Good video, but one note: Lawrence of Arabia despite being widescreen (with an aspect ratio of 2.20:1) was shot with spherical lenses, so shouldn't be used as an example of anamorphic widescreen. It's wide aspect ratio was a function of using the larger Super Panavision 65mm film stock rather than 35mm.
Correct. that is also why the Lawrence of Arabia shots are so much more crisp than the true anamorphic shots in the video, Because they are shot uncompressed but on 65mm film stock.
@@graugaarddk I'm confused, was that the precursor to modern IMAX 70 stock, like what C Nolan shoots? The film must have been massive. Also, why not just use 35 mm stock and expand the image, do you lose the sharpness and quality?
@@pjgorath large formats like 65mm film stock or IMAX have a wider angle of view, which means you can frame closer to to your subject and still capture more ambience on the sides of the frame. If you want to have the same angle of view on a smaller format like super 35, you would need to frame from further away, which results in altogether different framing.
Lawrence or Arabia still to this day is probably the best shot cinematography ever produced. Doctor Zhivago and the chiaroscuro scenes being a close second 😉
Great video! I always felt that one of the big differences is that anamorphic lenses give you more compression for a given frame width. I.e., a 50mm 2x anamorphic gives me the same horizontal field of view as a 25mm spherical lens, but produces the same depth compression as a 50mm spherical lens. Thus, anamorphic glass allows me to get a wide (horizontal) field of view without making my subject look like they have a big nose! I guess another crude way of thinking of this is that anamorphic reduces depth distortion at the centre of the frame, but increases lateral distortion at the edges of the frame, which can be a good trade-off if the subject is usually near the centre and you can't afford to go long.
I agree. I consider shooting anamorphic like shooting with two lenses at the same time: i.e. a 50mm and a 25mm. I also think that this is what makes them mainly cinematic, because our eye only sees with one focal length and thus if you seek realism you might wanna choose a spherical lens.
IMO, that is the most important reason to opt for anamorphic. The things mentioned in the video, like flares and bokeh is more a side effect. Also choices for a lens angle, framing and image aspect ratio, do not have so much to do with anamorphic.
FINALLY!!! Someone has explained why one might choose anamorphic over spherical. I should have figured this out myself but had never considered the compression. I can't quite put into words how happy I am to have this mystery solved by you. This comment should be pinned to the top! Thank you so much for sharing this!
The point of a movie is being sucked in by the story till you forget it's a movie. This gotta be one of the best quotes. And it's brilliantly exemplified by your video itself. The atmospheric ambient music lended a beautiful cinematic feel to the whole thing.
I've been a photographer, namely stills, for several years and your video is the first source which painted such a clear picture of the difference between these two styles, their applications, and examples to spot them all in one cohesive bite.
But they found a way to make it work: using very fast lens with an f-stop of 0.7. And, note that the image doesn't look terribly grainy, which correlates with the point about shooting in low light with the film stock they had at the time. They probably also didn't shoot with anything less than a 180 degree shutter on the camera to help maximize exposure.
Very insightful video to watch especially in an era where cheap anamorphic lenses are being released and indie filmmakers are running to get that "cinematic" look when it doesn't necessarily provide that on its own
It's crazy how every single second in this video offered valuable information rather than fluff to hit the >8min mark for YT algorithm. Absolutely brilliant! Great work!
4 года назад+21
A good summary! One thing you didn’t mention is rear anamorphic lenses. These lenses place the cylindrical element at the rear of the lens in an effort to combat some of the “downsides” (also the distortion that we enjoy) inherent to from anamorphic designs. They are sharper, faster, less distorted and less glare prone than front Anamorphic’s and can focus closely without diopters. You can also get large rear anamorphic zooms, which are convenient. Of course you do sacrifice a lot of “character” AKA distortion, but they’re a good middle ground.
Thanks for adding that! I'm not well versed in optics, so thanks for contributing your knowledge! I've encountered regular spherical zooms with an added anamorphic rear adapter to make them shoot an anamorphic image. As you say, usually used by DOPs for a specific zoom shot or for convenience when shooting alongside anamorphic primes. Is this is what you're referring to? Personally, I have a bit of a soft spot (excuse the pun) for 'imperfect', older anamorphic lenses. For me half the reason you shoot with anamorphic glass is for the 'character' they provide.
4 года назад+3
In Depth Cine yeah they’re often used for pickups and other units, but you could use them for a whole shoot if you wanted a balance of the two looks. I’m a big of the distortions too, for me they’re basically the point of using it now!
He seemed to think that Lawrence of Arabia was filmed in Anamorphic lenses. It wasn't. I think there was a bit on Lawrence of Arabia using anamorphic lenses after the section on Barry Lyndon but he cut it out, that's why there's such an abrupt cut before the conclusion and the music jumps. It kind of undercuts the argument that anamorphic lenses have these unique qualities if he found those qualities in a film shot on spherical lenses. Plus the whole section on There Will Be Blood and The Lighthouse is about aspect ratio, which is independent of anamorphic vs spherical. These are rookie mistakes. And no, I didn't leave a dislike either.
This video did not talk about compression and angle of view, which is the primary benefit of shooting anamorphic. On a 50mm anamorphic lens, you get the compression and vertical perpective of a 50mm lens, but the wide field of view of a much wider spherical lens. In order to replicate this on a spherical system, you need to shoot very large format.
Three videos in and I can say that this is he most useful channel on filmmaking I came across on YT, unlike other channels which only give vague or self evident statements, your videos contain actual contents and information.
Keep in mind that 'Lawrence of Arabia' was in fact shot on spherical lenses. It's often shown in this video when anamorphic lenses are brought up, but it was in fact shot spherically on 65mm film at a widescreen 2.20:1 ratio.
@@mmdday IMDB and "Shot on What" are sometimes useful resources for lenses and camera systems used on productions. In the case of 'Lawrence', it's easier considering that the film was shot on 65MM film and anamorphic lenses were vary rarely used for that format. Combined with the fact that anamorphic lenses cause characteristic distortions to the image that (usually) make it easy to identity productions shot on them.
Excellent presentation. No distracting music, no fake excitement on the voice, no repetition of the same information. Interesting and to the point, it kept me engaged until the last second. Subscribed.
I didn’t go to film school, I went to RUclips. Where I found great teachers like In Depth Cine and my man Wolfcrow. Salute to all those honing their craft.
About anamorphic and looks. It depends is lens front or back anamorphic. If it's back(rear) anamorphic then no such artifact would be present. If it's front anamorphic then iris that light "see" is oval. Thus producing oval bokeh. You might as well take normal lens and put oval iris in front of it and it would change "bokeh" to oval shape. Or use whatever other shape and "bokeh" will take shape of it. And on that note, one could make front anamorphic lens and design such oval iris that it compensate effect(as such would appear to light as circular or if rotated by 90 deg as even more oval) Usually prime anamorphic lenses are front anamorphic while zooms are back/rear anamorphic. As it allows zoom in zoom to be well normal zoom. With, sometimes if not often, that back element being exchangeable normal-anamorphic. Tho for anamorphic, lenses in lens tend to be square-ish so that alone will shape "bokeh" anyway.
The way you explained the differences and how they were used for the history was excellent. Sofia Coppola films made me prefer the spherical look and her work with Acord made me love the Zeiss Super Speeds lenses. Excellent video, all the content you make is really amazing! Can't wait for the next one.
I love the Super Speeds too, so many great films have been shot on them. Lost In Translation is actually a great example of the sort of cold, slightly milky yet sharp characteristics (in my eyes) which are the trademark of the Super Speeds.
Just subscribed. As someone who loves cinema and is shooting their own stuff this made more since then any class and videos I found on RUclips thank you again
Lawrence of Arabia was shot with spherical lenses. 70mm film has a natural 2.20:1 aspect ratio with spherical lenses, and anamorphic 70mm has a squeeze factor of 1.25,, giving an aspect ratio of 2.76:1.
For Barry Lyndon, the idea was actually Kubrick's to find and customise priceless rear-projection Mitchell BNC cameras fitted with Zeiss' NASA lenses for shooting candelit scenes at f /1.07. There's an explanation in the documentary Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (section begins 1:25:06 -1:29:08). Kubrick began his career at 16 as a photographer for Look Magazine and hated it in his early films if the cinematographer assumed he didn't understand anything about cameras and camera set-ups (example of this is 00:16:53-00:19:30) ruclips.net/video/ApEh9Sm4BR0/видео.html thanks the explanation, love the examples!
Just found you through the YT algorithm and this is great stuff! I'm not a filmmaker but I've always had an interest in cinema and the technical aspects of making movies. The anamorphic lens concept always confused me but this has really helped me understand it, and I love that you're also looking at how all the enginineering and science serves the artistic side too. Subscribed!
Nice explanation. I'd seen the term anamorphic so often without ever getting a real explanation. It use to be indicated on a lot of movie DVD's as well. I finally did my own research and found out what it meant, however this explanation provides more information on its impact on the movie and the shooting requirements. I like the way the subject is handled. Good job.
Once the image in anamorphic lenses is destretched, why does the bokeh still appear as an oval rather than a circle? Wouldn't the oval shape stretch out into a circle?
It depends is lens front or back anamorphic. If it's back(rear) anamorphic then no such artifact would be present. If it's front anamorphic then iris that light "see" is oval. Thus producing oval bokeh. You might as well take normal lens and put oval iris in front of it and it would change "bokeh" to oval shape. Or use whatever other shape and "bokeh" will take shape of it. And on that note, one could make front anamorphic lens and design such oval iris that it compensate effect(as such would appear to light as circular or if rotated by 90 deg as even more oval)
The more the objects are out of focus, the more they are squeeced by the anamorphic lens. When de-squeeced by the optics during projection, the projector lens de-squeeces the two-dimensional image, as a whole, so only the sharp objects are de-squeeced in the same amount correctly. The bokeh stays more or less oval.
Oh man, what a great video! Seriously informative, professional and educational. You should be proud of this video! Look forward to seeing more from this channel! 👍
That was really interesting and really well made video. Nicely narrated, great juxtaposition of clips and images, and the ambient music wasn't distracting but helped immersion. Thanks for sharing what you know
Another great video. Very informative. I never knew exactly what anamorphic and spherical lenses were. But you changed it :) as for a film that has a great use of a specific kind of lens, I'd say The shining. The Extreme Wide lenses made the characters seem that much more traped in the hotel. It also made a really nice contrast with the begining of the film that made the hotel out as a nice inviting place with the beautiful spaces and populated areas. But when It was just Danny, Wandy and Jack it seemed so much scarier because of how abandoned it was. To really drive the point home that they are alone and no one can help them.
Phenomenal. I've always had trouble grasping the key differences of anamorphic lenses to spherical lenses and this explanation was flawless. Don't stop, your content is impeccable!
I studied it formally and am still challenged to define the difference. Although I know what to look for, the artist requirements that necessitate the choice still eludes me.
[0:31] 🎥 Anamorphic lenses produce a "squeezed" image that is desqueezed before being presented to the audience. [1:53] 🔍 Anamorphic lenses provide widescreen aspect ratios like 2.35:1 or 2.39:1, different from spherical lenses which are more square. [2:32] ✨ Anamorphic lenses produce oval-shaped bokeh due to their cylindrical elements, contrasting with the circular bokeh of spherical lenses. [2:57] 🖼 Spherical lenses generally offer sharper images with minimal distortion across the frame compared to anamorphic lenses which exhibit more distortion and softness towards the edges. [3:47] 💸 Anamorphic lenses are more expensive to rent and require more lighting due to their slower aperture, impacting production costs significantly. [4:43] 🎬 Anamorphic lens sets typically offer fewer focal length options compared to spherical lens sets, influencing creative choices and versatility on set. [5:26] 📽 Anamorphic lenses, with their widescreen aspect ratios, create a sense of scale and grandeur in films like "There Will Be Blood," while spherical lenses in "The Lighthouse" use a more square format to emphasize intimacy and isolation. [6:49] 🌌 Lens characteristics influence the psychological impact of films; sharp spherical lenses in "The Tree of Life" create a naturalistic clarity, whereas anamorphic lenses in "Moonlight" enhance a dreamlike, nostalgic quality. [7:42] 🕯 Cinematographers like John Alcott used specialized spherical lenses, allowing natural light shooting in low-light conditions for films such as "Barry Lyndon." [8:32] 🎞 Choosing between anamorphic and spherical lenses is crucial for cinematographers to enhance storytelling and audience immersion in film projects.
I went to a screening of "The Lighthouse" with director Robert Eggers, Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson. Eggers said another reason they chose that aspect ratio was because that was the common size at the turn of the century. Interesting...
I'm usually a harsh critic, but I fully expected you to have at least a million subscribers, because your videos feel like you've been refining them for a decade. Amazing stuff, keep it up and the subscribers will come.
Great video! I'm a sucker for 2x anamorphic movies. Anyways I think they're might be a slight technical issue that needs to be addressed in your video. I noticed you've used clips from "Lawrence of Arabia" to showcase widescreen photography and it shouldn't be mistaken for an example of the anamorphic format. That film was filmed via Super Panavision 70 which utilized spherical 70mm lenses that photographed onto 65mm negative. However, there is Ultra Panavision 70 which was a 1.25x anamorphic 65mm format, famously used for "Ben Hur" and most recently "The Hateful 8" to achieve the 2.76:1 aspect ratio.
Just superb. A model of clear, concise, well-illustrated exposition. What a find this channel is. Interesting to see anamorphic used in indoor scenes here too.
Thank you for this amazing material. You both educate and inspire filmmakers, especially beginning ones with very useful examples. P.S. The only thing which in my opinion could be added to your stuff is watermarked titles to each movie that you show as examples. That would be very handy!
This video is poetry to explaining and understanding an art and its tools. The concise style of description simply sparked right trough me with so much realization. Thank you so much for sharing this beautifully done mini filmmaking story. Let's go film now!...
I was actually looking for your take on these lenses differences! Beautiful illustrations used for this presentation. I’ve always been told that the better you understand something the more you’re able to explain it. Bravo!
A concise, articulate and visually well constructed overview of lens types, and looks. Film commentators should not be afraid to speak of psychological affects, or symbolism in film-making, regardless of mainstream popular culture declaring such thoughts as elitist, and therefore of no interest to wider culture. In Depth Cine, please consider an essay on the history of technical fashions in film-making, and films that have been made against the fashion of the time.
2:24 yes can now we see more wide but less pixels. also can crop it 4:3 tv or use 4:3 source and make it wide screen to make it look we see more even we add borders we see less. its just place camera closer or far LOL its not matter you can crop it later lol or shoot right away correct
Matt Reeves and Greig Fraser did a fantastic job while using anamorphic lenses and the ARRI Alexa for The Batman. Seeing the film in Dolby was an unforgettable experience. The whole film is just beautiful. The imperfections in each shot give it this eerie feeling which is just perfect for Gotham City and the characters that inhabit it.
One more thing worth noting - anamorphic lenses were designed for film, to use the whole negative and avoid cropping. Therefore, while some older anamorphic lenses had sharpness issues, the larger negative size (as opposed to cropped S35 and Techniscope) more than made up for it.
Liked and subbed. Thank you for the good work. I have been trying to understand the differences between rectilinear and equisolid images after Steve Yedlin mentioned he applies a subtle equisolid transformation to his images as he finds the rectilinear ones a little too clinical. Think it'll make a good topic for a video illustrating the psychological effects of each of these systems and also how camera movement involving dollys & pans takes on a different characteristic in each. Hope you consider it. Cheers.
Perhaps lower the volume of the music a touch especially during moments where you are describing technical aspects. You are right in Nolan country atm........;)
@@krane15 he isn't exaggerating. if you've seen tenet, you would understand what he means; I couldn't even hear half of what was being said in that cinema and my ears were practically blasted into outer space by the end of the film.
I've said this before, and I know non-native speakers are maybe not worth thinking about (target group wise), but Tenet really made me question my command of the English language. It was only after the film that I gathered that nobody could understand a word being said.
I find it largely intruiging that the arguably best cinematographer alive prefers spherical over anamorphic lenses. I feel like the latter are often taken as the more beautiful and 'cinematic' ones.
It's actually not surprising. Deakins started as a documentary filmmaker and like to have a naturalistic approach to lighting. Also, we need to stop this idea that one type of gear is more cinematic than the other. Lenses don't make the cinema...! They're just tools. You don't use a wet cut saw-bench when all you need is a regular blade ;)
Fincher also hates Anamorphic, mostly due to the fact he likes his frames as sharp and precise as possible. Looking at a movie like Se7en and you quickly realize spherical can look at cinematic as Bladerunner. Deakins also likes the freedom of spherical. A movie like Sicario really being his new signature look.
Spherical films feels more painting like and immersive. Anamorphic feels like fake, and it's just a film. Whereas sometimes i get lost in spherical and forget that it's a filM.
This is really great. I have been teaching cinematography classes for over 15 years, and I will be showing this along with my lectures, books and drawings. Very well put together!!
Aren't Super Panavision lenses spherical? I believe Ultra Panavision is the 1.25x anamorphic lens type. I'm 99.99% sure Lawrence of Arabia used spherical lenses. A better large format comparison would be The Hateful 8 (Ultra Panavsion) vs The Master (Super Panavision).
You're right. I confused them with Ultra Panavision lenses. Don't know why I thought it was shot on anamorphic lenses. Next time I'll do more research haha.
Given that the “bokeh balls” will be de-squeezed like everything else, I have to assume that out-of-focus points of light must be disproportionately squeezed by the optics.
Pretty great question actually! I did some checking, everyone points at this video: ruclips.net/video/_8hCjO-cyqE/видео.html I'm not sure I follow every part of the argument, but the short answer, as I understood it, is that anamorphic lenses have a separate horizontal and vertical focal depth, and (separately) bokeh increases as a *square* of the focal depth (or apature?). So basically, if your anamorphic squeeze is 2.0, then the bokeh is squeezed 4.0 and you're left with the regular anamorphic squeeze after the unsqueeze. I might set this up in a ray tracer to play with it...
This sounds like anamorphic lenses serve no purpose except causing distortion, fall-off and asymmetrical bokeh and flare. Which are all "defects" actually. What is the real reason anyone would develop such a peculiar lens in the first place?
I'm guessing anamorphic lenses were developed to allow movies to be shot in a widescreen format without needing to change the actual film aspect ratio and all the cost in equipment changes associated with it (camera, film development, on and on required). If you just crop the image you will use a smaller part of the film (essentially like a smaller format camera). The projected image would need more magnification, increasing the visibility of flaws like film grain. I think a lot issues these days are not as important because of improved technology and digital processing. It's just a choice. Keep in mind that many things often considered as short comings are used artistically for effect (grain, black & white, sepia tone, motion blur, more squared aspect ratios, hand held camera shake, etc.).
you are to go much more closely to your actor with anamorphic lens to get the same framing as you get with croped spherical image - with the result to be able to seperate more the actor or object from your background.
Wow, thank you so much for sharing your knowledge, I'm getting into film making next year. Was wondering about anamorphic lenses, you gave me exactly what I was looking for + the curiosity to search for more. Thank you
Basically when it comes to pure technical stats, spherical is superior in almost all aspects, cheaper, sharper, wider, unless when you need to shoot something really (physically) wide. Everything else boils down to creative choices. IMO you can just blur the edges in post, the average audience couldn't tell anyways...
Simply some of the absolute best not only on the subject of Cinematography and Cinematographers but film making in general. I would like to see you do one on advanced Camera moves not covered in most videos on the subject. Such as combination moves like a dolly in, pedestal up. Keep up the amazing work. I hope to become a financial supporter soon. Thank You!!!
Great video, already knew a lot about anamorphic lenses but watching all those films made me realise I didn't even remember they were shot on anamorphic lenses. Love your content. Subscribed !
I'm a normal guy who dreams of being a filmmaker. What you're doing here is something amazing. I promise, if I ever make it, I wont forget what you're doing here. All the best.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 thanks man. I'm using Shotcut at the moment. Pretty basic but it's free. And the MBA course is eating up my time. But yeah, you're right. Need to keep creating.
What a fantastic video. Wall-to-wall with information, clearly and concisely arranged, with examples that would make any film fan salivate. After watching, I am both more educated and more entertained -- what more can you ask from a 10 minute video on RUclips? Thank you for this!
when light passes through a anamorphic cinema lens, then into your Arri Alexa...all your money disappears
i dont follow
Dizzy N it was my attempt a joke 🤷♂️
😂😂😂
Never buy gear until the check clear
😂dude...
Brilliant breakdown. I like that you explained the creative reasons you might choose either lens. Good stuff.
Hello, I hope you are having a good day
@@geminipd7085 have a blessed day brothers!!!!
@@TFaminu You too brother!
@@geminipd7085 Thank you brother!!!!❤️
Whoa Blender Guru is here!!!
Good video, but one note: Lawrence of Arabia despite being widescreen (with an aspect ratio of 2.20:1) was shot with spherical lenses, so shouldn't be used as an example of anamorphic widescreen. It's wide aspect ratio was a function of using the larger Super Panavision 65mm film stock rather than 35mm.
Correct. that is also why the Lawrence of Arabia shots are so much more crisp than the true anamorphic shots in the video, Because they are shot uncompressed but on 65mm film stock.
@@graugaarddk I'm confused, was that the precursor to modern IMAX 70 stock, like what C Nolan shoots? The film must have been massive. Also, why not just use 35 mm stock and expand the image, do you lose the sharpness and quality?
@@pjgorath large formats like 65mm film stock or IMAX have a wider angle of view, which means you can frame closer to to your subject and still capture more ambience on the sides of the frame. If you want to have the same angle of view on a smaller format like super 35, you would need to frame from further away, which results in altogether different framing.
@@santiagoserratos3320 I see. I didn't think of it that way. Makes sense. Thanks! I have to See LOA.
Lawrence or Arabia still to this day is probably the best shot cinematography ever produced. Doctor Zhivago and the chiaroscuro scenes being a close second 😉
These types of breakdowns get me so stoked! Love finding channels like this!
In one single video, I now have a clear idea of the main differences between spherical and Anamorphic!
This was a great breakdown, must see for anyone who loves cinema
Thanks Tyler!
agreed 💯
Or who aspires filmmaking
keep your breakdown bro I enjoyed cinema without your must see documentary anyway
@@rworldproductions7610 hbbbbbbbbbbbbbhhhhbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
Your videos are criminally under viewed but I’m sure you’ll take off soon. Keep the great videos coming.
Appreciate that. Glad you enjoy them.
True True and true
I wouldn't say "criminally".
Well, He did
Great video! I always felt that one of the big differences is that anamorphic lenses give you more compression for a given frame width. I.e., a 50mm 2x anamorphic gives me the same horizontal field of view as a 25mm spherical lens, but produces the same depth compression as a 50mm spherical lens. Thus, anamorphic glass allows me to get a wide (horizontal) field of view without making my subject look like they have a big nose! I guess another crude way of thinking of this is that anamorphic reduces depth distortion at the centre of the frame, but increases lateral distortion at the edges of the frame, which can be a good trade-off if the subject is usually near the centre and you can't afford to go long.
I agree. I consider shooting anamorphic like shooting with two lenses at the same time: i.e. a 50mm and a 25mm.
I also think that this is what makes them mainly cinematic, because our eye only sees with one focal length and thus if you seek realism you might wanna choose a spherical lens.
IMO, that is the most important reason to opt for anamorphic. The things mentioned in the video, like flares and bokeh is more a side effect. Also choices for a lens angle, framing and image aspect ratio, do not have so much to do with anamorphic.
FINALLY!!! Someone has explained why one might choose anamorphic over spherical. I should have figured this out myself but had never considered the compression.
I can't quite put into words how happy I am to have this mystery solved by you. This comment should be pinned to the top! Thank you so much for sharing this!
The point of a movie is being sucked in by the story till you forget it's a movie.
This gotta be one of the best quotes. And it's brilliantly exemplified by your video itself. The atmospheric ambient music lended a beautiful cinematic feel to the whole thing.
I've been a photographer, namely stills, for several years and your video is the first source which painted such a clear picture of the difference between these two styles, their applications, and examples to spot them all in one cohesive bite.
Shooting night scenes using only candle light sounds absolutely insane
It’s a challenge! But can be done ✅
Kubrick was kind of insane lol. He was indeed a mad genius
And impressive
But they found a way to make it work: using very fast lens with an f-stop of 0.7.
And, note that the image doesn't look terribly grainy, which correlates with the point about shooting in low light with the film stock they had at the time.
They probably also didn't shoot with anything less than a 180 degree shutter on the camera to help maximize exposure.
I just worked on a movie in the spring where we lit all night scenes with candles and/or lanterns. And yes, it is insane.
Very insightful video to watch especially in an era where cheap anamorphic lenses are being released and indie filmmakers are running to get that "cinematic" look when it doesn't necessarily provide that on its own
It's crazy how every single second in this video offered valuable information rather than fluff to hit the >8min mark for YT algorithm. Absolutely brilliant! Great work!
A good summary! One thing you didn’t mention is rear anamorphic lenses. These lenses place the cylindrical element at the rear of the lens in an effort to combat some of the “downsides” (also the distortion that we enjoy) inherent to from anamorphic designs. They are sharper, faster, less distorted and less glare prone than front Anamorphic’s and can focus closely without diopters. You can also get large rear anamorphic zooms, which are convenient. Of course you do sacrifice a lot of “character” AKA distortion, but they’re a good middle ground.
Thanks for adding that! I'm not well versed in optics, so thanks for contributing your knowledge!
I've encountered regular spherical zooms with an added anamorphic rear adapter to make them shoot an anamorphic image. As you say, usually used by DOPs for a specific zoom shot or for convenience when shooting alongside anamorphic primes. Is this is what you're referring to?
Personally, I have a bit of a soft spot (excuse the pun) for 'imperfect', older anamorphic lenses. For me half the reason you shoot with anamorphic glass is for the 'character' they provide.
In Depth Cine yeah they’re often used for pickups and other units, but you could use them for a whole shoot if you wanted a balance of the two looks.
I’m a big of the distortions too, for me they’re basically the point of using it now!
Not entirely sure why someone would dislike this video. It clearly does what the title says. Amazing info and content.
There are quite a few things that I don’t agree with in the video. I didn’t down vote but I can totally see why someone would.
He seemed to think that Lawrence of Arabia was filmed in Anamorphic lenses. It wasn't. I think there was a bit on Lawrence of Arabia using anamorphic lenses after the section on Barry Lyndon but he cut it out, that's why there's such an abrupt cut before the conclusion and the music jumps. It kind of undercuts the argument that anamorphic lenses have these unique qualities if he found those qualities in a film shot on spherical lenses. Plus the whole section on There Will Be Blood and The Lighthouse is about aspect ratio, which is independent of anamorphic vs spherical. These are rookie mistakes. And no, I didn't leave a dislike either.
The more I learn about film, the more depressed I am, that I'm not a director.
Then be one.
This is likely the first RUclips video I have seen about lenses and rendering that was actually enlightening and educational- thank you for that.
And entertaining at the same time!
This video did not talk about compression and angle of view, which is the primary benefit of shooting anamorphic. On a 50mm anamorphic lens, you get the compression and vertical perpective of a 50mm lens, but the wide field of view of a much wider spherical lens. In order to replicate this on a spherical system, you need to shoot very large format.
Great insight thanks
Three videos in and I can say that this is he most useful channel on filmmaking I came across on YT, unlike other channels which only give vague or self evident statements, your videos contain actual contents and information.
Keep in mind that 'Lawrence of Arabia' was in fact shot on spherical lenses. It's often shown in this video when anamorphic lenses are brought up, but it was in fact shot spherically on 65mm film at a widescreen 2.20:1 ratio.
how do you (and this video creator) find out which lenses were used for a production?
@@mmdday IMDB and "Shot on What" are sometimes useful resources for lenses and camera systems used on productions. In the case of 'Lawrence', it's easier considering that the film was shot on 65MM film and anamorphic lenses were vary rarely used for that format. Combined with the fact that anamorphic lenses cause characteristic distortions to the image that (usually) make it easy to identity productions shot on them.
Excellent presentation. No distracting music, no fake excitement on the voice, no repetition of the same information. Interesting and to the point, it kept me engaged until the last second. Subscribed.
I love when authors go in depth on the gear used during filming. Helps to really understand the process. Subbed instantly 👍🏽
I didn’t go to film school, I went to RUclips. Where I found great teachers like In Depth Cine and my man Wolfcrow. Salute to all those honing their craft.
Lawrence Of Arabia was shot on 65MM film in super panavision not using anamorphic lenses
About anamorphic and looks.
It depends is lens front or back anamorphic.
If it's back(rear) anamorphic then no such artifact would be present.
If it's front anamorphic then iris that light "see" is oval. Thus producing oval bokeh.
You might as well take normal lens and put oval iris in front of it and it would change "bokeh" to oval shape. Or use whatever other shape and "bokeh" will take shape of it.
And on that note, one could make front anamorphic lens and design such oval iris that it compensate effect(as such would appear to light as circular or if rotated by 90 deg as even more oval)
Usually prime anamorphic lenses are front anamorphic while zooms are back/rear anamorphic. As it allows zoom in zoom to be well normal zoom. With, sometimes if not often, that back element being exchangeable normal-anamorphic.
Tho for anamorphic, lenses in lens tend to be square-ish so that alone will shape "bokeh" anyway.
The way you explained the differences and how they were used for the history was excellent. Sofia Coppola films made me prefer the spherical look and her work with Acord made me love the Zeiss Super Speeds lenses. Excellent video, all the content you make is really amazing! Can't wait for the next one.
I love the Super Speeds too, so many great films have been shot on them. Lost In Translation is actually a great example of the sort of cold, slightly milky yet sharp characteristics (in my eyes) which are the trademark of the Super Speeds.
Just subscribed. As someone who loves cinema and is shooting their own stuff this made more since then any class and videos I found on RUclips thank you again
I know it's covered elsewhere, but the history of why these lenses were invented and how they were brought to Hollywood is also fascinating.
Lawrence of Arabia was shot with spherical lenses. 70mm film has a natural 2.20:1 aspect ratio with spherical lenses, and anamorphic 70mm has a squeeze factor of 1.25,, giving an aspect ratio of 2.76:1.
For Barry Lyndon, the idea was actually Kubrick's to find and customise priceless rear-projection Mitchell BNC cameras fitted with Zeiss' NASA lenses for shooting candelit scenes at f /1.07. There's an explanation in the documentary Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (section begins 1:25:06 -1:29:08). Kubrick began his career at 16 as a photographer for Look Magazine and hated it in his early films if the cinematographer assumed he didn't understand anything about cameras and camera set-ups (example of this is 00:16:53-00:19:30) ruclips.net/video/ApEh9Sm4BR0/видео.html thanks the explanation, love the examples!
Just found you through the YT algorithm and this is great stuff! I'm not a filmmaker but I've always had an interest in cinema and the technical aspects of making movies. The anamorphic lens concept always confused me but this has really helped me understand it, and I love that you're also looking at how all the enginineering and science serves the artistic side too. Subscribed!
Nice explanation. I'd seen the term anamorphic so often without ever getting a real explanation. It use to be indicated on a lot of movie DVD's as well. I finally did my own research and found out what it meant, however this explanation provides more information on its impact on the movie and the shooting requirements. I like the way the subject is handled. Good job.
You know those channels you get a single video recommendation and immediately subscribe? This is one of those, kudos!
Once the image in anamorphic lenses is destretched, why does the bokeh still appear as an oval rather than a circle? Wouldn't the oval shape stretch out into a circle?
When it's squeezed it's more than oval more like triangle (stick shape) It's needs to stretch more to make it look like circle.
@@pavannayak7668 so it's SUPER squeezed, got it ---that's CRAZY!
@@TehObLiVioUs yes
It depends is lens front or back anamorphic.
If it's back(rear) anamorphic then no such artifact would be present.
If it's front anamorphic then iris that light "see" is oval. Thus producing oval bokeh.
You might as well take normal lens and put oval iris in front of it and it would change "bokeh" to oval shape. Or use whatever other shape and "bokeh" will take shape of it.
And on that note, one could make front anamorphic lens and design such oval iris that it compensate effect(as such would appear to light as circular or if rotated by 90 deg as even more oval)
The more the objects are out of focus, the more they are squeeced by the anamorphic lens. When de-squeeced by the optics during projection, the projector lens de-squeeces the two-dimensional image, as a whole, so only the sharp objects are de-squeeced in the same amount correctly. The bokeh stays more or less oval.
This is the technical camera aspect equivalent of the every frame a painting channel. Amazing work keep it up.
I'm mostly a stills guy with a healthy dose of motion curiosity. That was a very interesting and useful comparison. Thank you. Subbed to learn more.
Oh man, what a great video! Seriously informative, professional and educational. You should be proud of this video! Look forward to seeing more from this channel! 👍
That was really interesting and really well made video. Nicely narrated, great juxtaposition of clips and images, and the ambient music wasn't distracting but helped immersion. Thanks for sharing what you know
Thank you for using so many of my favorite films! There Will Be Blood, The Lighthouse, Tree Of Life, Barry Lyndon, Moonlight, Fargo... so beautiful!
Another great video. Very informative. I never knew exactly what anamorphic and spherical lenses were. But you changed it :)
as for a film that has a great use of a specific kind of lens,
I'd say The shining.
The Extreme Wide lenses made the characters seem that much more traped in the hotel. It also made a really nice contrast with the begining of the film that made the hotel out as a nice inviting place with the beautiful spaces and populated areas. But when It was just Danny, Wandy and Jack it seemed so much scarier because of how abandoned it was. To really drive the point home that they are alone and no one can help them.
Phenomenal. I've always had trouble grasping the key differences of anamorphic lenses to spherical lenses and this explanation was flawless. Don't stop, your content is impeccable!
I studied it formally and am still challenged to define the difference. Although I know what to look for, the artist requirements that necessitate the choice still eludes me.
Man as always another valuable information you've shared thanks.
Glad you found it valuable. Thanks for watching.
[0:31] 🎥 Anamorphic lenses produce a "squeezed" image that is desqueezed before being presented to the audience.
[1:53] 🔍 Anamorphic lenses provide widescreen aspect ratios like 2.35:1 or 2.39:1, different from spherical lenses which are more square.
[2:32] ✨ Anamorphic lenses produce oval-shaped bokeh due to their cylindrical elements, contrasting with the circular bokeh of spherical lenses.
[2:57] 🖼 Spherical lenses generally offer sharper images with minimal distortion across the frame compared to anamorphic lenses which exhibit more distortion and softness towards the edges.
[3:47] 💸 Anamorphic lenses are more expensive to rent and require more lighting due to their slower aperture, impacting production costs significantly.
[4:43] 🎬 Anamorphic lens sets typically offer fewer focal length options compared to spherical lens sets, influencing creative choices and versatility on set.
[5:26] 📽 Anamorphic lenses, with their widescreen aspect ratios, create a sense of scale and grandeur in films like "There Will Be Blood," while spherical lenses in "The Lighthouse" use a more square format to emphasize intimacy and isolation.
[6:49] 🌌 Lens characteristics influence the psychological impact of films; sharp spherical lenses in "The Tree of Life" create a naturalistic clarity, whereas anamorphic lenses in "Moonlight" enhance a dreamlike, nostalgic quality.
[7:42] 🕯 Cinematographers like John Alcott used specialized spherical lenses, allowing natural light shooting in low-light conditions for films such as "Barry Lyndon."
[8:32] 🎞 Choosing between anamorphic and spherical lenses is crucial for cinematographers to enhance storytelling and audience immersion in film projects.
Bro this is insane quality from 2K subs channel, well done
And just three months later? 55k.
@@DisgruntledDoomer wow crazy growth
@@casualtake1497 5 months later? Nearly at 150k
@@serr yea shit crazy
Really great break down of the different lenses. In under 10 minutes I've gone from knowing nothing about the differences to a whole list. Thank you!
I went to a screening of "The Lighthouse" with director Robert Eggers, Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson. Eggers said another reason they chose that aspect ratio was because that was the common size at the turn of the century. Interesting...
That's what I assumed. The whole movie looks like an old photo.
I'm usually a harsh critic, but I fully expected you to have at least a million subscribers, because your videos feel like you've been refining them for a decade. Amazing stuff, keep it up and the subscribers will come.
Please make a discord. That would really benefit with all this in depth cinema!
This channel is a delight. So good to learn all these things about filmmaking that allow us to have more tools to enjoy films.
Great video! I'm a sucker for 2x anamorphic movies. Anyways I think they're might be a slight technical issue that needs to be addressed in your video. I noticed you've used clips from "Lawrence of Arabia" to showcase widescreen photography and it shouldn't be mistaken for an example of the anamorphic format. That film was filmed via Super Panavision 70 which utilized spherical 70mm lenses that photographed onto 65mm negative. However, there is Ultra Panavision 70 which was a 1.25x anamorphic 65mm format, famously used for "Ben Hur" and most recently "The Hateful 8" to achieve the 2.76:1 aspect ratio.
Just superb. A model of clear, concise, well-illustrated exposition. What a find this channel is. Interesting to see anamorphic used in indoor scenes here too.
Excellent. If only I had seen this video at the start of my career!
This is the best explanation I've seen. Amazing job!
Instant subscription. You deserve more!
Thank you for this amazing material. You both educate and inspire filmmakers, especially beginning ones with very useful examples.
P.S. The only thing which in my opinion could be added to your stuff is watermarked titles to each movie that you show as examples. That would be very handy!
This video is poetry to explaining and understanding an art and its tools. The concise style of description simply sparked right trough me with so much realization. Thank you so much for sharing this beautifully done mini filmmaking story. Let's go film now!...
Kubrick also had specially made candles with dual wicks.
Only the BEST explanation of anamorphic lens out there!
I was actually looking for your take on these lenses differences!
Beautiful illustrations used for this presentation.
I’ve always been told that the better you understand something the more you’re able to explain it.
Bravo!
Thanks Christian. Hope it helped.
In Depth Cine
Yes it definitely did!
Keep up with the great work!
And the more you explain something the better you understand it yourself and the better you can explain it next time.
A concise, articulate and visually well constructed overview of lens types, and looks. Film commentators should not be afraid to speak of psychological affects, or symbolism in film-making, regardless of mainstream popular culture declaring such thoughts as elitist, and therefore of no interest to wider culture. In Depth Cine, please consider an essay on the history of technical fashions in film-making, and films that have been made against the fashion of the time.
Batman really used it well
they used broken vintage anamorphics
2:24 yes can now we see more wide but less pixels. also can crop it 4:3 tv or use 4:3 source and make it wide screen to make it look we see more even we add borders we see less. its just place camera closer or far LOL
its not matter you can crop it later lol or shoot right away correct
I feel like stealing by watching this for free. Great video as always
If you really feel bad, I'm sure he'd accept your kind donation?
Excellent,, plain, simple, direct and to the point without distracting minutiae.
Matt Reeves and Greig Fraser did a fantastic job while using anamorphic lenses and the ARRI Alexa for The Batman. Seeing the film in Dolby was an unforgettable experience. The whole film is just beautiful. The imperfections in each shot give it this eerie feeling which is just perfect for Gotham City and the characters that inhabit it.
Oh my gosh, finally some film commentary worth watching. Subscribed!
"Lawrence" was spherical, not anamorphic, on 70mm
Thanks! those wisecracks probably never even heard of 70 mm and how it was shot!
One more thing worth noting - anamorphic lenses were designed for film, to use the whole negative and avoid cropping. Therefore, while some older anamorphic lenses had sharpness issues, the larger negative size (as opposed to cropped S35 and Techniscope) more than made up for it.
Liked and subbed. Thank you for the good work. I have been trying to understand the differences between rectilinear and equisolid images after Steve Yedlin mentioned he applies a subtle equisolid transformation to his images as he finds the rectilinear ones a little too clinical. Think it'll make a good topic for a video illustrating the psychological effects of each of these systems and also how camera movement involving dollys & pans takes on a different characteristic in each. Hope you consider it. Cheers.
Very good video, I liked your narrative style combined with your voice and the background music. Was very interesting to watch.
Perhaps lower the volume of the music a touch especially during moments where you are describing technical aspects. You are right in Nolan country atm........;)
Nolan’s sound mixing is fucking abysmal 🤣
@@DH_Artist Don't exaggerate.
@@krane15 he isn't exaggerating. if you've seen tenet, you would understand what he means; I couldn't even hear half of what was being said in that cinema and my ears were practically blasted into outer space by the end of the film.
I've said this before, and I know non-native speakers are maybe not worth thinking about (target group wise), but Tenet really made me question my command of the English language. It was only after the film that I gathered that nobody could understand a word being said.
Love those synth lines at the end of the video there.! *chefs kiss*
BEAUTIFUL CONTENT! Thank you! SUBBED!
Indeed! What is your favourite type of lens?
This was a Masterclass. Amazing, technical, but easy to understand. Thank you for man!
I find it largely intruiging that the arguably best cinematographer alive prefers spherical over anamorphic lenses. I feel like the latter are often taken as the more beautiful and 'cinematic' ones.
I think it's just a technical decision that should be informed by the kind of story trying to be told (and practical limitations of course).
It's actually not surprising. Deakins started as a documentary filmmaker and like to have a naturalistic approach to lighting. Also, we need to stop this idea that one type of gear is more cinematic than the other. Lenses don't make the cinema...! They're just tools. You don't use a wet cut saw-bench when all you need is a regular blade ;)
Anamorphics are esoteric lenses. They need to be used appropriately and sparingly. I have mixed feelings about the lens flares.
Fincher also hates Anamorphic, mostly due to the fact he likes his frames as sharp and precise as possible. Looking at a movie like Se7en and you quickly realize spherical can look at cinematic as Bladerunner. Deakins also likes the freedom of spherical. A movie like Sicario really being his new signature look.
Spherical films feels more painting like and immersive.
Anamorphic feels like fake, and it's just a film.
Whereas sometimes i get lost in spherical and forget that it's a filM.
This is really great. I have been teaching cinematography classes for over 15 years, and I will be showing this along with my lectures, books and drawings. Very well put together!!
Aren't Super Panavision lenses spherical? I believe Ultra Panavision is the 1.25x anamorphic lens type. I'm 99.99% sure Lawrence of Arabia used spherical lenses. A better large format comparison would be The Hateful 8 (Ultra Panavsion) vs The Master (Super Panavision).
You're right. I confused them with Ultra Panavision lenses. Don't know why I thought it was shot on anamorphic lenses. Next time I'll do more research haha.
@@InDepthCine Hey, you still have a great video here, good job!
only 3.8k views?? this is underrated man! Thanks a lot for this video - great breakdown!
I love that Kubrick's name was only mentioned once and in that same sentence happened to be the mention of the moon landings 😆
Thank you so very much for what you create. It's videos like yours that help me to grow as a filmmaker. Keep on.
Why does the bokeh remain oval even after de-squeezing the anamorphic lens footage?
Maybe because the bokeh before de-squeezing isnt oval at all so after de-squeezing it becomes oval?
Given that the “bokeh balls” will be de-squeezed like everything else, I have to assume that out-of-focus points of light must be disproportionately squeezed by the optics.
Pretty great question actually! I did some checking, everyone points at this video: ruclips.net/video/_8hCjO-cyqE/видео.html
I'm not sure I follow every part of the argument, but the short answer, as I understood it, is that anamorphic lenses have a separate horizontal and vertical focal depth, and (separately) bokeh increases as a *square* of the focal depth (or apature?). So basically, if your anamorphic squeeze is 2.0, then the bokeh is squeezed 4.0 and you're left with the regular anamorphic squeeze after the unsqueeze.
I might set this up in a ray tracer to play with it...
@@SimonBuchanNz Thank you so much. This explains a lot :)
This is amazing! I will definetely be looking forward to your next video! Way too underrated content!
For real ! Awesome content 🔥What is ur favourite lens?
This sounds like anamorphic lenses serve no purpose except causing distortion, fall-off and asymmetrical bokeh and flare. Which are all "defects" actually. What is the real reason anyone would develop such a peculiar lens in the first place?
I'm guessing anamorphic lenses were developed to allow movies to be shot in a widescreen format without needing to change the actual film aspect ratio and all the cost in equipment changes associated with it (camera, film development, on and on required). If you just crop the image you will use a smaller part of the film (essentially like a smaller format camera). The projected image would need more magnification, increasing the visibility of flaws like film grain. I think a lot issues these days are not as important because of improved technology and digital processing. It's just a choice. Keep in mind that many things often considered as short comings are used artistically for effect (grain, black & white, sepia tone, motion blur, more squared aspect ratios, hand held camera shake, etc.).
Wide landscape shots for epic westerns... that kinda thing.
you are to go much more closely to your actor with anamorphic lens to get the same framing as you get with croped spherical image - with the result to be able to seperate more the actor or object from your background.
Concise, visually appealing and jam-packed with useful information - subbed, highly underrated channel
The ambient music in the video was distracting.
Couldn't have asked for a better description, thank you!
i verbally said “holy shit” when i realized the difference between anamorphic and spherical lenses visually
This was a perfect way for me to understand, and also a very calming video with a great soundtrack!!
The music is soo loud looks like you are talking to yourself
Wow, thank you so much for sharing your knowledge, I'm getting into film making next year. Was wondering about anamorphic lenses, you gave me exactly what I was looking for + the curiosity to search for more. Thank you
That was really an in-depth way to show the difference between anamorphic and spherical lenses.
Basically when it comes to pure technical stats, spherical is superior in almost all aspects, cheaper, sharper, wider, unless when you need to shoot something really (physically) wide. Everything else boils down to creative choices. IMO you can just blur the edges in post, the average audience couldn't tell anyways...
Excellent description. I have always wondered what this 'anamorphic' talk was about.
Simply some of the absolute best not only on the subject of Cinematography and Cinematographers but film making in general.
I would like to see you do one on advanced Camera moves not covered in most videos on the subject. Such as combination moves like a dolly in, pedestal up.
Keep up the amazing work. I hope to become a financial supporter soon. Thank You!!!
Great video, already knew a lot about anamorphic lenses but watching all those films made me realise I didn't even remember they were shot on anamorphic lenses. Love your content. Subscribed !
Execllent explanation of the technical differences. Thank you
I'm a normal guy who dreams of being a filmmaker. What you're doing here is something amazing. I promise, if I ever make it, I wont forget what you're doing here. All the best.
Get something free like Lightworks and just make some stuff. Make something new every week. Choose to make it happen. Choose.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 thanks man. I'm using Shotcut at the moment. Pretty basic but it's free. And the MBA course is eating up my time. But yeah, you're right. Need to keep creating.
THIS IS THE BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY CHANNEL SIGHS THANK U SO MUCH !!! VERY INFORMATIVE AND CONCISE
You are far too underrated! Great stuff man!
What a fantastic video. Wall-to-wall with information, clearly and concisely arranged, with examples that would make any film fan salivate. After watching, I am both more educated and more entertained -- what more can you ask from a 10 minute video on RUclips?
Thank you for this!
best explanation I've found so far, great job
This is the first time that I´ve understood the difference between them. Thank you so very much!
Which is your favourite lens? 🔥🔥