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
  • 19759 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


The Slider

Metropolis Post

Opal

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly