my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » TV Series "Miracles" --shot in Scope? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: TV Series "Miracles" --shot in Scope? Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-06-2003 06:38 PM                     ABC has this new TV series, "Miracles" which I suppose is in sort of the same genre as "Millenium" or "The X-Files". I haven't been able to watch a full episode of it from being pretty busy lately. However, one of my coworkers said the first episode scared the crap out of her. Anyway, to get to the point, I have seen numerous previews of this show. It appears to be shot entirely with anamorphic lenses. But they crop the frame to 1.33:1 pan and scan. Pretty wierd. I suppose the producers want that "movie look" without having the black bars. I guess ABC is taking the anamorphic look a step farther from all the music videos on MTV using it as a visual gimmick. Does ABC show this series in HDTV format? What aspect ratio do they show for "Miracles" in HD (if it applies). I forgot whether ABC stays strictly with 1280 X 720p or actually does some 1080i shows. Considering how some TV series originally air with standard 2.0 Dolby Surround audio but later on DVD sport new 5.1 mixdowns, it might be interesting to see how this show is presented if it gets popular enough to justify a DVD box set. 5.1 and 2.39:1 widescreen? I guess we'll see.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 02-06-2003 06:46 PM                        Bobby - Thanks for bringing this up! I will now seek out this show. I found this link to comments by Miracles cinematographer Ernest Holzman: Miracles. It is indeed shot with anamorphic lenses. [ 02-06-2003, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: David Stambaugh ]  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 02-06-2003 08:12 PM                    It's sad when a publication like American Cinematographer can't get their facts straight. Native aspect ratio is not 2.40 : 1 when the film is advancing only 3 perfs per frame! More like 3.1:1 or 3.55 over the full silent width.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 02-06-2003 08:43 PM                        Just as good: quote: Anamorphic’s squeeze-and-stretch process causes the out-of-focus imagery to be elongated vertically. Since when do anamorphics stretch vertically?  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 02-06-2003 09:03 PM                     Daryl, It's usually most noticable with background lights and halos created, such as car headlights. When those are out of focus, they will appear to be stretched vertically. It's an anamorphic artifact.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-07-2003 09:32 PM                     Here is a rather large collage of four DVD frame grabs (but its only around 60K in size). They show off a lot of the artifacts common to anamorphic photography. You can see how items farther in the background stretch vertically. I, for one, like the 'scope look. One thing that puzzles me is those wide, elliptical reddish halos around strong light sources. It seems like the circle-halo goes right through the anamorphic compression lens without getting squeezed. Everything else does except it. Then when the film is projected and the image is decompressed, that halo gets horizontally stretched.  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 02-07-2003 10:53 PM                     I think that halo effect is caused because its a reflection on the non-anamorphic portion of the lense. The strong light hits the anamorphic portion and reflects onto the focusing portion of the glass inside the lens, creating the halo effect after it passes this first part of the lens optics.  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 02-08-2003 03:10 AM                        also note, of course, that if an object is closer than the focal plane then it will be elongated horizontally (after the image is unsqueezed). and if a scope shot has a focus pull, you can see the (d)elongation happen. eg, the shot of the school's sign in "rushmore" (it's in the trailer too). the funniest, and perhaps most "artistic" use of this effect i've seen is radley metzger's "lickerish quartet". a couple (or more?) is having sex, and we see a shot of some flowers, pulsing in and out of focus, stretching and compressing, to the rhythm of their groans. carl  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-08-2003 11:36 AM                     A focus pull will really show off the elongation effect in the depth of field. That last frame grab from the "Save Me" music video from "Magnolia" is a good example. The shot is tightly focused on the flower as it dollies forward. The focus shifts to the background to reveal the two women sitting on the couch.  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 02-10-2003 06:42 PM                     Daryl asked (perhaps rhetorically): quote: Since when do anamorphics stretch vertically? Paul answered: quote: It's usually most noticable with background lights and halos created, such as car headlights. When those are out of focus, they will appear to be stretched vertically. It's an anamorphic artifact. I suspect Daryl's point was that anamorphic lenses stretch images horizontally rather than vertically. EDIT: Steve wrote: quote: It's sad when a publication like American Cinematographer can't get their facts straight. Their September issue contained a bunch of silly errors including references to Cinerama's original frames-per-second rate as 30 in one article and 26 in a separate article...in the same issue! They also claimed that after the production of How The West Was Won and It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World that all subsequent "Cinerama" productions were made in Technirama or Super Panavision. (Most post 1962 Cinerama films were originated in Ultra Panavision.) There were other errors as well with their otherwise good Cinerama coverage in that issue. I also remember a few issues back where they did a feature on Men In Black II and claimed it was 2.35:1. Magazines are bound to make an error from time to time (some more than others). I see errors -- both typographical and factual -- all the time...and it can definitely be irritating. The publication I'm associated with has certainly made its fair share of 'em over the years  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 02-10-2003 07:07 PM                        Paul is right. After seeing the effects so many times, for so many years, I guess you start to forget that they are even there.  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 02-14-2003 09:33 AM                     So is there anyone out there who can describe technically why these "squeezed in" and "stretched out" artifacts appear in anamorphically shot films?  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-14-2003 12:19 PM                        I'm sure Tak Miyagishima from Panavision could explain it clearly. Each anamorphic camera lens tends to have its "signature", which varies with the focal length and f/stop. Part of the "art" of great cinematography is choosing a particular lens to give the "look" desired: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/forum/onFilm/  |  IP: Logged Aaron Haney Master Film Handler Posts: 265 From: Cupertino, CA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 02-14-2003 04:58 PM                     John McTiernan said in the commentary for the most recent "Die Hard" DVD that he deliberately chose to use an older set of anamorphic lenses for the movie because they produced a type of flare he liked, whereas newer lenses did not. I believe you can also see these same types of flares in his remake of "Rollerball". [ 02-14-2003, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Aaron Haney ]  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 02-15-2003 12:17 AM                    Paul has it mostly right. The halo is created in the conventional part of the lens but it most likely has nothing to do with bouncing off the anamorphic elements. It's just a matter of odds that the many complex spherical elements (depending on the particular lens) far outnumber the cylindrical unit which, typically, might only have a pair of doublets (and counter-rotating diopters). Thus, the likelyhood is that the internal reflection creating the halo from a bright point-source is going to take place among spherical elements. So the anamorphic lens lays down a circular halo on film just like any other lens. This is after the anamorphic elements so it's not affected by them. The only difference is that the anamorphic film is projected with a 2X expansion while the flat film is not.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.