Using 2x Anamorphic lenses with the FX9

460x150-Banner-Box Using 2x Anamorphic lenses with the FX9
peter1_1.19.1-copy-600x338 Using 2x Anamorphic lenses with the FX9
Frame grab from Anamorphic footage from the FX9.

 

Here are some links to a couple of videos and some information on shooting Anamorphic with the PXW-FX9 that I prepared for Sony. The first video is a guide to how to shoot Anamorphic with the FX9 and then the second video is a short example video of som 2x Anamorphic content that I shot in some pretty grim weather conditions in the UK’s Lake District.
Here’s the link to the “How To” guide to anamorphic with the FX9.

And here’s the link to the footage from the lake district.

 

300x250-ad-box1 Using 2x Anamorphic lenses with the FX9

7 thoughts on “Using 2x Anamorphic lenses with the FX9”

  1. Surely, Alister, on the resolution question, we also have to take into account that the anamorphic image will almost universally be viewed on a 16 :9 screen, so we don’t actually need so many pixels to compare in quality to a standard 17:9 or 16:9 image as the final picture is occupying less of the screen?

    Please correct me if I’m wrong!

    (Of course there is an irony that anamorphic systems, originally designed to give a bigger image in the cinema result in a smaller image on our screens today)

    1. Resolution is both horizontal and vertical. The horizontal resolution is no different. But also a crop isn’t lower resolution, it’s just using fewer pixels, the resolution within those pixels still needs to match that of the full frame height. If you were producing a master for anamorphic projection it would be the full height of the frame anyway.

      1. Perhaps I’ve expressed myself badly (or I’m completely wrong). I’m talking about the resulting 2.35:1 image on a 16×9 screen where the full height of the original frame is being magnified less than in a regular 16:9 image. The original pixels are being used for what is, effectively, a smaller image on the screen.

        I’m thinking of the way the BluRays from TV shows shot on 35mm 4:3 look particularly good because the full height of the 35mm frame is used with no cropping.

        1. But the horizontal resolution is not different. You shoot 4K wide and the image is shown 4K wide on a 4K screen, it is 1:1. And because of the way 2x anamorphic works you need to shoot 4K wide and 3K tall. When the image is squashed vertically it will increase the vertical resolution but this has no effect on the horizontal resolution, it remains the same. This is part of the anamorphic look, an image that has greater vertical resolution than horizontal.

          And because a 4K bayer sensor cannot deliver a 4K image anyway, if we want something that really does have 4K of horizontal resolution we need to start at 6K.

  2. With respect, I think you’ve missed my point, which is a very simple one:
    To match the picture quality on a 4K screen at home, the 2.35:1 image needs, in principle, less pixels than a 16:9 image because, effectively, we are dealing with a smaller (less tall) final picture.

    This is not the case, obviously, when we are talking about projection.

    1. I think you are confused about what resolution is, it is not simply the number of pixels used, but the information contained within those pixels.

      If you take a full screen 4K image on a 4K TV screen and crop the top and bottom and replace that with black bars the resolution does not change, the remaining image does not become any less sharp or any less detailed. The fine details and textures remains exactly the same because the resolution does not change. It is simply a less tall 4K resolution image.

      If you shot an imaginary 2K test chart with alternate black and white pixels and then show that filling a 4K screen each pixel becomes 2 pixels across. The resolution remains 2K even though you are viewing at 4K. Now squeeze that image 2x vertically and what you would see on the screen would still be 2 black then 2 white pixels horizontally (we have changed nothing horizontally, it will still be 2K resolution). But vertically we will see alternating single black/white pixels because the vertical resolution is double because we have squashed the image 2x vertically. BUT horizontally we are still 2K and diagonals will be approx 3k.

      So if we really want a 4K image we MUST start at 4K because the width of the image does not change.

      1. Dear Alister –

        Yes, I get all of that, but you still don’t quite get my point.

        But that’s OK, I really don’t want to waste any more of your time, I’m sure you have much more important things to think about. Thank you.

        Let’s leave it there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.