Cue for Moose to turn his spare time into editing Wikipedia...
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 07:41, C.H.Ling <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Wiki seems telling the major advantage of Anamorphic lens is using the
> whole frame to give better image details compared to a cropped one.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format
>
> C.H.Ling
>
>
>
>
> On 20/02/16 14:18, Moose wrote:
> > On 2/15/2020 5:11 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> >> I understand the benefit of using anamorphic lenses on film movies as
> >> it can use the whole 35mm frame to give better details and less grain
> >
> > That's not really what it was about. A whole industry had developed
> > around a format close to what we would call half frame 35 mm film, with
> > a 4:3 aspect ratio. It was slightly different, for the audio track.
> > There was an enormous investment in equipment for 35 mm film, a great
> > deal of it by owners of independent theaters or small chains.
> >
> > As film makers came to realize that wider formats simply worked better
> > for movies, they looked for ways to do that. The quest went two ways:
> >
> > 1. Anamorphic lenses allowed a wider projected images without
> > investments in a whole new generation of equipment. For only the
> > investment in a couple of projection lenses, theaters could show wide
> > screen formats. For most, a cheap, wider screen was also used.
> >
> > In the case of the few tiny, narrow theaters, like the one in which I
> > projected movies to work my way through University, the screens couldn't
> > be made wider, but wide format movies could still be shown using our
> > ancient equipment.
> >
> > This was the big breakthrough; because it was so affordable, it was
> > adopted very quickly.
> >
> > 2. Various different film formats were tried for higher quality and
> > wider formats. When I was a young man, Cinerama used 70 mm film with
> > three cameras and three projectors to create a close to 180° visual
> > field. Sitting in the front part of the theater, watching a western, the
> > bullets of a gunfight appeared to fly over one's head. I watched 2001
> > this way.
> >
> > That was all extraordinarily expensive, and it was fussy to align and
> > sync the projectors. Cinerama morphed into a super wide anamorphic
> > format on larger than 35 mm film.
> >
> >> but didn't understand how it do better with home digital movie unless
> >> you own an anamorphic projection system.
> >
> > Yes. Even on a 70" class TV, films such as Lawrence of Arabia and Once
> > Upon a Time in the West, in their original, super wide formats, look
> > small, and lose the impact they had in large theaters. I recall the
> > sunrise out of the desert shot in Lawrence had a huge visual impact in a
> > large theater. On our rather large TV, it's not nearly as impressive.
> >
> > Crossover Moose
> >
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|