Jump to content


Photo

DI option


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 Ravi Walia

Ravi Walia
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 17 December 2005 - 12:53 AM

Hi ,
I just wanted to know if shooting super 35 is a better option then anamorphic if you are undergoing a DI process and why?
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20074 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 December 2005 - 01:07 AM

I just wanted to know if shooting super 35 is a better option then anamorphic if you are undergoing a DI process and why?


No, Super-35 isn't inherently better for the D.I. process than anamorphic -- in fact, with anamorphic, you retain more vertical resolution since you aren't cropping the scan to 2.39 and then stretching it out again during the film recording to anamorphic.

The reason why D.I. and Super-35 are linked in some minds is because by doing the crop & stretch to anamorphic digitally instead of in an optical printer using dupes, you retain more of the quality of the original negative... MAKING SUPER-35 LOOK CLOSER IN QUALITY TO ANAMORPHIC. So one of the strikes against Super-35 compared to anamorphic -- the increase in graininess from the blow-up process -- is reduced, making the argument for shooting in Super-35 a little stronger than before.

But anamorphic is still a larger negative area total when you look at what gets used for the 2.39 image. But some of the spherical lenses available are sharper and less distorted than anamorphic lenses, especially when shooting at wide apertures, so you have to decide what visual elements matter to you the most. Do you want the bigger negative, with the better detail and less graininess, or do you want better depth of field with fewer optical distortions and artifacts (and fewer flares)?

The other advantage to Super-35 is that you have the option of shooting in 3-perf and thus saving 25% over stock costs when shooting in 4-perf anamorphic, and these savings can be applied to pay for a portion of the D.I. costs.

There may also be benefits to shooting Super-35 with spherical lenses in terms of doing visual effects, where it is easier to composite shots without the unusual lens distortions of anamorphic photography (hence why some big-budget anamorphic shoots use VistaVision or 65mm for efx plate photography or miniature work, both for the larger negative and because they can then use spherical optics.)

But in terms of picture quality, well-done 35mm anamorphic photography will generally look better than Super-35 and goes through the D.I. process just as well. Trouble is that it's not always easier to do "well-done" anamorphic photography.

Edited by David Mullen, 17 December 2005 - 01:07 AM.

  • 0

#3 Mr. Macgregor

Mr. Macgregor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 December 2005 - 11:49 AM

This is an amazing great answer. SHould be in FAQ for its clarity and advices. :D
  • 0


Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Glidecam

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

The Slider

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post