Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
m43 + Anamorphic = secret purpose missed?
  • MicahMicah

    I woke up with a crazy I idea this morning, so forgive me--I gotta let it out.

    Why does Anamorphic exist? Anamorphic came about as a way to squeeze more resolution out of existing cameras and film stock. Couldn't go wider, so why not spread the information taller? Then print or project it corrected. Takes some crazy lens design, but, ok...it worked! Somewhat.

    Today people are plinking around with anamorphic because of the aberrations and quirks of the process, which they associate with some really amazing films. Or at least some amazing looking films.

    Well, why not think about it in terms of overcoming a technical limitation again? The same one that it was created for: resolution.

    Lost of people want more. The new cheap BMC on the front page has everybody excited, so obviously the desire for resolution is there.

    How tough would it be to hack the m43 cameras to spit out a full sensor read out? Even half resolution would be interesting. Full would be double 4k.

    That plus anamorphic lenses = sleeping giant 8k?

    Maybe it's not technically possible. In my mind, it seems there are indicators it is though. The sensor will spit out a section of 100% view at a damned good frame rate--how about the whole thing?

    Maybe I'm just dreaming. Just an idea. Putting it out there for people who have the know how.

  • 11 Replies sorted by
  • mattcmattc

    with digital, anamorphic lens doesn't give you more resolution, just more field of view, in one plane, the horizontal.

    with film, it gives more resolution, yes, but only because you're using more of the film negative, than you would just shooting flat.

  • OedipaxOedipax

    One nice thing about the 4K BMC is we can shoot with 2X anamorphics and crop down to 2.4:1 and still be oversampling for 2K delivery.

  • AthirilAthiril

    Anamorphic doesn't increase resolution, it just reduces how much you crop the image by to save loss from cropping.

  • MicahMicah

    Anamorphic on film was using more film vertically, and then projected smooshed vertical/stretched horizontal. The end result was more film information projected over about the same surface area. Modest bump in resolution + artifacts.

    What I'm suggesting is the same thing: shoot with anamorphic lenses that squash horizontally, projecting the image over more of the sensor. More sensor surface area = more pixels. Just like spreading the image over more film. (or as @mattc said "more negative") Right now, a 16mp m43s cam uses 12mp cropped from the middle. That throws out about 4mp of sensor information, that the m43 lenses will all cover. If you projected over the whole sensor with an anamorphic lens, and even just squashed to 16:9 from 4:3, you'd be increasing resolving power.

    Make sense now? It's a far fetched idea. And not currently feasible. But if a camera like the GH3 has "clean hdmi out" and will spit out the full 4:3 image, then there's nothing more to it than to shoot anamorphic and capture to an external recorder. Even if you were only recording 1920x1440 output, you'd be adding 400 vertical pixels of info. If you could get it to spit out 4000x3000, shot anamorphic and squashed, it'd give you higher than 4k shot 16:9.

  • omnidecayomnidecay

    I think a full sensor hack could be interesting...would the camera burn up though?

  • MicahMicah

    Plugged into the wall, I've run video for 6hrs in a hot sweaty dance venue--no problem. Could it burn up? If you did that maybe, but for high quality stuff, I doubt it. Also, not having the battery in there heating as it discharges probably helps/helped.

  • mattcmattc

    yes to use the full 4k, 4:3 sensor for video rather than stills would be ideal for anamorphic use. Hasn't been able to be done though. lpowell's hack does get more out of the sensor at 16:9 however, acheiving MJPEG frame sizes beyond 1920 pixels wide.

    http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/479/gh2-mjpeg-100mbps-low-light-1080p-settings/p2

  • MicahMicah

    Hmm, hadn't caught that, thanks! I think what you're describing is just using the same portion of the sensor and scaling in a different way.

    Again, I'm more interested in the potential of a "clean" feed to HDMI, since I doubt that, even if compressed, the SD pipeline could handle dumping 4k to a card in real time. I suspect that would be a challenge for even the GH3.

  • kellar42kellar42

    I'm vaguely aware that this debate has gone on for awhile and has been settled in the 'you don't gain resolution' column...but it does get confusing when you unstretch your anamorphic footage into a 2554x1080 frame and it looks damn good. I mean you were squeezing more information onto the sensor, just like film, right? Arg!

  • mattcmattc

    Yes, there are two different questions getting intermingled here.

    First: Does the use of anamorphic lens increase resolution? Answer: No. Film shot anamorphically has greater resolution not because of the lens characteristics but because a greater area of film is used.

    Second: Can the gh1/2/3 be hacked to record video, either internally or externally via HDMI out, at the full sensor size and aspect ratio, roughly 4k and 4:3? Answer: As i far as I know, and someone with greater understanding of how the sensor works should jump in and settle conclusively, it cannot.

  • MicahMicah

    First: yep, I comprehend that part completely.

    Second: ...which is why I wonder about the second.

Add a Comment