Jump to content


Photo

2.35 in s16mm


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Miguel Bunster

Miguel Bunster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 October 2006 - 09:30 PM

any1 has experience working in the 2.35 aspect ratio under s16mm?
I know there is anamorphic for s16 and well of course it could be cropped for that aspect ratio as well and jsut shoot 1.85 and then crop (or 1.77) now the later option I think should be fine if going to video but in case of theatrical release it would be a huge loss in quiality.
If any has experience in this area would be of great help.
Thanks
Miguel
  • 0

#2 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 16 October 2006 - 10:05 PM

Mathew Libatique used this technique for Never Die Alone, a visually stunning piece of work. They used a 2k "digital scope" if you would to make the blow up. I have always thought that it might be a cool thing to try out on a short. Good luck and please keep us posted along the way.

chris
  • 0

#3 Mike Rizos

Mike Rizos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 October 2006 - 10:40 PM

There is plenty of info on this in the archives. Mitch Gross and David Mullen have covered this a lot. If you use anamorphic lenses you will have to crop the sides(since the squeeze is 2X). With spherical you crop the top and bottom. Both methods result in about equal quality. In the final analysis, it's a lot easier to use spherical.
  • 0

#4 Aaron Farrugia

Aaron Farrugia
  • Guests

Posted 17 October 2006 - 12:16 AM

There is plenty of info on this in the archives. Mitch Gross and David Mullen have covered this a lot. If you use anamorphic lenses you will have to crop the sides(since the squeeze is 2X). With spherical you crop the top and bottom. Both methods result in about equal quality. In the final analysis, it's a lot easier to use spherical.


unless you letter box it
  • 0

#5 Miguel Bunster

Miguel Bunster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 17 October 2006 - 12:53 AM

sweet.
Thanks guys.
I will look into it=. Its for a movie which should be done in that aspect ratio.
Will keep posted still in the talks.
Best
Miguel
  • 0

#6 Delorme Jean-Marie

Delorme Jean-Marie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • paris, france

Posted 17 October 2006 - 02:17 AM

hi
a french lens exists, it's an anomorphic lens "invented" by thierry tronchet, it's a zoom lens and you have to compensate aperture with the change of focal lens ...
maybe not that hard to use?
i don't know if it's for 16 or s16?
  • 0

#7 Nathan Milford

Nathan Milford
  • Sustaining Members
  • 692 posts
  • Director
  • New York, NY

Posted 17 October 2006 - 08:10 AM

I've had a few clients come through wanting to shoot cropped 2.35 S16. We have the groundglasses for it and I've even custom modified an A-Minima for it... but I think it's wasteful and from what Mitch tells me (and from what I've read elsewhere) any optical solution is kludgy.

Shoot 2-Perf 35mm >8) Natural 2.35 aspect ratio with (faster, lighter) spherical lenses using half the negative real estate per image record keeps the costs (and mag running times) near S16. If you're finishing on a video format or with a D.I. already, the cost differential is negligable.
  • 0

#8 Miguel Bunster

Miguel Bunster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 17 October 2006 - 12:06 PM

Jmm 2 perf.
I thought about 3 perf but two is not really 2.35 right?
I will look into it.
thanks!
Miguel
  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 October 2006 - 09:48 PM

Jmm 2 perf.
I thought about 3 perf but two is not really 2.35 right?
I will look into it.
thanks!
Miguel


2-perf 35mm Full Aperture (the entire negative) is naturally 2.66 : 1 (being half the height of 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture, which is 1.33 : 1) but generally with 2-perf, you don't use the soundtrack area, cropping the sides to get closer to 2.35 : 1.
  • 0

#10 Nathan Milford

Nathan Milford
  • Sustaining Members
  • 692 posts
  • Director
  • New York, NY

Posted 17 October 2006 - 10:03 PM

2-perf 35mm Full Aperture (the entire negative) is naturally 2.66 : 1 (being half the height of 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture, which is 1.33 : 1) but generally with 2-perf, you don't use the soundtrack area, cropping the sides to get closer to 2.35 : 1.


It's usually cropped and off-centered as per Academy 4-perf, but the soundtrack area remains unused.

The 2-perf ARRI 2C's, Eclairs and Kinor's I've seen all use this method.. I imagine Aaton will follow suit so when you switch from 4-perf to 2-perf you will not need to re-center the lens mount and viewing optics.

Eric at ARRI mentioned that they were developing a 2-perf movement for the 235 at the last SMPTE NY meeting, but didn't give a timeframe.
  • 0

#11 Tim O'Connor

Tim O'Connor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 860 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, Massachusetts

Posted 28 May 2008 - 04:54 PM

2-perf 35mm Full Aperture (the entire negative) is naturally 2.66 : 1 (being half the height of 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture, which is 1.33 : 1) but generally with 2-perf, you don't use the soundtrack area, cropping the sides to get closer to 2.35 : 1.



