Jump to content


Photo

3 perf 1:85


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 glen winter

glen winter
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 28 May 2007 - 04:55 AM

Has any one shot with 3 perf (DI) for a 1:85 composition? I have only read about 2:35 but I have been told this is possible.
  • 0

#2 Alexander Joyce

Alexander Joyce
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oslo, Norway

Posted 28 May 2007 - 07:25 AM

Has any one shot with 3 perf (DI) for a 1:85 composition? I have only read about 2:35 but I have been told this is possible.



You can extract 1.85:1 from the 3 perf super 35 1.78:1 image.

ARRI 3-perf tech sheet
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 28 May 2007 - 10:51 AM

Only trouble is that it more or less backs you into doing a D.I., whereas normal 1.85 allows you to make contact prints with a soundtrack for projection.

"gtw", it's time to go to My Controls and update your Display Name to be a real first and last name, as per the forum rules.
  • 0

#4 Tim Carroll

Tim Carroll
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2165 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 28 May 2007 - 11:18 AM

Is 3-Perf and Super 35 the same thing? I have always been confused by this.

Thanks,
-Tim
  • 0

#5 Nathan Milford

Nathan Milford
  • Sustaining Members
  • 692 posts
  • Director
  • New York, NY

Posted 28 May 2007 - 11:25 AM

Super 35 refers to using the whole width of the negative, perf to perf, not reserving space for the soundtrack as in Academy/Regular 35. It's akin to Super 16 in that you need to recenter the lens, ground glass and viewfinder. It's really just shooting full gate/silent aperture.

3-perf, while typically centered for Super 35, refers to a 3-perf pull down instead of a 4-perf pulldown.

When speaking in terms of 3-perf, you're automatically assuming the camera is optically centered for Super 35. But when shooting Super 35 you may be shooting 4-perf or 3-perf.
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 28 May 2007 - 11:45 AM

Yes, it's a bit confusing whether to call 3-perf Full Aperture "3-perf Super-35" or if the label "Super-35" only applies to 4-perf.
  • 0

#7 Phil Savoie

Phil Savoie
  • Sustaining Members
  • 94 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Montana / Wales

Posted 29 May 2007 - 04:31 AM

Yes, it's a bit confusing whether to call 3-perf Full Aperture "3-perf Super-35" or if the label "Super-35" only applies to 4-perf.



As its akin to Super 16 I've always used the term 3 Perf Super 35. I'm not saying this is correct - if anything, to me, it sounded a bit more marketable to producers hiring the package in - wink wink ;-)

Both the Aaton page http://www.aaton.com...lm/35/3perf.php and the Arri link http://www.arri.com/...perforation.htm label it Super 35.

Whatever the name it's a outstanding format for HDTV origination.
  • 0

#8 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 May 2007 - 02:49 PM

Actually it's quite correct to say "Three perf Super 35".

Here's how it all happened:

In the beginning, there were silent movies. The aperture was about 1" wide by 3/4" high. To accommodate the more robust Bell & Howell perforations (with the round sides), the width was reduced to 0.980".

To make room for sound, the Academy aperture was standardized at 0.866" wide by 0.630" high. The great advantage of shooting Academy is that you can contact print all the way to release.

In the 1970's, people started re-claiming some area on the camera original by going back to the old silent width, and doing an optical reduction on the whole movie. They called that "Super 35". Expensive, but you do get finer grain.

A lot of film was shot for television, usually Academy aperture. About 1986-7, it was noticed that you could save 25% on stock and processing if you were to pull down only 3 perfs instead of 4 on material intended for dailies telecine. Initially, three perf was done with Academy centering because of the phosphor burn-in problem on flying spot telecines. When that was solved, three perf changed to full super/silent width.

Pulling down three holes instead of four means that you can only go about 3/4 as high as the original silent aperture, which was 3/4" high. Doing the math, 3/4 of 3/4" multiplies out to 9/16" high. And 1" wide by 9/16" high turns out to be -- ta da -- 16:9.

The native aspect ratio of Super 35 three perf is 1.78:1. Extracting 1.85 from it, you're limited by the width, just as you are with four perf Super 35. Bottom line, for 1.85, three perf Super 35 is just as good as four perf Super 35. Plus you get 15 minutes rather than 11 from a mag.



-- J.S.
  • 0

#9 rohtash chandel

rohtash chandel
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • mumbai (india)

Posted 12 June 2007 - 01:33 AM

Yes, it's a bit confusing whether to call 3-perf Full Aperture "3-perf Super-35" or if the label "Super-35" only applies to 4-perf.

first of all i would like to say hi to you as i am interacting with you for first time, i hope you wont mind me asking a foolish question
what are the consideration one keeps in mind while opting for super 35(4perf), super35(3 perf) and 35 anamorphic;apart from aspect ratio what are the other factors
:blink:
  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 12 June 2007 - 08:51 AM

first of all i would like to say hi to you as i am interacting with you for first time, i hope you wont mind me asking a foolish question
what are the consideration one keeps in mind while opting for super 35(4perf), super35(3 perf) and 35 anamorphic;apart from aspect ratio what are the other factors
:blink:


Anamorphic uses the most negative area to create a 2.35 image, plus it can be contact-printed for all steps towards a release print, since it already makes room for a soundtrack.

If you don't need the full 1.33 : 1 area of 4-perf Super-35, the only other advantages are that there are more 4-perf cameras for rent out there, and more 4-perf projectors to watch a workprint or test, plus you're less likely to see a hair in the gate in 4-perf since you crop so much to get 16x9 or 1.85 or 2.35, whereas the 3-perf gate is pretty much the same size as 16x9. But image-quality-wise, 4-perf and 3-perf are identical for any aspect ratio starting at 1.78 (16x9) and wider.
  • 0

#11 Glenn Hanns

Glenn Hanns
  • Sustaining Members
  • 160 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 June 2007 - 01:40 AM

Anamorphic uses the most negative area to create a 2.35 image, plus it can be contact-printed for all steps towards a release print, since it already makes room for a soundtrack.

If you don't need the full 1.33 : 1 area of 4-perf Super-35, the only other advantages are that there are more 4-perf cameras for rent out there, and more 4-perf projectors to watch a workprint or test, plus you're less likely to see a hair in the gate in 4-perf since you crop so much to get 16x9 or 1.85 or 2.35, whereas the 3-perf gate is pretty much the same size as 16x9. But image-quality-wise, 4-perf and 3-perf are identical for any aspect ratio starting at 1.78 (16x9) and wider.


Also, on a recent 3 perf super 35 shoot I did we had to allow for the Arricam to be switched to 3 perf. This process takes a few hours and should be checked before you start shooting. As far as quality goes I think 3 perf Super 35mm allows for an image as good or even better than anamorphic capture because the quality of the new spherical lenses are far superior than the anamorphic equivalents and you save 25% of your camera film stock.
  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 13 June 2007 - 02:26 AM

Also, on a recent 3 perf super 35 shoot I did we had to allow for the Arricam to be switched to 3 perf. This process takes a few hours and should be checked before you start shooting. As far as quality goes I think 3 perf Super 35mm allows for an image as good or even better than anamorphic capture because the quality of the new spherical lenses are far superior than the anamorphic equivalents and you save 25% of your camera film stock.


I hear that argument all the time but in the theaters, the anamorphic-shot movies tend to hold up better on the big screen.

I remember talking the John Galt at Panavision recently about MTF tests of HD versus 35mm and just for the hell of it, they also tested a 65mm camera and found that even though the MTF of the lens on the 65mm camera was not even close to the quality of the 35mm and HD lens being tested, the 65mm image still had much better detail and sharpness.

So negative size can compensate for lenses with less resolution, and the anamorphic format uses nearly twice as much negative as Super-35 cropped to 2.40. I think this accounts for the reason that despite the fact that spherical lenses are sharper, anamorphic images often look more detailed and less grainy.

However, spherical images are less distorted, sharper edge-to-edge, have better depth of field, etc. so it all depends on how you define what constitutes a "better" image. I look at Robert Richardson't recent 3-perf work ("Aviator" and "The Good Shepherd") and compare it to his anamorphic work ("JFK", "Snow Falling on Cedars", "Nixon"), ignoring the differences in diffusion being used, and I can't help but feel that his anamorphic photography was richer in many ways, despite all the optical artifacts of shooting anamorphic at wide f-stops. Same goes for Don McAlpine's anamorphic work ("Moulin Rouge") vs. his recent Super-35 work ("Chronicles of Narnia"). That's not to say that I think the average viewer can see the difference.
  • 0

#13 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 13 June 2007 - 06:21 AM

Imagine 65mm with the newer lenses......
  • 0

#14 Jon Kukla

Jon Kukla
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 399 posts
  • Other

Posted 13 June 2007 - 08:14 PM

Just to answer the original question somewhat, as far as using Super 35 for a 1.85 image (aka "Super 1.85"), I know that it was done infrequently in the early 90's by people like Daviau, and Emmanuel Lubezki has used it at least a few times in this decade. I have no idea if Lubezki's were DI, though. Certainly conceivable either way. As mentioned below, 3-perf vs. 4-perf would not make a difference image-wise, although it does impact production issues like shooting time per roll, impinging hairs, and some editorial and neg-cutting things down the road (mainly just logging standards).

The great thing about 3-perf and Super 35 is that if you know you're going to be doing a DI for sure, then there's very little reason not to use both of them if possible.

Edited by Jon Kukla, 13 June 2007 - 08:17 PM.

  • 0

#15 janusz sikora

janusz sikora
  • Sustaining Members
  • 82 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 June 2007 - 02:10 AM

I shot 3 Perf Panavision few weeks ago. 16x9 ratio.
PDVD_157c.jpg
  • 0

#16 Lumenshine

Lumenshine

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 03 July 2007 - 04:46 PM

I shot 3 Perf Panavision few weeks ago. 16x9 ratio.
PDVD_157c.jpg


I shot a film last year and persuaded production to go Super 35, 3 perf, 1 :185.

It is an enormous cost saving ( 33%, NOT 25% ) and great for the DP as no one can try and compromise your frame later for TV. Director's happy too as it takes some stock pressure away.


Sadly, many producers still don't understand it, and reject it as it seems unusual. They'll figure it out soon I'm sure.
  • 0

#17 e gustavo petersen

e gustavo petersen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 128 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • LA | CA | USA

Posted 03 July 2007 - 06:29 PM

Sadly, many producers still don't understand it, and reject it as it seems unusual. They'll figure it out soon I'm sure.


I tend to find that producers reject the format not for being unusual but because of problems with the distribution deals. At times, the distribution deals requires four perf in the event that funds are mishandled and a traditional photochemical finish is required.

Ironically, the 25% savings in stock is often eaten up by shooting more takes.

Still, I prefer 3-perf and can't wait for more 2-perf cameras to become available.
  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Technodolly

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products