LOMO anamorphic goes Super 35mm - my music video shot on the FS100

[Andrew Reid]

[media]http://vimeo.com/54261970[/media]


Get Dreamleaver by Herdwhite on iTunes


A big thanks to Ciecio7 for donating his superb OCT19 to E-Mount lens adapter for this shoot. This is available on eBay.


We shot this with the young German movie actress Lili Zahavi (IMDB) and theatre actor Niklas Braubach. A big thanks to both of them for their performances. This is a music video for my fellow friend from Manchester "Herdwhite" whose track Dreamleaver was recorded here in Berlin.


The Sony FS100 has a nice image but it isn't as organic as the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. To make it more organic you use organic lenses. Actually as Herdwhite would tell you it is the same with music. You can use a drum sample - but it is not as organic as a real drummer. Anamorphic gives you instant production value if used right.

[DJJ]

So, I have to ask, was leaving the anamorphic footage still squashed a "creative" decision?

I keep seeing the screenshots and have now seen the video, footage that isn't square pixelled and is squashed is something I can spot a mile off, it jumps right out at me, and I can clearly see it here in some of the shots. I can see you've stretched out the footage on the anamorphic shots, but not fully so it's still squashed, which is an interesting thing to do. I admit it's a personal thing and it bugs me, but everyone is different.

It's not a criticism so no need to go ballistic on me, I'm just curious why you did it.

[addhawk]

Great video and great showcase for old glass on modern camera systems

I have just put a couple of my standard speed lomo's on ebay including the adapator for m43 cameras, they really do give a great smooth look and took just a touch of the digital edge of my GH2 whilst maintaining great sharpness across the frame, found myself reaching for the Lomo 35mm T2.2 on so many occasions. I was about to say they are like a cross between a cooke and zeiss but I think that truth be told they have there own truly unique lomo look.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/150955494371?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='DJJ' timestamp='1354016582' post='22422']
So, I have to ask, was leaving the anamorphic footage still squashed a "creative" decision?

I keep seeing the screenshots and have now seen the video, footage that isn't square pixelled and is squashed is something I can spot a mile off, it jumps right out at me, and I can clearly see it here in some of the shots. I can see you've stretched out the footage on the anamorphic shots, but not fully so it's still squashed, which is an interesting thing to do. I admit it's a personal thing and it bugs me, but everyone is different.

It's not a criticism so no need to go ballistic on me, I'm just curious why you did it.
[/quote]

Really? You can spot that the pixels aren't square? Would this happen in a normal viewing situation or is it because you are concentrating more on the science than on the actual content? Not having a go, just curious as to how this 'jumps out at you from a mile off'. To me it looks fine! It looked weirder squashed to 3.55:1 so the 'creative decision' was just about making it look better. I don't give a damn about whether the pixels are square. It is ALL about the look. That is the important thing, no?

[Andrew Reid]

Nice lenses addhawk. The 22mm is quite rare, not seen one before. Did you try it in the Canon adapter as well? Out of the 6 asphericals I was loaned, only 1 fits the Canon adapter so these are not the lenses you should have if you are an avid 60D user. Great on the GH2 and FS100.

[addhawk]

Not tried it with the 60d before would be curious to find out, from what I remember the older, wider focal lengths and the Ekran super speeds travel quite far back into the camera body but the newer ones are much better, I have a standard speed 50mm and a 75mm but they are in the shop being re-mounted. The 22mm is great and gives a really good standard field of view on the GH2 and is sharp wide open. Tried the 10mm a while back thats T2.8 I think, gives good field of view on GH2 but is more of an extreme lens and slightly soft, could have been the example I had and the fact it was older than the set I own.

[DJJ]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354028570' post='22445']
Really? You can spot that the pixels aren't square?[/quote]

Yes, straight away, first thing I notice, because there are people in those shots.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354028570' post='22445']Would this happen in a normal viewing situation or is it because you are concentrating more on the science than on the actual content? Not having a go, just curious as to how this 'jumps out at you from a mile off'.[/quote]

For me it would happen in a normal viewing situation, but I can't speak for everyone, I fully concede that I am quite sensitive to such things.

Like I said, it's a personal thing, to me it detracts from the content. The trigger for me is because the proportions of the people are changing from shot to shot. In one shot they're normal, in the next they're squished, it's kinda distracting. Like a sphere changing to an oval and back again in between shots, the inconsistency is breaking up the immersion.

If there weren't people in it, it probably wouldn't be so noticeable, but the shape of a human being is built-in to the human psyche so when something looks out of place you can't help but notice it (which can sometimes be a useful tool...).

Now that I think about it, using this effect of leaving the anamorphic footage still slightly squished might have been an interesting effect to use only on the dream sequences... creating a distinction between the dream and reality shots.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354028570' post='22445']To me it looks fine! It looked weirder squashed to 3.55:1 so the 'creative decision' was just about making it look better. I don't give a damn about whether the pixels are square. It is ALL about the look. That is the important thing, no?
[/quote]

I'm not thinking about the aspect ratio of the frame, which is clearly a creative choice, to be honest I never even noticed the aspect ratio of the frame changing between shots, but the aspect ratio of the pixels, which affects whether the image looks "normalised" for want of a better term.

Friend if mine doesn't like "black bars" when watching something :rolleyes:, so with 4:3 content he stretches the image on his widescreen TV so everything looks distorted, bugs the s**t out of me and I can't watch it, but doesn't seem to bother him, so like I said, each to their own. :)

Footage is really nice though :)

[Bruno]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354028570' post='22445']
Really? You can spot that the pixels aren't square?
[/quote]

It was quite obvious to me too, people are distorted in many shots on this video. On same cases I thought they might even be skewed, as if the anamorphic lens wasn't properly aligned, but it might be just the distortion and an off level shot giving me that impression.

I don't particularly like the change of styles, there were too many of them, not necessarily grounded on the story. It's fine to have a different look for a dream sequence, or even more than two different looks in one single video, but they should be serving the story when there is one, if you go totally experimental than do whatever you feel like. Lighting on those interior shots was on the poor side, maybe you could have graded it more to try to make up for that, but in my opinion you could have taken better advantage of the locations that looked good without much additional lighting.

[Andrew Reid]

Well Bruno. Once again, I don't agree.

[Bruno]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354038866' post='22466']
Well Bruno. Once again, I don't agree.
[/quote]

You don't have to, it's your video, glad you're happy with it :)

[galenb]

Looks really nice! Where did you find that glowing under-lit floor?! That was awesome! Shades of THX1138 (one of my favorite movies) Nice to see actors in your movies. This is my next passion too. About the anamorphic squeeze, I think.... I have to agree that it's not quite enough... Please don't kill me for saying that. :-( I really loved the video and to tell you the truth, it didn't "Bother" me at all. But I did notices it too. I actually noticed it a few weeks ago when you posted the still from it... I don't remember off the top of my head what blog post it was... I took a few screen shots from the video into After Effects and applied an additional squash in the Y axis of about 88% if that at all helps. I don't know, maybe you might like it better that way? Either way, it's a great video.

[nahua]

I think the video is great and the different perspectives distinguish reality vs dream. However, the black and white is maybe just too dark? I'm sorry, I like them but the noise looks like footage from a night-vision camera. I wonder if with the BMCC you could do a day-for-night look with grading, then you won't get the ugly noise? Don't get me wrong, the footage is good but the noise. I wish you could shoot it again with the BMCC, but maybe that's for the next project. Great video!!

[TJB]

[quote name='DJJ' timestamp='1354033158' post='22457']
Yes, straight away, first thing I notice, because there are people in those shots.



For me it would happen in a normal viewing situation, but I can't speak for everyone, I fully concede that I am quite sensitive to such things.

Like I said, it's a personal thing, to me it detracts from the content. The trigger for me is because the proportions of the people are changing from shot to shot. In one shot they're normal, in the next they're squished, it's kinda distracting. Like a sphere changing to an oval and back again in between shots, the inconsistency is breaking up the immersion.

If there weren't people in it, it probably wouldn't be so noticeable, but the shape of a human being is built-in to the human psyche so when something looks out of place you can't help but notice it (which can sometimes be a useful tool...).

Now that I think about it, using this effect of leaving the anamorphic footage still slightly squished might have been an interesting effect to use only on the dream sequences... creating a distinction between the dream and reality shots.



I'm not thinking about the aspect ratio of the frame, which is clearly a creative choice, to be honest I never even noticed the aspect ratio of the frame changing between shots, but the aspect ratio of the pixels, which affects whether the image looks "normalised" for want of a better term.

Friend if mine doesn't like "black bars" when watching something :rolleyes:, so with 4:3 content he stretches the image on his widescreen TV so everything looks distorted, bugs the s**t out of me and I can't watch it, but doesn't seem to bother him, so like I said, each to their own. :)

Footage is really nice though :)
[/quote]

Don't go blow a fuse but I found the stretch and squash and varying aspect ratios theme distracting. Maybe it's because people that read websites like this are aware of such things while others would not be so distracted. Just sayin.

Otherwise, nicely done.

[Jerry McCullen]

[quote name='DJJ' timestamp='1354033158' post='22457']
If there weren't people in it, it probably wouldn't be so noticeable, but the shape of a human being is built-in to the human psyche so when something looks out of place you can't help but notice it (which can sometimes be a useful tool...)
[/quote]

Couldn't have said it better. Yes, the squish and stretch is immediately noticable from the very 1st scene with the couple walking. It's very distracting and for some reason reminds me of those old Godzilla monster flicks where the film is stretched in the end during rolling credits. (Why was that always the case back then?)

Not dissing your work at all just constructive criticism I guess.

[Andrew Reid]

This discussion would be better visually. Can you show me some example frames and explain the squeeze that you find distracting? Basic screen grab and post on here would be fine.

[theaveragedave]

I also found the squeeze distracting. It has the appearance of an incorrect aspect ratio on a TV. I've included an attached still. The actors are stretched vertically so that they appear skinnier than they really are.

On the other hand, I appreciate how intentional you are about your filmmaking. I enjoy reading your thoughts about story and technique. It helps me to be more intentional with my own filmmaking.

Hopefully your willingness to dialogue with your viewers will also help you decide which techniques are working and which ones aren't.

If it were me, I'd have difficulty participating in a forum on the internet about my own work, so I applaud you for that as well.

*edited for spelling

[Andrew Reid]

Yep it is a intentional style thing. Just preferred it to the full squash and as I said in the blog the LOMO changes the actual squeeze factor depending on the focal position. Need to send them off to a repair guy and see if anything can be done because it seems impossible to rack focus like this.

Question for you guys who find it distracting - was the distraction caused by all shots in the first 25 seconds (summer scenes) or just a few?

[QuickHitRecord]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354114969' post='22532']
Just preferred it to the full squash and as I said in the blog the LOMO changes the actual squeeze factor depending on the focal position. Need to send them off to a repair guy and see if anything can be done because it seems impossible to rack focus like this.[/quote]

Actually, I find that the breathing during a slow rack focus to be kind of neat-looking, at least on my OCT-18s. I know that I've seen it in some older films. I wouldn't do it on a corporate gig but for art films, why not?

[theaveragedave]

I found the first shot (posted above) and this one most distracting. The others weren't as noticeable.[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/21795/50b62c7d0e9d3_ScreenShot20121128at102147AM.png[/img]

[Bruno]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354114969' post='22532']
Question for you guys who find it distracting - was the distraction caused by all shots in the first 25 seconds (summer scenes) or just a few?
[/quote]

IMO faces or full body shots is what gives it away the most. In the closeups of her shorts when she's walking, for instance, it's hard to tell since I don't know her, it can make her look thinner or chubbier if it's wrong, but doesn't feel as blatantly odd as a face or full body shot does.

I totally understand it's a look to have it stretched or squeezed, I just don't think it cuts well with undistorted footage, unless you go further and use more extreme distortion, then it would be clear it's a creative decision, this way it looks like something's wrong with it.