Jump to content


Photo

questions about 2.41 ratio, costs and lenses


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Jim Feldspar

Jim Feldspar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Student

Posted 31 March 2007 - 05:33 AM

I have some questions based on statements in this article on the Kodak web site about :


"Just Like the Son
A road movie with a sense of grandeur
Morgan J. Freeman His latest venture is an independent feature called Just Like the Son."

http://www.kodak.com...y....3.12&lc=en


"The filmmakers considered whether to shoot in the Super 16 film format or in high-definition digital video. They opted for Super 16 film in part due to cost savings in post-production."

If both film or HD would go into an NLE, wouldn't HD be cheaper? No developing, telecine, cheaper
stock...?

"Orbach envisioned a road movie with a sense of grandeur that communicated the wide-open spaces through which the characters travel. He suggested framing the images in a widescreen 2.4:1 aspect ratio."

Is 2.41 an unusual aspect ratio? I thought that the standard around there was 2.35:1?

"Freeman and producer Jamin O'Brien requested to see some tests before approving the proposed aspect ratio. "The script called for a simple, organic visual language based on natural, available light," the cinematographer says. "We wanted to focus attention on the characters and not the cinematography. I knew that we'd be on the road, capturing all these environments, and HD would not work for such a filmic story with so many day exteriors.' "

Is HD not so great in day exteriors? Is that because of dynamic range, less latitude?

" 'The question became how to give the film widescreen scope while shooting in the Super 16 format," he says. "I shot tests with a couple of stocks, and did DIs of about a minute's worth of film at PostWorks in New York. They did a bit of color correction and made an anamorphic print on 35mm film. When we saw the print, we knew there wouldn?t be a problem making the film that way. There was virtually no loss in the quality.' "

Is that hardly any loss compared to Super 16 but it still looks more like (really good) 16 as opposed to
35 mm ? Otherwise, why wouldn't LOTS more people be doing this?



"Orbach ordered a ground glass with the widescreen aspect ratio. He exposed the full frame, however, which allowed reframing later if necessary or desired."

Is ordering a specifically marked ground glass a choice of rental items or a special made to order
item that must be purchased? Is it a lot more expensive?

"After testing a range of films, he chose KODAK VISION2 500T 7218 film, "because of its grain structure and consistency. I used that stock for the entire film ? day, night, interiors and exteriors. That was partially for simplicity and also because the slightly grainy look gave the film an extra little bit of character.' "

Wouldn't the film be "slighty grainy" anyway from the blow-up to the anamorphic 35 mm print?

"He covered the action with an ARRI SR3 camera mounted with T2 Zeiss 35 mm lenses. "It was important to use the pristine glass," he says. "The speed and resolution helped us.' "

I've heard people say that a lens is a lens but if say a 30 mm focal length lens is wide when shooting 35
mm and relatively more tele when shooting 16 mm, then how does it work shooting 16 mm or Super 16
mm with lenses for 35 mm cameras?

Thanks.

Edited by Jim Feldspar, 31 March 2007 - 05:35 AM.

  • 0

#2 Chris Burke

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

Posted 31 March 2007 - 06:04 AM

[quote name='Jim Feldspar' date='Mar 31 2007, 02:33 AM' post='163933']
I have some questions based on statements in this article on the Kodak web site about :


"Just Like the Son
A road movie with a sense of grandeur
Morgan J. Freeman His latest venture is an independent feature called Just Like the Son."

http://www.kodak.com...y....3.12&lc=en
"The filmmakers considered whether to shoot in the Super 16 film format or in high-definition digital video. They opted for Super 16 film in part due to cost savings in post-production."

If both film or HD would go into an NLE, wouldn't HD be cheaper? No developing, telecine, cheaper
stock...?

Super 16 can often be cheaper to shoot than HD. Given all things are equal; a professional production with pro crew. Many people make the mistake with digital, thinking that because they are shooting digital that they some how don't have to have all the same crew and production value and it shows. So, given that all things are equal; comparable camera packages and end format; print or video, Super 16 can often be cheaper. I produced a short and looked into several formats. Super 16 won out for many reasons, not the least of them cost. The lab I ended up using after an exhausting search gave me such a deal that I couldn't afford not to shoot S16. As to the look that the filmmakers wanted for the affore mentioned format of 2.41:1, I suppose that was a matter of preference. Super 16 gave them what they wanted, so they went with it. Check out the horrible little film called Never Die Alone, shot on Super 16 with a scope finish. While it looks great and look fits the story quite well, it does have a bit of grain. Some people like myself love grain, others have a strong aversion to it, so they opt for 35 for scope most of the time. With 2 perf cameras now becoming available, you will see budget minded producers using this format more and more.


chris
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19760 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 31 March 2007 - 09:43 AM

>If both film or HD would go into an NLE, wouldn't HD be cheaper? No developing, telecine, cheaper stock...?

Yes, it should. It only would have been cheaper for them to shoot Super-16 if they had done the blow-up to 35mm using an optical printer rather than a D.I. And a standard-def offline edit. But remember that Super-16 cameras are cheaper to rent than pro HD cameras. But once you factor in an HD or 2K post and a laser recording back to 35mm, etc. then HD usually ends up being cheaper than Super-16.

>Is 2.41 an unusual aspect ratio? I thought that the standard around there was 2.35:1?

The current scope projector aperture is .825" x .690", which is 1.12956521 : 1. Time two for the unstretching and the final image is 2.3913 : 1. However, curtains may trim this down. It hasn't been 2.35 since around 1972, after which the size of the projector mask was reduced in height to hide frameline splices better. The shorter height made it a more widescreen image, to 2.39. Some people round this up to 2.40 others use the old 2.35 terminology. 2.41 is a mistake.

>Is HD not so great in day exteriors? Is that because of dynamic range, less latitude?

Yes.

>Is that hardly any loss compared to Super 16 but it still looks more like (really good) 16 as opposed to
35 mm ? Otherwise, why wouldn't LOTS more people be doing this?

The loss probably didn't look much different than Super-16 blown-up to 1.85. That's more of a personal taste thing. The scope format uses a bigger print area than 1.85 projection but you are using less negative area to crop to 2.40.

>Is ordering a specifically marked ground glass a choice of rental items or a special made to order
item that must be purchased? Is it a lot more expensive?

If the rental house has the groundglass, then it shouldn't cost any more to get it installed. Don't know if they have to make one first but most would not charge for that.

>Wouldn't the film (7218) be "slighty grainy" anyway from the blow-up to the anamorphic 35 mm print?

Yes.

>I've heard people say that a lens is a lens but if say a 30 mm focal length lens is wide when shooting 35
mm and relatively more tele when shooting 16 mm, then how does it work shooting 16 mm or Super 16
mm with lenses for 35 mm cameras?

A 30mm lens is a 30mm lens no matter what camera it is on. It will look more wide-angle on a 35mm camera than on a Super-16 camera. The only problem with using a lens made for a smaller Super-16 camera on a larger 35mm camera is that the image would probably not fill the 35mm negative and thus vignette. But a lens made for a 35mm camera would not vignette on a smaller Super-16 negative.
  • 0

#4 Jim Feldspar

Jim Feldspar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Student

Posted 31 March 2007 - 03:10 PM

>If both film or HD would go into an NLE, wouldn't HD be cheaper? No developing, telecine, cheaper stock...?

Yes, it should. It only would have been cheaper for them to shoot Super-16 if they had done the blow-up to 35mm using an optical printer rather than a D.I. And a standard-def offline edit. But remember that Super-16 cameras are cheaper to rent than pro HD cameras. But once you factor in an HD or 2K post and a laser recording back to 35mm, etc. then HD usually ends up being cheaper than Super-16.

>Is 2.41 an unusual aspect ratio? I thought that the standard around there was 2.35:1?

The current scope projector aperture is .825" x .690", which is 1.12956521 : 1. Time two for the unstretching and the final image is 2.3913 : 1. However, curtains may trim this down. It hasn't been 2.35 since around 1972, after which the size of the projector mask was reduced in height to hide frameline splices better. The shorter height made it a more widescreen image, to 2.39. Some people round this up to 2.40 others use the old 2.35 terminology. 2.41 is a mistake.

>Is HD not so great in day exteriors? Is that because of dynamic range, less latitude?

Yes.

>Is that hardly any loss compared to Super 16 but it still looks more like (really good) 16 as opposed to
35 mm ? Otherwise, why wouldn't LOTS more people be doing this?

The loss probably didn't look much different than Super-16 blown-up to 1.85. That's more of a personal taste thing. The scope format uses a bigger print area than 1.85 projection but you are using less negative area to crop to 2.40.

>Is ordering a specifically marked ground glass a choice of rental items or a special made to order
item that must be purchased? Is it a lot more expensive?

If the rental house has the groundglass, then it shouldn't cost any more to get it installed. Don't know if they have to make one first but most would not charge for that.

>Wouldn't the film (7218) be "slighty grainy" anyway from the blow-up to the anamorphic 35 mm print?

Yes.

>I've heard people say that a lens is a lens but if say a 30 mm focal length lens is wide when shooting 35
mm and relatively more tele when shooting 16 mm, then how does it work shooting 16 mm or Super 16
mm with lenses for 35 mm cameras?

A 30mm lens is a 30mm lens no matter what camera it is on. It will look more wide-angle on a 35mm camera than on a Super-16 camera. The only problem with using a lens made for a smaller Super-16 camera on a larger 35mm camera is that the image would probably not fill the 35mm negative and thus vignette. But a lens made for a 35mm camera would not vignette on a smaller Super-16 negative.




Thanks so much. You are the professor emeritus of this forum. When I saw the numbers...!
Also, the way you explained the lens is a lens really clarified the question for me. Everything
else too!

Chris, thanks, I couldn't reply directly to your post. I found a movie by that title on
Amazon with DMX in it so that should be fun to check out.

I really learned a lot from both your responses. I hope to apply this knowlege. Meantime I may be
shooting
a small project with a 16 BL but I'll be glad to do so and like so many have said, quit worrying,
and make the best of the best gear you can get. I agree.

I think that the film costs are scarier the smaller the production. If it's possible to have a full
crew and a big grip truck(s) then the film costs probably become a smaller piece of the pie. Also,
it sounds like you researched, Chris, and that paid off with a great deal.

I just got in from a shoot with an HVX-200, two actors and me doing lighting outside (Omnis with CTB)
audio (shotgun on a mike stand) and everything else. I joked that it would be nice to have a crew
but I have to say, although I was up at 4:00 a.m., am slightly frozen and tired; it was a blast.

There was indeed one shot where it would have been nice to have the latitude of color negative
(a car interior close-up of a face with a hot background) but the HVX-200 720P 24P DVCPRO HD
is so cool that I definitely love that I got to shoot with that.
  • 0


Technodolly

The Slider

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Opal

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

The Slider

Technodolly

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera