Options for shooting 2.35:1 or wider on the BMCC?

This seems like a big minefield that I don't know enough to understand. Certainly at cinemas I see most films being shot on aspect ratios much wider than 16:9 than the BMCC comes with.

What ways are there of shooting aspect ratios of e.g. 2.39:1 on the BMCC? What are the pros and cons? What extra equipment do I need?


Thanks for any knowledge you can impart on this.

Jules

Most of what you see in the theaters is jut cropped in post to a pixel hight of 858 pixels.

If you want to shoot wide, you need an anamorphic lens.
That can be ether a lens, made for it, or an additional element that you bolt in front of your normal glass.

Would it be even possible to use an anamorphic on Cine? I mean on the MFT you could go to a PL or PV adapter to use 2x lenses; but that wouldn't get you to 2.39:1 due to the sensor size-- so I suppose you'd have to get 1.3x Hawk, at that point, but even then, how would you view it desqueezed?

I would say your perhaps best bet-- and this would require an external on-board monitor- would be by shooting spherical and having 2.39:1 frame lines-- either put up by the monitor or using tape after shooting a framing chart and then a crop in post. This won't of course get you many of the anamorphic "extras," like ovular bokeh of the attendant lens flares everyone loves (though they do make filters for that).

I used the Panasonic LEA adapter - original made for the DVX to go from 3:4 to 16:9 on the BMC and BMPC. Looks nice so far, but can't speak on real anamorphic glass, since I haven't had a chance to try it.

Looking at a squeezed image while shooting doesn't bother me, since all the information is there, but I always could desqeeze it on a offboard monitor.

Very valid points. I had forgotten a lot about the old screw on adapters which were, I think 1.33x squeeze? Something like that at least.
How is the softness on it? I would assume it'd soften the image a bit; but in a pleasing, take the edge off way?

Yeah, a bit softer but not bad at all - I actually like it a lot.

Wow cropping to 858 pixels, that hardly seems enough resolution. If it's good enough for cinema, it's good enough.

Here's a question, this low budget UK horror film was shot on Arri Alexa using Cooke Xtal Express Lenses, "Last Passenger", trailer is here:

I'm wondering if the DP had decided to just crop the picture instead rather than use anamorphic lenses, how different would the *the look* have been? What would be the difference in the aesthetics of the images?

Jules

You definitely cannot replicate the mysterious feeling of anamorphic by cropping. Not that cropping is bad, either, but it's just not the same for a handful of reasons.

If we had a 4:3 mode on the Pocket and 2.5K cameras it would be "magic", haha. But, SLRMagic's releasing a 1.33x adapter that I think is pretty darn good after testing it on the Pocket Camera, and while the anamorphic look is subtle, the feeling of it in motion is there.

It will be a good option versus cropping.

Don't get too caught up on the pixel number. All that matters really is good enough for what?

Perfect example you've been looking at 872 pixels, give or take whenever you see an anamorphic film in a 2K theater for years!

Yeah I agree, resolution's whatever. We're talking about a subjective image, not pixel count. That's enough for any sort of display, but it's more about the "feeling". There's no other reason why you'd go for 2.35:1 IMO.

Cropping to widescreen works fine. Spielberg uses it, Cameron uses it, as do many other filmmakers.

IMHO, 2x anamophics have a distinctive look that 1.33x squeeze lacks. To me, 1.33 anamorphics aren't worth the trouble.

Hoping SLRMagic and other companies come out with a 2x squeeze adapter. That would be fun.

Cropping to widescreen works fine. Spielberg uses it, Cameron uses it, as do many other filmmakers.

IMHO, 2x anamophics have a distinctive look that 1.33x squeeze lacks. To me, 1.33 anamorphics aren't worth the trouble.

Hoping SLRMagic and other companies come out with a 2x squeeze adapter. That would be fun.

Okay, not sure what is meant by 2x anamorphic. Does this mean that the camera needs a 4:3 sensor, that the BMCC doesn't have, to give 2.66:1 aspect ratio?

Jules

Yes; to use a 2x you'd need to get 4x3 on the sensor somehow. Else you could crop the sides from the resulting wide image to 2.40:1. I"m not sure what the crop would actually be.