you truly do remember being disappointed on first viewing)?

Further, now you have shown us this wonderful screengrab, the mis-en-scene is unmistakeable: the elliptical flares here are clearly supposed to be reminiscent of CANDLES, playing up the religious iconography prevalent throughout the film; the temple-like structure / pyramid the Tyrell corporation has for an HQ, the choir-like synthetic scoring so masterfully performed by Vangelis, the existential question posed by the story itself "Could mankind ourselves ever breathe life into clay??" and so on

That's my reading of the text anyway.

Here's another great example of elliptical lens flares in "Saving Private Ryan", which would actually have been an even better example of the point you are trying to make, as it was shot on spherical (this scene) at high frame rate, specifically because Spielberg wanted the audience to experience what it was actually like:



Remember; this scene was actually shot on spherical, evidencing the issue is not anamorphic necessarily but how light and focal lengths are blended. I'm sure you're familiar with light streaking filters which can also be used on spherical.

So the real question is, did you have the same problem when watching this scene? Did it spoil the astonishing and powerful emotions that were channelled through the medium? Personally, as with Blade Runner, I don't remember any of that; I just remember being totally awe struck and, frankly, terrified, thus indeed, lost in the world of the story


Well, this forum is dedicated to enthusiasts of manual focus lenses, and it should come as no surprise that lens imaging, character, artefacts and aberrations are discussed at length. A good number of members here will almost by reflex pay attention to flare character and imaging of out of focus areas. A few even like the challenge of identifying the make & model lens used from the image. This forum has many members with many different interests re. the use, imaging, and technology of lenses.

In my case, shallow depth of field imaging is one of my interests and therefore I often pay close attention to the rendering of out-of-focus areas and highlights; I can't help but notice it, although it doesn't detract me from appreciating/enjoying the film.

keyser soze wrote:
Finally, although I very much appreciate your moderated viewpoint, let's be clear: the forum is called "Anamorphic sucks. Discuss." and I hate that

New is not necessarily better and this fad is making many movies look terrible imo. Let's start a [re-]revolution here, on a website I truly believe holds greater knowledge and authority than any mainstream site

Reclaim anamorphic! Reclaim cinema!!


I can see your point of view, but the OP (member 16:9) only expressed their own opinion on anamorphic lens imaging, and genuinely put it up for debate/discussion. I would interpret the topic subject heading as deliberate tongue-in-cheek provocative, not as statement-of-fact. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2023 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No dude

I quote, from OP:

"I feel I've reached a point in my life - with a minority of years left to care about what people think - where I can speak what I've only dared think, or whisper, previously. For instance:

- I don't like the look of anamorphic.

There. It's out in the open. I don't like the flare. I hate the bokeh. Everything we've been told is desirable looks unnatural and wrong to me. TV lensed without it often looks better than big-budget movies with it. I think it's a fad, and a bad one. I predict the price of anamorphic equipment will plummet and that many current and recent films will age badly as future generations of filmmakers consider that we ruined potentially fine movies by subscribing to this foolish, overpriced fashion.

Am I alone?"

So he absolutely has declared war on anamorphic and believe me there are indeed others like him

Glad you haven't been fooled and are still using your eyes


PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2023 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, interpretations may differ Wink

I still see it as a voiced opinion and an invite for people to discuss, argue for or against, agree, or disagree.

I don't see it as a call to join the Holy battle against anamorphic... Friends


PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2023 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No. This is indeed war.
The stakes are too high and the hour is too late for diplomacy.
The anamorphicists must be stopped, and eradicated.
All trace of their heretical faddishness must be erased, saving those examples of their work that may serve as lessons to future generations.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2023 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Although, on reflection, newbie to the forum (evidently not newbie to the subject) keyser makes some good points.

He touches on the Golden Rule by which all film-making must abide: that the tool shall serve the story. My key objection is when (as is all too common) it does not.

Lens flare is a creative tool that can't be legislated about – I don't have a problem per se with anamorphic flare, but it's unquestionably the most heavy-handed and overwhelming type of flare you can 'add' to a production, and like any strong flavour, it's best used in moderation to avoid being overwhelming – unless that's the deliberate intent.

Intent is the big issue here: visibly stretched bokeh is a highly unnatural distortion – not as the eye sees. Distortion creates tension, disorentation, or a sense of 'otherness'. Such a technique is entirely justified in a horror film – or used creatively as a short interjecting episodes – but to shoot a whole film indiscriminately with such distortion is an error of judgment. Munch-like screaming pixels with your gentle rom-com, sir?

Anamorphic without visible stretching seems a bit pointless, considering all the downsides you swallow compared to using spherical.

Although it's not one he directly asks, every production should face the Deakin Question: would this look better in spherical? Or are we just aiming at a spurious credibility? There was a time in the mid-century (maybe until the mid-1970s) when you could make any film look like proper, serious cinema by shooting in black and white.

I would certainly question the assumption that there's anything inherently 'more cinematic' about anamorphic.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2023 8:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Cry havoc! Reply with quote

keyser soze wrote:
Sirs

I have made an account especially to debunk this absurd and preposterous notion

Outrage, I say! Outrage!!

Firstly, given this phenomenon started with him, if you are taking your cues from Roger Deakins, let us be quite clear; the craziness he talks about dissing anamorphic and his preference for lenses to "accurately reflect what the human eye sees" is, I genuinely believe, his way of testing who LOOKS WITH THEIR EYES and who just repeats what they heard other people say; consider he was nominated for his first Oscar for Cinematography for "The Assassination of Jesse James", a film which obscures establishing shots / montages to the point of utterly breaking the "suspension of disbelief" by recreating the 100 year old vintage look with tilt-shift focus or some ingenious variation thereof.

Further, many of the artefacts he constantly uses throughout his work (namely ultra shallow depth of field, lens flares ((have you seen "Dune" ??)), aspect ratios wider than 4:3 and so on) are all originally anamorphic looks which have since been replicated to spherical. Here's a list of films off the top of my head in which I believe he used anamorphic lenses, such as Arri/Zeiss, Panavision 70, Panavision Ultra Vista 1.65x + Panavision H-series on Dune and so on;

"Skyfall"
"The Assassination of Jesse"
"No Country for Old Men"
"O Brother, Where Art Thou?"
“Sicario”
"Dune"

As for not wanting to break the suspension of disbelief and reveal what the human eye sees, that's utter tosh. Read this if you don't believe me: https://ipoxstudios.com/dune-2021-composition-techniques-part-two-analyzed-cinema/ How about you guys?? Do you see the world in Root 6 with Rebated Square and Phi Proportions?? I sure don't!! It takes careful location scouting, framing and no doubt a bit of VFX / set design to get it like that and you have to be stood at the exact right spot with the exact right framing. So before anyone mentions Roger Deakins, let's just toss that out now. He's not a saint. He did not invent the proud tradition of cinema we have enjoyed for 100 years. He is just one of the first DPs to get famous, extremely talented though he may be.

Now then, here's an impromptu list of directors working today (I can't even make a list of pre-90s because it would be pretty much every director you've ever heard of) very well known for their preference to use anamorphic:

Paul Thomas Anderson
Martin Scorsese
David Fincher
Michael Bay
Sam Mendes
Zack Snyder
Peter Jackson
Christopher Nolan
Quentin Tarantino
J.J. Abrams
Wes Anderson
Ridley Scott
Denis Villeneuve
Steven Spielberg

Are you quite sure you "hate" all of these films looks?? Are you even able to name 10 films you think were undeniably 5 stars, made in the last 30 years, that doesn't include some by the filmmakers on this list who used anamorphic for it??

Anyone claiming they don't like anamorphic plainly doesn't know B&W cinema all that well. Anamorphic practically invented cinema as we know it today; before anamorphic, it was all 4:3, all in focus / barely shallow, no barrelling, no pin-cushioning, no swirl and, incidentally, no colour. If you want to see the 'closest possible thing to real life' watch the news. That is NOT the "cinematic" look, which is the opposite, ie cinema is full of artefacts used purposefully to tell a good story.

I am ready to go 12 rounds on this and have many other excellent points to make... how the 2.35:1 aspect ratio affects set design and framing could make a book of its own... how shows like "Rings of Power" spend hundreds of millions on production value and still come out looking tacky as hec because they were shot on SPHERICAL... in considering the opening frames of "Citizen Kane" (are you and Deakins saying you don't like "Citizen Kane" because it has slow fades, fish-eyes, extreme close-ups and fast zoom out in the opening sequence??)... but honestly, I'm hoping I won't have to resort the other 1 million arguments I have in my armoury if anyone wishes to insist they don't like anamorphic.

