Jump to content


Photo

Doubts of shooting S16


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 siddharth diwan

siddharth diwan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 11 February 2007 - 03:44 AM

If i'm shooting S16 and then goin Di to make it anamorphic 1:2.35 print on 35mm then what is reccommened... can i use a mask of 1:1.85 and a ground glass of 1:2.35 or something else.

Thanks
  • 0

#2 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 February 2007 - 04:22 AM

If i'm shooting S16 and then goin Di to make it anamorphic 1:2.35 print on 35mm then what is reccommened... can i use a mask of 1:1.85 and a ground glass of 1:2.35 or something else.

Thanks


My recommendation would be to shoot 35mm. Equipment for high quality production will cost the same, the only thing you'll save on is film stock. Which is not that expensive compared to other operations you'll be doing in post. This way you can DI/scan only some of the footage like titles, sfx etc...

For 1.85 non anamorphic in 35mm or Super-16mm you should be set. (Though after DI/Blow-ups) you'll pay $$$$$.

If using 2.40 (2.35) you should use 35mm and anamorphic lenses for your origination.

The neg area in Super 16mm after a 2.40 crop will be so small there will be barely any information left in the frame.

Edited by Dennis Kisilyov, 11 February 2007 - 04:25 AM.

  • 0

#3 siddharth diwan

siddharth diwan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 February 2007 - 07:28 AM

My recommendation would be to shoot 35mm. Equipment for high quality production will cost the same, the only thing you'll save on is film stock. Which is not that expensive compared to other operations you'll be doing in post. This way you can DI/scan only some of the footage like titles, sfx etc...

For 1.85 non anamorphic in 35mm or Super-16mm you should be set. (Though after DI/Blow-ups) you'll pay $$$$$.

If using 2.40 (2.35) you should use 35mm and anamorphic lenses for your origination.

The neg area in Super 16mm after a 2.40 crop will be so small there will be barely any information left in the frame.



The reason why we are going S16 is because the director and producer want go super 35 and DI instead of R35 to have no limitations but then we go really high on budget so the next best option is S16.....so what is the aspect ratio reccommended and what shuold it be framed for coz eventually it will go on anamorphic 1:2.35
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 12 February 2007 - 10:26 AM

There have been a few Super-16 movies cropped to 2.35 and blown-up to 35mm anamorphic -- Winterbottom's "Wonderland", "Never Die Alone", and parts of "Irreversible."

The main problem with such an approach is that the results are somewhat grainy, a little soft too. It helps when you use a dramatic high-contrast lighting style to compensate.

If Super-35 is too expensive, anamorphic 35mm is too expensive, etc. then I guess you don't have much choice unless you can afford (and find in India) some 3-perf 35mm equipment. Or 2-perf, which is even rarer.

Check out this thread. Maybe you should contact Chayse Irwin:
http://www.cinematog...n...c=20133&hl=
  • 0


Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Glidecam

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

CineTape

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Technodolly

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS