Jump to content


Photo

Super 35mm


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 SSJR

SSJR
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Student

Posted 10 March 2006 - 03:18 PM

Hello there,

So I'm shooting Super 35mm on the movie cam compact and i am trying to decide the best aspect ratio. I'm going back to Telecine. Some day I might go back to film :). With a video transfer in mind i have 3 choices. 2.35, 1.85 and 1.33 ... 1.33 is out of the question because I want a very cinematic look. It is really a decision between 2.35 and 1.85. Anyone have previous experiences or opinions about 2.35 aspect ratio on S35mm. Any expertise on the subject would be tremendously helpful.

Thanks,

Evan Lane
Director, Cinematographer, Editor.
  • 0

#2 Kevin Zanit

Kevin Zanit
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • LA

Posted 10 March 2006 - 03:33 PM

I shot 2.35 in S35 on my last project. I can't tell you what aspect ratio to chose, I know nothing about the project.

It is very nice for landscape type shots and also any scene where you want to have several people in frame at once. Bear in mind that if you have nothing to fill the 2.35 frame with, it can be boring. If you can't rig from above, 2.35 can make lighting a little harder.

I would need to know more about your project to tell you my opinion, but at the end of the day, it's a story choice.


Kevin Zanit
  • 0

#3 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 10 March 2006 - 03:35 PM

Hello there,

So I'm shooting Super 35mm on the movie cam compact and i am trying to decide the best aspect ratio. I'm going back to Telecine. Some day I might go back to film :). With a video transfer in mind i have 3 choices. 2.35, 1.85 and 1.33 ... 1.33 is out of the question because I want a very cinematic look. It is really a decision between 2.35 and 1.85. Anyone have previous experiences or opinions about 2.35 aspect ratio on S35mm. Any expertise on the subject would be tremendously helpful.

Thanks,

Evan Lane
Director, Cinematographer, Editor.


Actually, for feature use, the 2.39:1 aspect ratio is the most common extraction from the Super-35 area. For television, standard SMPTE 96M recognizes 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, and 2.39:1, although other ratios are often offered by transfer houses, e.g., 2.20:1.

For television, many consumers are unfortunately still "put off" by the narrow 2.39:1 letterbox, especially if they have older televisions that have relatively poor resolution. So unless your picture needs the true "widescreen treatment", you may find 1.78:1 (16:9) is more widely accepted, and also fills the screen on a modern 16:9 monitor.
  • 0

#4 SSJR

SSJR
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Student

Posted 10 March 2006 - 06:36 PM

Actually, for feature use, the 2.39:1 aspect ratio is the most common extraction from the Super-35 area. For television, standard SMPTE 96M recognizes 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, and 2.39:1, although other ratios are often offered by transfer houses, e.g., 2.20:1.

For television, many consumers are unfortunately still "put off" by the narrow 2.39:1 letterbox, especially if they have older televisions that have relatively poor resolution. So unless your picture needs the true "widescreen treatment", you may find 1.78:1 (16:9) is more widely accepted, and also fills the screen on a modern 16:9 monitor.



Another question then...

If I shoot 1.78:1 and enhance a 16x9 squeeze in the telecine fo HD 16:9 Televison for DVD authoring purposes. is there a way to unsqueeze in the editorial process ? i want to master to DVD from HD eventually but for now im going to be offlining on DV cam. Would the best thing to do be to squeeze the footage in the telecine?
  • 0

#5 Joshua Reis

Joshua Reis
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 March 2006 - 11:42 PM

Another question then...

If I shoot 1.78:1 and enhance a 16x9 squeeze in the telecine fo HD 16:9 Televison for DVD authoring purposes. is there a way to unsqueeze in the editorial process ? i want to master to DVD from HD eventually but for now im going to be offlining on DV cam. Would the best thing to do be to squeeze the footage in the telecine?



Hi, yes you can do an anamorphic transfer for DVD and in post create a letterbox Master in Avid or Final Cut Pro. Also, if you framed for 1.78, you can always do a full frame 1.33 transfer in telecine and matte/letterbox your film in post. This will give you some vertical Pan and Scan if you have to slightly reframe a shot in post as opposeed to coming locked with 1.78 letterboxed right out of telecine. Also, if you plan on going directly to DVD, I highly suggest that you edit at 23.98 so that you can have a 23.98 Progressive encode. This way, when you output to digital betacam (or any tape format) the 3:2 pull down cadence will be continuous and can be pulled up back to 23.98 frames without flash interlace frames at cuts. Best of Luck
  • 0

#6 Austin Schmidt

Austin Schmidt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York, Los Angeles

Posted 11 March 2006 - 12:33 AM

Sorry to slightly verge this thread into something different then Evan's original intention however I think he might learn something important from this that should be taken into consideration.