I was just watching the special features section on the "American Graffiti" DVD and Ron Howard, who acted in it, talks about how the film being shot in Techniscope (a name for 2-perf that was usually utilized for budgetary purposes) gives the combination of the 2:35:1 ratio with some of the feel of 16mm. grain.

There are a lot of great comments and insight on the DVD from George Lucas, Haskell Wexler and many others.
  • 0

#12 Richard Andrew Janes

Richard Andrew Janes

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Director

Posted 17 June 2008 - 01:49 AM

I shot S16mm with 35mm Anamorphic lenses on my debut feature FAKERS which Balazs Bolygo lit for me (and did an amazing job!).

I thought it looked great. The only problem was the amount of light we had to use and the wide shots. We shot inside the National Gallery for one scene where we were really really limited on light. As a result the scene still jumps out of the movie for me...

We then telecined the film to D5 graded and output to 35mm. Was it worth it???? Probably not... Whilst it looks great, and many people believe it was shot on 35mm, it took so much time away from the shooting day (waiting for enough sunlight during an English winter) and added extra complications in post which, for the type of film and our budget I don't think it quite warranted it.

I'm about to start prep on a movie about Errol Flynn. 60% of the film is all set on a yacht and I'm considering 16mm for the camera size on this... However, if it goes that way I'm going to stick to 1.85! - Vistas and wides would still be 35mm

My 2 cents worth! :-)

Richard
FilmIndustryBloggers.com

Edited by Richard Andrew Janes, 17 June 2008 - 01:50 AM.

  • 0

#13 Bruce Taylor

Bruce Taylor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 June 2008 - 05:49 PM

The only problem was the amount of light we had to use and the wide shots.
Richard


Which is another reason why 2 perf is so great on a project like that, 'cuz you are using fast spherical lenses.

Depending on the size of the boat, 16mm does sound like a good idea on your next shoot.

Bruce
  • 0

#14 Serge Teulon

Serge Teulon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 17 June 2008 - 05:59 PM

s

Edited by Serge Teulon, 17 June 2008 - 06:01 PM.

  • 0

#15 Richard Andrew Janes

Richard Andrew Janes

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Director

Posted 20 June 2008 - 12:43 PM

Which is another reason why 2 perf is so great on a project like that, 'cuz you are using fast spherical lenses.

Depending on the size of the boat, 16mm does sound like a good idea on your next shoot.

Bruce


It's only 35ft... However I've just heard that we might be able to use an exterior water tank for the majority of the shoot. In which case 2 perf could be brilliant.

I just had a look at your website Bruce. It's great! Brilliant prices...
  • 0

#16 Andy_Alderslade

Andy_Alderslade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London, UK

Posted 23 June 2008 - 07:59 AM

I shot S16mm with 35mm Anamorphic lenses on my debut feature FAKERS which Balazs Bolygo lit for me (and did an amazing job!).

I thought it looked great. The only problem was the amount of light we had to use and the wide shots. We shot inside the National Gallery for one scene where we were really really limited on light. As a result the scene still jumps out of the movie for me...


I recall when this came out, I think I must have seen a trailer somewhere for it. How did you handle and limit the extra grain caused by such a small negative area?

Trailer looks good, nice to see Art Malik playing a different role.

Cheers,
Andy
  • 0

#17 Richard Andrew Janes

Richard Andrew Janes

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Director

Posted 23 June 2008 - 12:11 PM

I recall when this came out, I think I must have seen a trailer somewhere for it. How did you handle and limit the extra grain caused by such a small negative area?

Trailer looks good, nice to see Art Malik playing a different role.

Cheers,
Andy


Whilst I could try and answer fully, I'm going to ask Balazs to jump on the board and give you the details on that one :-)

www.FilmIndustryBloggers.com
  • 0

#18 Richard Andrew Janes

Richard Andrew Janes

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Director

Posted 08 July 2008 - 12:21 AM

we just lit to a healthy stop of 2.8 1/2 or T4 and used really slow film stocks( Balazs seems to remember) 7293, 7274, 7248 and the 7218 which had just come out at that time. We also aimed for mid 30 ish printer lights to get a really punchy neg to help in the DI.

Hope that helps...

And just wanted to give a shout out to Bruce who has just joined our film blog community!!! You can read his blog here: http://www.FilmIndus...merarentalhouse .

We are really missing blogs from the camera department so if anyone is interested in joining us let me know!

Cheers

Richard

www.FilmIndustryBloggers.com
[/quote]

Edited by Richard Andrew Janes, 08 July 2008 - 12:23 AM.

  • 0


CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Technodolly

Abel Cine

CineTape

CineLab

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets