Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
So in other words, he probably changed his Monitor's resolution from, say 1920x1080 to 1440x1080. Then while playing the game in this resolution, set his GTA resolution to 1280x720, which will return him back into a widescreen format, but still maintaining all the information of the stretched film. (or something like that)
that's just an arbitrary guess (and if that's the case he had to be working with something much larger than 1920x1080p.)
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1174262301&searchtext=anamorphic
To be more precise, applying an overlay (2.35) doesn't make it anamorphic.
An exert from wikipedia :
-------
Anamorphic widescreen (also called Full height anamorphic) is a process by which a comparatively wide widescreen image is horizontally compressed to fit into a storage medium with a narrower aspect ratio, reducing the horizontal resolution of the image while keeping its full original vertical resolution. Compatible play-back equipment (a projector with modified lens, or a digital video player or set-top box) can then expand the horizontal dimension to show the original widescreen image. This is typically used to allow one to store widescreen images on a medium that was originally intended for a narrower ratio, while using as much of the frame – and therefore recording as much detail – as possible.[1]
The technique comes from cinema, when a film would be framed and recorded as widescreen but the picture would be "squashed together" using a special concave lens to fit into non-widescreen 1.37:1 aspect ratio film. This film can then be printed and manipulated like any other 1.37:1 film stock, although the images on it will appear to be squashed horizontally (or elongated vertically). An anamorphic lens on the projector in the cinema (a convex lens) corrects the picture by performing the opposite distortion, returning it to its original width and its widescreen aspect ratio.
------
In other words, Our footage will appear larger but still be kept in a widescreen format, in order to do this without loss in resolution, real cameras capture this from the get-go via a lense. Faking it in a video game or SFM requires a bit more ingenuity to not lose resolution.
Lets take for example, a game like GTA. When you play at a different resolution (for example, a 1280x1080, you will have this anamorphic look because the game will squash it's dimensions to fit your monitors resolution, keeping in tact the full detail of the game. If i were to stretch this to 1920x1080 in post, you LOSE resolution quality in the horizontal plane and lose the anamorphic look. Now if i were to reduce the 1280x1080 to 1280x720, i keep the anamorphic look while making it fit a wider screen resolution, and preserving all that information.
in sfm you output the widescreen natively. just use a wider fov and a 2.4 aspect overlay. it's exactly the same and correct result. a lil problem may just be that you may have to relocate the camera backwards depending on the framing to avoid weird fov compression. this a matter of the camera matrix. the w component. how much the projection bends. this can't be changed in sfm tho. that would help, maybe.
I dont mean to be argumentative, but how is it only relevant for film when i just linked in the OP a video where it's defining feature was that it was anamorphic and a video game (ie, not film)?
I just don't think that's true.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/584e2ebb893fc01633e817c6/t/58e8af0b17bffc10a3fec882/1491644191105/Wdiescreen2.png?format=500w
In this image, the Anamorphic lens is able to capture twice the information as a spherical lense(which in our case, would be SFM's lens)
Simply zooming out and cropping via AR is not equivalent at all, unless you are exporting in an incredibly high resolution (i'm assuming)
https://i.imgur.com/N9VoFhl.jpg
it's not 100%, but you get the idea. i really just moved the work camera closer.
That's significant when you're dealing with film that has a fixed aspect ratio, because you can get more detail in by stretching and squeezing the image to use the full frame rather than just resizing it.
This is less important when dealing with pixels, because the aspect ratio of digital video is very often not fixed... as it isn't here.
Looking at the "Stats for Nerds" on the video, the actual video file is 1920x800. It's not a 1920x1080 file that's being reshaped when it's being played back.
In other words, the aspect ratio here is just because it's a video that happens to have been cropped to close to a common aspect ratio used by anamorphic cameras.
While theoretically, you could have a 1920x1080 video file that was intended to be played back at something like 2560x1080 in order to make maximum use of the standard frame size, it's not what's happening here. I'm not even sure if Youtube's player would support that (and I can't be bothered to look it up).
Beyond that, it seems the game has been modded with lens flare effects (a common side effect of anamorphic lenses), heavy depth of field and colour correction used to enhance the cinematic appearance.
the anamorph recording in 4:3 should probably have the dimensions of 1920x1440. that's the compression that would be on the film. i'm certain this would never run on youtube. it'd allow supersampling when playing back tho on a regular 1080p display.
the other common 4:3 anamorph would be 1078x808. this demorphing back to 2.4 would stretch the width. youtube support for this in unknown to me too. i'd have to try this. it'd probably display wrong or be reencoded for native 1080p display. bogus blurry either way.
the thing to consider is using 1920x1080 anamorph video and display it in 2.4 aspect 1920x808. which would raise the quality a lil bit, cause it'd supersample too. but this will probably not run on youtube either.
everything else with higher resolutions is pretty much similar to type 2. when ever you scale up it fills up the picture with blur. no quality to increases. low source video remains low source video.
----------------------
I still feeling like something is just missing.
This is a direct quote from the comment section in the video from the creator :
"Thank You so much Dan for your support! I'm afraid that this's not a modification :) In fact, there was no modifications at all in this video. Well, almost. The one and only mod I've used was a native trainer, just for speeding up the work flow process. Speaking about cinematic look of this video, I've just changed monitor's resolution using nvidia's control panel so after what I had a possibility to change the aspect ratio and the resolution in the game"
With just this change in resolution, he was able to get the oval bokeh's like in real anamorphic (i dont even understand how that's even possible)
But i mean i could go on about how was this particular video actually made, but based on the creators comment, it just seems like it was just clever resolution changes to achieve the look.
I believe one of the key properties of an anamorphic lens is the ability to take a wide angle shot, in a shallow depth of field. (low fov) while being able to stay at the same distance as a spherical lens. Like you've pointed out episoder, you can fake this by simply framing the camera differently (by moving the camera closer and having a larger field of view) But something seems misleading, not only about the image you've posted, but in general about the technique. I'd like to refer to this image here, which is basically the same kind of test you did, but it's a real life shot difference between a spherical and anamorphic
http://thefilmbook.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Blossier-Paris-tests-of-Cooke-spherical-and-anamorphic-thefilmbook.jpg
If simply framing it differently is the answer, yet the bokeh's in SFM will still look spherical.(well to be 100% i dont even think SFM is capable of making any kind of good looking bokeh on it's own...but ehh different topic) not to mention that what's more likely to happen, is distortion will be exaggerated along the horizontal axis (something marco pointed out a long time ago in the rectilinear rendering that SFM renders in.)
But the caveat here is that GTA also has rectilinear rendering. I looked up a graphics study which kinda explains how GTA fixes their camera to produce recti- lensing
http://www.adriancourreges.com/blog/2015/11/02/gta-v-graphics-study/
This kinda just means that it even with the same render type, he was able to still get this anamorphic look. If he framed it like you proposed, i just don't see how it could wield the same results as this GTA video._
This is the reason why SFM's bokeh are actually oval, because SFM's depth of field randomises its samples based on the screen's 16:9 ratio.
You can however trick that by a fullbright black donut of the desired bokeh shape around the camera so that you block samples that don't match your desired depth of field effect. You need to make a few adjustments to the lighting/exposure (in much the same way as you would if you shrunk the aperture on a real camera), match its size to your desired aperture, and sometimes turn up the samples to still get a good result, but you can basically fake any camera aperture shape you like as long as you have a suitable model for the aperture - hexagon, pentagon, star, oval (vertical, diagonal, whatever), etc
Throw in the right aspect ratio and some lens flare, and you could certainly emulate the look, but it's still not technically anamorphic, because the film and storage medium would be in the same aspect ratio.
to be honest this looks like a sh!t lens or a warp fake done in post. lol. it looks a lil bit like a fish lens. the picture isn't really sharp either. i painted some of the irregularities in it. the boken doesn't even make sense. it doesn't look good. it's squished wrong imo. call the garbage man.
https://i.imgur.com/m1PmcAC.jpg
the original still looks good and wide. i dunno wth.