Jump to content


Photo

Duuumb idea...


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Matt Kelly

Matt Kelly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 15 December 2007 - 02:24 AM

Ok, so out of curiousity, who else has thought about this?  With all the video crap making everyone so concious about film economy, 2-perf is getting a buzz (depressing...).  But what about shooting 2 perf anamorphic (vertically) to resolve a larger format?  Hell you could even shoot 1-perf and resolve a 2.40 out of it (really curious as to how much crap that would look like).  Probably a stupid idea, but could save you another 25% of the film to shoot 1.85 or 50% to shoot 1.33.  

oh oops...the reason I posted in lenses was because I was thinking about a 1.5:1 squeeze anamorphic. Is that what the 16mm panavision anamorphics are? 1.5 would be perfect to make 2-perf into 16:9. :P

Edited by Matt Kelly, 15 December 2007 - 02:27 AM.

  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 December 2007 - 03:15 AM

The resolution limit is the 2-perf negative area, so the only advantage of using a vertical squeeze would be for filling 1.85 onto 2-perf, but that wouldn't be an increase in resolution... except compared to cropping 2-perf to 1.85 horizontally. But that's a rather elaborate way to get a 1.85 image when you can just shoot 3-perf.

Most people who are considering using 2-perf are thinking in terms of composing for 2.40.
  • 0

#3 Matt Kelly

Matt Kelly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 15 December 2007 - 03:35 AM

Oh i wasn't thinking of comparable resolution... just that it would save a little money on film to get the same aspect ratio. I thought the main idea behind 2 perf was to get 2.40 by using half the film and spherical lenses. (those cheap bastards!) I know anamorphic isn't dying, but I hear more and more people mentioning it as pointless when you can just crop the negative to 2.40 in the gate via 2-perf. The thought stems from my own lack of money also.....so it's really all about the idea of using less 35mm film stock to get an image. But obviously in the world of ACTUAL budgets, it's just kind of a dumb idea... hence the thread title.. :P lol

Edited by Matt Kelly, 15 December 2007 - 03:36 AM.

  • 0

#4 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 15 December 2007 - 02:54 PM

We've done this topic before, as I recall. One of the guys here actually saw an Arri test of the concept, if memory serves. Try a search. I'll do the same and see what I get.

The fella reported that the test revealed surprisingly good results with a 1-perf anamorphic. Apparently, even with the reduced resolution, the eye accepts the 1-perf desqueezed up to 2.39:1 as being fairly sharp. Nearly or as sharp as a 2-perf spherical image. This is just hearsay but it might be an interesting direction. I could live with a little image loss if I knew a short end could last 9 minutes in the camera. However, it kind of defeats one of the reasons for going 1-perf. That is, 2-perf gives you scope framing without the hassles of scope lenses. 1-perf would save alot on film and lab but then you'd have to go back to all the costs and troubles of shooting scope. Namely, more light on dim interiors and night exteriors. For a no-budg producer, the increased costs on location reduce the value of the savings in film that 1-perf offers.

That's all just mental strolling. Don't take it as gospel.
  • 0

#5 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 15 December 2007 - 03:16 PM

A 2-perf frame is about 9x21mm. Since I don't have a calculator with me, I'll keep the numbers simple.

Thus a 1-perf frame would be 4.5x21mm.

If we multiply the Squeezed dimension by the square root of the squeeze &
divide the unsqueezed dimension by that square root we get an unsqueezed rectangle with the same area as the squeezed frame.

Sq.root of 2= 1.4 thus 4.5x1.4=6.3
21/1.4=14.7
thus an unsqueezed frame of 6.3x14.7mm would have similar graininess to a
vertically squeezed frame of 4.5x21mm.

6.3mm is about the height of a 1.85:1 S16 frame.
  • 0

#6 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 December 2007 - 07:56 PM

I wrote about a test where spherical 4 perf was compared to vertical 2 perf (not 1 perf, there exists no such movement) and the 2 perf held up remarkably well. Looked even better than 4 perf, as weird as that sounds.
  • 0

#7 Matt Kelly

Matt Kelly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 16 December 2007 - 05:43 AM

A 2-perf frame is about 9x21mm. Since I don't have a calculator with me, I'll keep the numbers simple.

Thus a 1-perf frame would be 4.5x21mm.

If we multiply the Squeezed dimension by the square root of the squeeze &
divide the unsqueezed dimension by that square root we get an unsqueezed rectangle with the same area as the squeezed frame.

Sq.root of 2= 1.4 thus 4.5x1.4=6.3
21/1.4=14.7
thus an unsqueezed frame of 6.3x14.7mm would have similar graininess to a
vertically squeezed frame of 4.5x21mm.

6.3mm is about the height of a 1.85:1 S16 frame.



whaa? I'm confused about the need for square roots in this equation. The main differences in that and S16 would be apparent horizontal DOF (like standard 35, right?) and whatever bokeh you might see. It's by no means a good solution, just a random thought. a 1-perf movement (while non-existant) would not be too hard to make anyhow.

and as for a veritical anamorphic 2 perf comparing to regular 4 perf? how in the world would it look "better"? i could understand a slight aesthitic appeal to the "look" of an optical squeeze, but other than that, i can't imagine a superior image quality in the slightest.
  • 0

#8 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 December 2007 - 06:17 AM

You are not the only one surprised by that result. Apparently there was more detail in the anamorphic 2 perf. The lenses if I recall correctly were an Ultra Prime and an Elite.
  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

CineLab

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Opal

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Glidecam

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets