One of the primary reasons movie studios went to wide screen format was in response to the rising popularity of TV, which used the existing 4:3 film format for obvious reasons. Even back then, studios viewed people staying home and watching TV as a threat to their business. The drawback is those widescreen movies then had to be cropped to fit on TV (either horizontally or vertically) so the viewer didn't get the same experience at home.
But with most films being shot on 4 perforations 35mm film and latter cropped for theaters, the TV versions or VHS of those films often presented them on OPEN MATTE, the uncropped versions which gives us more picture on top and bottom than what we watched on theaters or what we watch on 16:9 home video today. The latest example is the Zack Snyder cut of Justice League vs it's theatrical version.
@@hiair Some directors, like Stanley Kubrick did that. The theatrical release was cropped. I was referring mainly to the panavision format that was popular in the 50s and 60s.
Love to see "Mission: Impossible" movies as examples on this video. It seems the franchise is one of many franchises that consistently shot with anamorphic lenses, specifically with Panavision C-series lens.
@@christophersouza3159 yeah, I read about that in "Shot on What" website; Primo Anamorphic to be exact. Funny thing is sometimes I just forgot that there are many Primo lenses variants.
In the drawings convex lenses are shown, but the caption reads concave. So, what is true? The drawing, or the caption? Are the lenses concave, or convex?
I watch a lot of RUclips on my iPad, but I'm going to watch this one on my TV, and not just because the iPad is nine years old and the battery is getting a bit tired ...
While I appreciate the information provided, it annoys me that some of it is misleading. The way you show how a lens and camera works perpetuates the idea that an image is captured upright while in fact a lens projects a flipped image onto the sensor or film.
As a Brazilian im very happy to see Bacurau in here. Your content has allways been educational and helpfull! I urge you to dive deep in Brazilian cinema! Keep up the good work!
just started using anamorphics for photography. it has even more benefits over spherical lenses in that realm such as panoramas without needing to pan the camera at a vertical orientation. one anamorphic lens will take one shot of the same scene that a spherical lens rotated vertically would need to take about five or six shots and stitch in post. and you don’t have to worry about having the pano barrel distortion of having swing the camera left to right.
I saw a video of a German photographer who shots panoramas one shot with an anamorphic lens. ruclips.net/video/WkQhRMKPHz0T/видео.htmlhat is really cool. I think shouting other pictures with anamorphic lenses gives still photos a cinematic look. But these lenses are expensive. It's a shame that camera manufacturers never release anamorphic lenses. It would be too cool if they also had autofocus.
Jurassic Park is actually Spherical 1.85 not Super 35. What disadvantages are there using Super 35. Christopher Nolan prefers to use Anamorphic because when he read up about Super 35 he didn't like the process. I can't remember why not it's been a while since I saw the appropriate interview
Oppenheimer is surprisingly the only exception. While the rest of the movie is 65mm, certain effects shots used the 4-perf negative at the request of the FX team
I love the anamorphic look. As a kid of the ‘80s, many of my favorite films were shot using anamorphic lenses. I’ve copped a couple of budget lenses and I enjoy using them. The only downside is the minimum focus distance, but I have some diopters for when I want to get close shots of something. Finally, and I might be a weirdo for this, but I kinda like when the image isn’t desqueezed all the way. 😅 I feel like some movies left the image squeezed just a bit. I love that look! 😆 Thanks for this one. I enjoy your channel a lot.
When I saw Fincher's The Killer, I thought it was shot in anamorphic lenses. But then I saw a video of the DP saying he shot in it with spherical lenses, and they added lens flares and other anamorphic look in post production.
I wasn't expecting to see Bacurau in the video. The Brazilian cinema has many good pieces that deserve to be better known
Nice of you to include Bacurau. We don't see a lot foreign essays covering Brazilian cinema. Nice work as always! :D
Shoutouts to this video being in 2.4:1
One of the primary reasons movie studios went to wide screen format was in response to the rising popularity of TV, which used the existing 4:3 film format for obvious reasons. Even back then, studios viewed people staying home and watching TV as a threat to their business. The drawback is those widescreen movies then had to be cropped to fit on TV (either horizontally or vertically) so the viewer didn't get the same experience at home.
There was also the dreadful pan-and-scan technique.
But with most films being shot on 4 perforations 35mm film and latter cropped for theaters, the TV versions or VHS of those films often presented them on OPEN MATTE, the uncropped versions which gives us more picture on top and bottom than what we watched on theaters or what we watch on 16:9 home video today. The latest example is the Zack Snyder cut of Justice League vs it's theatrical version.
@@hiair Some directors, like Stanley Kubrick did that. The theatrical release was cropped. I was referring mainly to the panavision format that was popular in the 50s and 60s.
Love to see "Mission: Impossible" movies as examples on this video. It seems the franchise is one of many franchises that consistently shot with anamorphic lenses, specifically with Panavision C-series lens.
Pretty sure the only exception is MI2, which was shot using Primos
@@christophersouza3159 yeah, I read about that in "Shot on What" website; Primo Anamorphic to be exact. Funny thing is sometimes I just forgot that there are many Primo lenses variants.
Great video! This helps a lot when considering to buy a new lens for videography.
In the drawings convex lenses are shown, but the caption reads concave. So, what is true? The drawing, or the caption? Are the lenses concave, or convex?
Thank you for the good information. I appreciated the video. God bless.
Great review
I love the look of anamorphics
yeeeaaa thank you!!!
great job!
Hey man. What is YOUR opinion on film vs digital? Which do you think it better?
The fact they're not good for deep focus or wide angle shots makes me avoid them.
Excellent
Cool cool video.
I watch a lot of RUclips on my iPad, but I'm going to watch this one on my TV, and not just because the iPad is nine years old and the battery is getting a bit tired ...
While I appreciate the information provided, it annoys me that some of it is misleading. The way you show how a lens and camera works perpetuates the idea that an image is captured upright while in fact a lens projects a flipped image onto the sensor or film.
this video is long asheet
As a Brazilian im very happy to see Bacurau in here. Your content has allways been educational and helpfull! I urge you to dive deep in Brazilian cinema! Keep up the good work!
Sabia que ia aparecer BR quando eu vi o Bacurau! Haha
Please explain & show the “vignette” visual artifact that you mentioned.
just started using anamorphics for photography. it has even more benefits over spherical lenses in that realm such as panoramas without needing to pan the camera at a vertical orientation. one anamorphic lens will take one shot of the same scene that a spherical lens rotated vertically would need to take about five or six shots and stitch in post. and you don’t have to worry about having the pano barrel distortion of having swing the camera left to right.
I saw a video of a German photographer who shots panoramas one shot with an anamorphic lens. ruclips.net/video/WkQhRMKPHz0T/видео.htmlhat is really cool. I think shouting other pictures with anamorphic lenses gives still photos a cinematic look. But these lenses are expensive. It's a shame that camera manufacturers never release anamorphic lenses. It would be too cool if they also had autofocus.
Jurassic Park is actually Spherical 1.85 not Super 35.
What disadvantages are there using Super 35. Christopher Nolan prefers to use Anamorphic because when he read up about Super 35 he didn't like the process. I can't remember why not it's been a while since I saw the appropriate interview
Yes, I was going to comment just this about Jurassic Park.
Oppenheimer is surprisingly the only exception. While the rest of the movie is 65mm, certain effects shots used the 4-perf negative at the request of the FX team
I love the anamorphic look. As a kid of the ‘80s, many of my favorite films were shot using anamorphic lenses. I’ve copped a couple of budget lenses and I enjoy using them. The only downside is the minimum focus distance, but I have some diopters for when I want to get close shots of something. Finally, and I might be a weirdo for this, but I kinda like when the image isn’t desqueezed all the way. 😅 I feel like some movies left the image squeezed just a bit. I love that look! 😆 Thanks for this one. I enjoy your channel a lot.
This was invented by Henri Chrétien in 1927.
Beautiful video, thanks for covering this topic
Great video! Im glad that you titled movies you used in this video!
Gratuitous horizontal flare is lame.
When I saw Fincher's The Killer, I thought it was shot in anamorphic lenses. But then I saw a video of the DP saying he shot in it with spherical lenses, and they added lens flares and other anamorphic look in post production.
Although i am not in the film industry, these videos are really interesting and relaxing , keep it up in depth cine👏👏