Every time I have shot S35mm I have always shot in 3-perf. This decision was made for the obvious financial reasons as everything was going to finish in HD with no consideration regarding the image quality difference between 4-perf and 3-perf. As far as I know, there is no image quality difference between the two. However, during my last show, I was speaking to the dailies colorist and he had mentioned he noticed when we made the switch mid shoot from 3-perf to 4-perf. (The reasons for the switch was a technical camera malfunction which isn't really important). According to him the 4-perf looked "better". After I was able to view the dailies I actually saw the reverse of what he was talking about and felt that the 3-perf transfer had a higher resolution and contained much more detail then the 4-perf. Is there a resolution difference between the two? By saving money on film stock is one sacrificing image quality? Why might my observence of the 3-perf footage look "better" then the 4-perf?

Edited by A.Schmidt, 11 March 2006 - 12:33 AM.

  • 0

#7 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 11 March 2006 - 08:18 AM

Why might my observence of the 3-perf footage look "better" then the 4-perf?


Hi,

The only thing if they were Both S35 is the flange focal length was wrong with one of the cameras! They both have the same width of 24mm so should be identical. There is a higher risk of a hair in the gate shooting with 3 perf through!

If you compared 35mm 1:.1.85 4 perf v S35mm 1:1.85 3 perf the 3 perf will have a bigger negative.

Stephen
  • 0

#8 Austin Schmidt

Austin Schmidt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York, Los Angeles

Posted 11 March 2006 - 12:23 PM

Stephen, I guess I'm not sure why the 3-perf image will have a bigger negative. The difference between 3 and 4 is in the space between frames (hence the savings in stock costs) however, I guess I don't understand why the negative area would be different from one to the other if shooting 1.85 or 2.35 for that matter (as that is what we are framing for). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the lines of resolution should be exactly the same when framing for 2.35 whether using 3 or 4 perf.
  • 0

#9 Jonathan Benny

Jonathan Benny
  • Sustaining Members
  • 166 posts
  • Other
  • Vancouver, Canada / Paris, France

Posted 11 March 2006 - 01:07 PM

Stephen, I guess I'm not sure why the 3-perf image will have a bigger negative. The difference between 3 and 4 is in the space between frames (hence the savings in stock costs) however, I guess I don't understand why the negative area would be different from one to the other if shooting 1.85 or 2.35


Super 35mm and 3-perf can be combined or dealt with seperately and so in effect you are correct only if both the 4-perf image and the 3-perf image have been photographed using the super 35mm format.

A Super 35mm 4-perf 1.85 image has the same negative area extracted as a Super 35mm 3-perf image.

Same with Super 35mm 2.35 4perf vs 3 perf.

The difference in negative area comes when you are comparing a 4-perf regular 1.85 negative extraction area versus a 4-perf or 3 perf Super 35mm 1.85 negative extraction area. I believe that was the correct comparison Stephen was making.

Regards,

JB
  • 0

#10 Austin Schmidt

Austin Schmidt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York, Los Angeles

Posted 11 March 2006 - 01:34 PM

Sorry if there was confusion. I am only referring to S35mm regarding this thread not R35 vs. S35.
  • 0

#11 Mike Panczenko

Mike Panczenko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Philadelphia, USA

Posted 12 March 2006 - 10:48 AM

Here, check this out. It explains things pretty well: http://www.aaton.com...lm/35/3perf.php
  • 0

#12 Dominic Case

Dominic Case
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1357 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 12 March 2006 - 05:48 PM

According to him the 4-perf looked "better". After I was able to view the dailies I actually saw the reverse of what he was talking about and felt that the 3-perf transfer had a higher resolution and contained much more detail then the 4-perf.

Sounds like your dailies colorist should stick to his day job. Three and four perf super 35 both have the same frame size. If there's a difference in your material it must have been a lens problem or a focus problem associated with switching cameras(someone mentioned flanges). AS you changed in mid shoot, did you have a chance to test the new camera thoroughly?

More to the point, if your colorist thought the 4-perf looked better, and you thought the opposite, then there can't be much difference (as theory predicts). That's unless he's fiddled with the transfers, to solve a problem that's in his head.
  • 0

#13 Austin Schmidt

Austin Schmidt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York, Los Angeles

Posted 12 March 2006 - 07:03 PM

No, there was no time to test the camera thoroughly mid shoot. You know how it is on a weekend. Production (including myself) is in a hurry to get a body out to location, contacting the rental house and coordinating the switch-off is not always the easiest thing to do. My 1st expressed concern regarding not being able to test the flange actually, however, money was ticking away and because we were already behind we had to shoot, shoot, shoot. Again, unfortuantely because it was the weekend, we didn't get to see dailies until Tuesday so it is what it is. We are thoroughly inspecting everything tonight. So if anyone is interested I can update with final thoughts and evaluations.

Edited by A.Schmidt, 12 March 2006 - 07:04 PM.

  • 0


Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Glidecam

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

The Slider

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Metropolis Post

CineLab