Jump to content


Photo

Where to buy a scope/anamorphic gate for a 2B/C ?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Henri Titchen

Henri Titchen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 March 2007 - 03:53 PM

Hi,

I am looking for a scope/anamorphic gate for a 2B/C.

Can anyone recommend a dealer or individual who may have one for sale?

My e-mail address is: Cinefan@gmail.com

Thanks from,
Henry.
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 March 2007 - 09:15 PM

You probably just need to file out the Academy gate vertically a little, or put in a Full Aperture gate even though the lens is centered for Academy and the image won't fill Full Aperture.
  • 0

#3 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 02 April 2007 - 09:50 PM

You probably just need to file out the Academy gate vertically a little, or put in a Full Aperture gate even though the lens is centered for Academy and the image won't fill Full Aperture.

But with the latter method, you wouldn't be able to make a contact print with optical sound because you'd be exposing the soundtrack area on the negative, right?
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 April 2007 - 12:04 AM

But with the latter method, you wouldn't be able to make a contact print with optical sound because you'd be exposing the soundtrack area on the negative, right?


Doesn't matter. In fact, most modern cameras shooting for standard 1.85/anamorphic expose Full Aperture (Super-35), they just don't recenter the lens for Super-35. Rent a Panaflex set-up for standard 1.85 and you'll see that.

Don't know if the contact printers are just masked to not expose the soundtrack area (in the old days of workprint, I'd notice that I was seeing picture info exposed in the soundtrack area) or that the application of the silver solution for the optical track basically just covers over that area, or that area is somehow "erased" of picture info chemically before the soundtrack application... maybe Dominic Case will answer that one. But the negatives are often exposed full aperture.

Because I used to be paranoid that some telecine operator was going to think I shot Super-35, I used to use an Academy hard matte in the gate of the Panaflex for standard 1.85. But shooting a framing chart is usually enough.
  • 0

#5 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 03 April 2007 - 01:34 PM

Don't know if the contact printers are just masked to not expose the soundtrack area (in the old days of workprint, I'd notice that I was seeing picture info exposed in the soundtrack area) or that the application of the silver solution for the optical track basically just covers over that area, or that area is somehow "erased" of picture info chemically before the soundtrack application... maybe Dominic Case will answer that one. But the negatives are often exposed full aperture.

The printer takes different aperture masks. Full. track only & picture minus track.

On an academy aperture negative the track area is clear, so it'll be black on the print which would print over a track. Thus the track area has to be masked off.

Sometimes I/Ps are printed with a 'Blue track'. The track area is masked off on the picture pass, and blue is printed in track area. If left clear, the track will flare into the picture on an I/P or dupe neg.

Once I set up a neg of a silent film for printing and wrote 'silent aperture ' on the printing ticket. Unfortuneately that was not the same as 'full aperture' but picture minus track area.
I still think that was confusing nomenclature.
  • 0

#6 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 04 April 2007 - 03:44 AM

Doesn't matter. In fact, most modern cameras shooting for standard 1.85/anamorphic expose Full Aperture (Super-35), they just don't recenter the lens for Super-35. Rent a Panaflex set-up for standard 1.85 and you'll see that.

Ah, so that was beneficial when you shot "Akeela and the Bee," and you had some shots that were taken on a camera with the mount centered for Super35 and not scope -- you still had the full scope frame on the neg, but it was shifted over into the soundtrack area. But if the camera didn't have a Super35 gate, then you would have lost part of your frame and you would have had to crop the top and bottom to get back to a 2.40 aspect ratio, right? So the Super35 gate was actually good thing to have.

(I guess it doesn't make sense for a 35/S35 switchable camera to not have a Super35 gate, but I thought it was interesting anyway)

Hi Leo,
Does the aperture mask also mask the keycode along the perfs for IPs and dupe negs? I guess it would have to do so at some point to make room for the digital soundtracks.
  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 April 2007 - 10:41 AM

The problem I had on the first week of "Akeelah and the Bee" was that the eyepiece groundglass in the A-camera was the wrong type, since I was using a Panaflex Millenium, which apparently is different from all the other Panaflexes. The technician forgot this, so I had a regular Panaflex groundglass for anamorphic, and the framing was off-centered by half the width of the optical track.

Unfortunately it wasn't offset in the direction of the soundtrack area on the full aperture negative that we were exposing -- it was offset the other direction, so I was slightly cropped on the right side of the frame -- I couldn't use the extra picture in the soundtrack area on the left to recenter the image. So we took the worst shots and digitally zoomed in slightly and recentered them in post (the movie as a whole did not go through a D.I.).

It was a comedy of errors because normally the AC would have caught the groundglass problem after shooting a framing chart and projecting it at the lab -- but that day at the lab, the AC told me that they couldn't find an anamorphic aperture for the projector for some reason and ran it full aperture. Now even there, he should have noticed that the right edge of the chart was being trimmed, but he assumed the projection was screwed up because they were behaving incompetently in general.

Then when we got our video dailies, we assumed that the telecine operator was screwing up, etc. The problem was SO subtle that it was hard to spot most of the time. It wasn't until a mattebox flap on the left edge of frame that I knew we framed out appeared in dailies that I realized there was some sort of groundglass problem, plus B-camera's shots didn't seem to have any framing problems so it couldn't have been the telecine (we didn't shoot much B-camera in the first few days or else it might have been more obvious earlier.)

Now when I shoot with the Millenium, I'm always reminding the AC to double-check that they put the "M" groundglass in the Panaflex.
  • 0

#8 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 April 2007 - 10:46 AM

So we took the worst shots and digitally zoomed in slightly and recentered them in post (the movie as a whole did not go through a D.I.).

I'd be curious to know who paid for this...
  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 April 2007 - 10:49 AM

Production did. The thing is, we could have left the framing mistakes alone -- it just looked like an odd framing decision, not a mistake, like we were playing things closer to the edge -- but it drove the director nuts. I got him to reduce the number of recentered shots to a minimum because I didn't want a lot of digital 2K copies spliced into the original negative -- you could see the resolution hit side-by-side (being slight enlargements only made that worse.) Luckily they were mostly close-ups where some slight softening wasn't noticable (actually might have helped since some of them were of a middle-aged actress.)

It was hard to beat-up on Panavision when they just gave me a killer deal on a 2-camera anamorphic package with an expensive Millenium...
  • 0

#10 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 04 April 2007 - 02:28 PM

Does the aperture mask also mask the keycode along the perfs for IPs and dupe negs? I guess it would have to do so at some point to make room for the digital soundtracks.


I didn't work in printing. The aperture mask doesn't cover the edge numbers. There is a seperate aperture for them. I don't know where that is in the printer.
The light for the picture is constantly changing for the timing. But track and edge numbers need to be printed at a single light, thus have seperate apertures, which can be closed off as needed.
  • 0


Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

CineTape

Glidecam

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

CineTape

Glidecam

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc