As someone who sometimes watches content on his phone, I HATE when people use letterboxes! Let alone all those who use an ultrawide monitor and now have letterboxes on all 4 sides - thanks for mentioning that.
The oval bokeh was achieved in the compositing stage not the rendering stage, where the raw exrs did not have lens effects like DOF and bokeh. They used a lens kernel in Nuke, which means it is done similarly to real world spherical bokeh to anamorphic (though there is no DOF in the first place, so no layering of blur effects).
Have been waiting for this video to show up at the top of my watch later for way to long. That distortion is surprisingly convincing, and short of paying 45k for an Elite or Cooke anamorphic it might be my only option. Just have to figure out a way to have it work in C1
I have unfortunately had to roto to add ana bokeh to shots before. One way to get rid of the edges not being perfect is to scale up the subject/FG element by a little bit. P.S. Like you mentioned, to everyone, please make this your last resort. Do not and I repeat, DO NOT rely on this method for your entire project. Even if your vfx buddy says he can pull it off.
I thoroughly enjoyed this episode, especially the maths to work out Aspect Ratios. This episode helped to consolidate much of what I've tried to remember from your Cookbook episodes. I had a go filming my first ever small RU-vid episode of this year's Solstice Sunset with my Siuri 50mm lens. Not exactly an edge of the seat subject matter, by any stretch of the imagination. However I went through most of your Cookbook episodes again trying to get my head round the maths of Aspect Ratios. But I still don't fully understand. Its a learning curve. My brain still hurts. This episode has helped the information to stick in my brain a little more. I'm just confused about how to adapt the footage in Resolve. I don't really know if I should use square aspect pixel ratios or cinemascope pixel ratios for the squeeze factor of 1.33x. I'll be honest I don't even fully understand the 1.33x squeeze. I gather the 1.33x is for a sensor with 16x9 aspect ratio. However used my GH6 in open gate which is not 16x9 and hope to work this all out one day in the with aspect ratios and pixel heights. Looking forward to your next episode. 😀
4:50 the thing is, there is a defined standard for 4096 wide scope, which is 1716 and not 1712. Wrong math, sure, but still the case. BMD also did their own math instead of reading any paper when they implemented the 1712 height in their 4K Pocket. So what's more important, serving standards or doing more accurate math? That's for each one to decide. But doing the math means that if you did a DCP from it, you either add tiny black bars or you have to scale up ever so slightly, gaining some nice little filter hits.
10:40 also, props for rotoscoping in Resolve. Probably the worst software for this, ever :D the halos on the shoulder could be eliminated easily with a simple pixel spread, no idea if Resolve has something for this. Then again, Resolve is terribly for this and Fusion bundled. Not sure if they implemented one yet, but I made a Macro some years ago
Good points on both! I did not go after the standard (DCI 4k Cinemascope), just went for the best byproduct of 2. Also good consideration on what's more important. Doing it in Resolve was ROUGH. I managed to do some other stuff in AE using Mocha and that was a much more pleasant experience. hahaha
Trying this out in Final Cut Pro X, and to my horror I'm discovering that FCPX has NO WAY of distorting an image!? There is no built in way of warping the corners and after quite a bit of googling I haven't been able to find any plugin that allows you to do this. This seems like such a basic feature - if anyone knows of a plugin please let me know.
@@zachreichgut There is a built in fisheye effect but it's mostly useless for anything other than creating a poor looking distorted fisheye effect. There are no settings to tweak and it distorts the image heavily in the centre.
Hi Tito! This might sound a little crazy, but do you know of any way to mod a lens so it can have swirly bokeh towards the edges without using the method of reversing the front element?
No, it's 1.78 times AS LONG, or 0.78 times longer. If it was 1.78 times longer, it would be 25:9. That's what those words mean in the English language, no matter how many people insist on using it incorrectly. Just saying, seeing how you go to the extent of calculating ratios where the actual understanding of numbers and figures matters, instead of the one you can still drawl after your twenty-ninth can of 'murrican "beer".