You do like anamorphic. You must, because you love film, you love the artform and the two are inextricably linked like primate DNA is in Homo sapiens.

Are you persuaded, sirs?? Can you open your heart, disavow yourself from this errant musing and embrace the beauty of anamorphic for now and evermore??

Yield, I say! Yield!!

ps. Bladerunner screengrab looks awesome. Are you quite mad, sir?



I yield not. Thus shall I rebut ye:

I'm not a Deakins fanboy, but he does respect the Prime Directive that the tool shall serve the story, and his position tends to be unusually consistent on this. Sometimes there's nothing wrong with breaking the suspension of disbelief – if it better complies with the prime directive.

This isn't really about compiling a list of 'Evil Anamorphicists' and 'Righteous Spherites', but to question whether the downsides are worth the penalty paid.

It's also not a discussion of naturalistic v stylised film-making, or high v low fidelity. Those are proscribed under the Prime Directive.

I would tend to argue that the Secondary Directive in this area is the permissibility of 'evocative distortion'. La La Land is a good example of a project whose raison d'être is the recreation of particular period, and whose lens usage is entirely appropriate. As I said, positioning a film as the direct spiritual successor to Blade Runner, and recreating it's other- (off?)-worldly look would justify its use on those grounds alone. Although, interestingly, Blade Runner 2049 did not. So there's a tiny, limited, occasional role for anamorphic lenses to play in the wide world of cinema.

But let's not conflate aspect ratios with anamorphic perspective. Anything anamorphic can do, spherical can do better – without the downside of stressy distortion.

As to the list of fine films you present, I would say: please reshoot them in spherical: they would probably be even better.

PS: I've just seen Rebel Moon, so you might temporarily want to omit Zack Snyder as a good example.

PPS: Can I also point out that you represent the Imperial majority on this, and I'm the plucky rebel resisting the crushing monolithic orthodoxy? Just want to be clear about the roles we're playing in this narrative.

PPPS: I've modified the title of the thread to make it less offensive.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2023 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had always assumed that the choice to use anamorphic was not so much based on artistic considerations, but more one in order to squeeze (no pun intended) panoramic images into a standard 35mm film frame, thereby allowing the use of recording and projection equipment set up with the standard 35mm film gate. It would also reduce the impact of film grain compared to shooting smaller panoramic images through a smaller panoramic film gate on standard 35mm film stock.

I suspect the choice to use anamorphic was more often the result of practical rather than artistic considerations, but I could be wrong...

Do I need a helmet?


PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2023 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

keyser soze wrote:
Further, now you have shown us this wonderful screengrab, the mis-en-scene is unmistakeable: the elliptical flares here are clearly supposed to be reminiscent of CANDLES, playing up the religious iconography prevalent throughout the film; the temple-like structure / pyramid the Tyrell corporation has for an HQ, the choir-like synthetic scoring so masterfully performed by Vangelis, the existential question posed by the story itself "Could mankind ourselves ever breathe life into clay??" and so on

That's my reading of the text anyway.


Just no. At least because the bokeh distortion is present in every scene. All candles? Stretched bokeh and OTT flares are heavy-handedly, indiscriminately expressive. It's a blunt instrument pulverising nuance. And if we have to resort to such post-rationalisation to make sense of it, we are indeed looking at a broken tool.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2023 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

16:9 wrote:
keyser soze wrote:
Further, now you have shown us this wonderful screengrab, the mis-en-scene is unmistakeable: the elliptical flares here are clearly supposed to be reminiscent of CANDLES, playing up the religious iconography prevalent throughout the film; the temple-like structure / pyramid the Tyrell corporation has for an HQ, the choir-like synthetic scoring so masterfully performed by Vangelis, the existential question posed by the story itself "Could mankind ourselves ever breathe life into clay??" and so on

That's my reading of the text anyway.


Just no. At least because the bokeh distortion is present in every scene. All candles? Stretched bokeh and OTT flares are heavy-handedly, indiscriminately expressive. It's a blunt instrument pulverising nuance. And if we have to resort to such post-rationalisation to make sense of it, we are indeed looking at a broken tool.


Agreed. In any case, in cinematography the nature of candles is much better captured by flickering and movement of the light rather than through stretched bokeh.