Jump to content


Photo

S35 2.35 centric or common top


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Hamid Khozouie

Hamid Khozouie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • TEHRAN , IRAN

Posted 08 January 2007 - 02:37 PM

which one you want to work?.

2.35 centric or common top ,

in s35 with DI & some VFX ,selecting S35 1,85 is useful for aperture format mask?

What is your experience?....you select DIN or ANSI ?
  • 0

#2 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 January 2007 - 03:11 PM

can you elaborate please hamid?

keiht
  • 0

#3 Hamid Khozouie

Hamid Khozouie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • TEHRAN , IRAN

Posted 08 January 2007 - 03:57 PM

can you elaborate please hamid?

keiht

common top & centric are two forms of ground glasses & gates in SUPER 35 cinematography.
one (2/35 : 1) is in the top of the frame another is in the mdidle of it.
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 08 January 2007 - 06:32 PM

Just depends. If you are shooting 4-perf Super-35, you're going to have so much excess vertical information that you have some flexibility in post in reframing for the 4x3 pan & scan and 16x9 full-frame video masters, so I don't think it matters too much whether you center crop or use common top. The advantage to center crop is when you zoom, your image won't drift vertically, causing you to tilt the camera to compensate. Lens flares are also optically centered.

However, if you are using 3-perf Super-35, I'm a believer in common top (or really, "near" common top with 2.40 slightly shifted below the top of the negative.) This allows your 16x9 full-frame home video version to use most of the 16x9 negative area without having to zoom in to reset the headroom, unlike center crop.

But all of this has to do with making the non-letterboxed video masters; if your main concern is just the blow-up to scope and the letterboxed version, probably center crop makes more sense.
  • 0

#5 Eric Steelberg ASC

Eric Steelberg ASC
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 538 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 08 January 2007 - 07:24 PM

Keep in mind though that if you use common top in 3 perf you have a higher likelihood to be a victim of gate flare...light boucing off the inside of the gate and hitting the film, resulting in small vertical flares entering the top of frame. It happened to me more than a few times on my last feature and you don't know it's happening until you see dailies.
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 08 January 2007 - 07:30 PM

Keep in mind though that if you use common top in 3 perf you have a higher likelihood to be a victim of gate flare...light boucing off the inside of the gate and hitting the film, resulting in small vertical flares entering the top of frame. It happened to me more than a few times on my last feature and you don't know it's happening until you see dailies.


That (and hairs) is the reason why I like the slightly-lowered from top 2.40 frame in 3-perf, what Panavision is calling their "Fincher groundglass" (I guess he used it on "Panic Room".)

All of my 16x9 HD movies that were framed for cropping to scope (four of them) using center cropping (since that's what the F900 gives you in the Marker Menu) sort of what has led me to this notion that it would make the pan & scan versions easier if the 2.40 frame was lifted higher than the center-crop position -- then the 16x9 unletterboxed version could be just the full-frame of HD (assuming you kept it clear). Instead, I had to zoom in slightly on many of the 16x9 full-frame HD versions to reduce the excess headroom. It would be nice if the Sony cameras allowed you to raise the position of the "Vista 2" framelines as desired.

Of course, gate flare is not an issue with HD.

Another advantage to common top is that the sound man won't be complaining as much about having to keep the mic out of the top of TV Safe. That's what is great about anamorphic for boom ops, having no headroom difference between the theatrical and TV versions.

Anamorphic uses almost the whole Full Aperture vertically so why isn't gate flare a problem there? Is it that you're too distracted by all the lens flares to notice the gate flare? :huh:
  • 0

#7 Eric Steelberg ASC

Eric Steelberg ASC
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 538 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 08 January 2007 - 07:56 PM

Regarding gate flare with anamorphic, I wondered that too but I suspect it may have to do with the optics of the anamorphic lens, though it doesn't make sense why that would be.

I like that there is a little bit of voodoo and magic to shooting.

(voodoo and magic = things I don't understand, can also refer to happy accidents)
  • 0


Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio