Jump to content


Photo

Printing S35mm 2.40


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Jess Dunlap

Jess Dunlap
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Boston, MA

Posted 29 September 2008 - 04:13 PM

What's the cheapest way to go from a S35mm 2.40, 4-perf negative to a release print? I've heard of doing an optical blowdown in the IP stage, which can be used to strike a regular dupe negative, but is that ridiculously expensive? It will be a 20-minute film, so around 2000' feet.

Also, through that process would we end up with an anamorphic 4-perf print? Or just a spherical 2.40 print within academy aperture? In the second case, is it then even worth it to shoot S35mm in the first place?

Thanks,
Jess D.
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 29 September 2008 - 04:30 PM

What's the cheapest way to go from a S35mm 2.40, 4-perf negative to a release print? I've heard of doing an optical blowdown in the IP stage, which can be used to strike a regular dupe negative, but is that ridiculously expensive? It will be a 20-minute film, so around 2000' feet.

Also, through that process would we end up with an anamorphic 4-perf print? Or just a spherical 2.40 print within academy aperture? In the second case, is it then even worth it to shoot S35mm in the first place?

Thanks,
Jess D.


Hi,

Why not make life easy, shoot Anamorphic & contact print? The quality will be way better for less money.

Stephne
  • 0

#3 Chris Burke

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

Posted 29 September 2008 - 04:40 PM

Hi,

Why not make life easy, shoot Anamorphic & contact print? The quality will be way better for less money.

Stephne




Would the cost of the anamorphic primes be that much more than S35 with spherical lenses? That is something I know nothing about, because otherwise, if all things are equal, shooting scope and contact printing seems to be the cheapest and best way to get a scope print.
  • 0

#4 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 29 September 2008 - 05:15 PM

Would the cost of the anamorphic primes be that much more than S35 with spherical lenses? That is something I know nothing about, because otherwise, if all things are equal, shooting scope and contact printing seems to be the cheapest and best way to get a scope print.


Hi,

Panavision have several ranges of Anamorphic lenses, Cooke Zooms with anamorphic adapters, Various Cooke converted & Lomo lenses so it should be quite possible to Shoot Anamorphic on a limited budget. Best to talk with a local rental house.

Stephen
  • 0

#5 Bruce Taylor

Bruce Taylor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 September 2008 - 08:02 PM

if all things are equal, shooting scope and contact printing seems to be the cheapest and best way to get a scope print.


Shooting real anamorphic for a 2.40 print you'll enjoy double the amount of negative area compared to S35 cropped for 2.40, while using the same amount of film stock. You'll get interesting anamorphic artifacts which I really like. The lenses are slower, though. Undoubtedly, as Stephen points out, for a film like yours it would be cheaper overall to shoot anamorphic to begin with, even with the additional rental costs. DIs and opticals are quite expensive.

Bruce Taylor
www.Indi35.com
  • 0

#6 Jess Dunlap

Jess Dunlap
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Boston, MA

Posted 30 September 2008 - 12:03 AM

Shooting real anamorphic for a 2.40 print you'll enjoy double the amount of negative area compared to S35 cropped for 2.40, while using the same amount of film stock. You'll get interesting anamorphic artifacts which I really like. The lenses are slower, though. Undoubtedly, as Stephen points out, for a film like yours it would be cheaper overall to shoot anamorphic to begin with, even with the additional rental costs. DIs and opticals are quite expensive.

Bruce Taylor
www.Indi35.com


Thanks for the replies so far. This production has received the 35mm Panavision student grant, which comes with 12 spherical lenses. Can't argue with that! Since we had decided on 2.40 before hearing about the grant, I'm now trying to figure out a cheap, spherical way of going about this.

It looks like the only feasible option would be to shoot regular 35mm with a 2.40 crop (do they make these ground glasses?). Otherwise I'll have to beg Panavision to swap our lenses for anamorphics...

Jess D.
  • 0

#7 Bruce Taylor

Bruce Taylor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 September 2008 - 12:13 AM

It looks like the only feasible option would be to shoot regular 35mm with a 2.40 crop


Which would be... (drum roll please...) 2 perf! A perfectly fine use of a 4 perf pulldown, just uses more film-- S35 does approximately that anyway. I hope you finagle the anamorphics though.

Bruce Taylor
www.Indi35.com
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 September 2008 - 12:46 AM

2.40 projection requires scope prints, so your spherical footage would have to be converted to a 4-perf 35mm anamorphic IN for making scope contact prints. You can do the conversion digitally with a D.I. or in an optical printer, but either way, there are extra costs involved.
  • 0

#9 Serge Teulon

Serge Teulon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 30 September 2008 - 06:17 AM

I'm at a similar situation as yours Jess.
Shooting S35mm 2.40. The lab is saying to the producer that they don't charge extra cost on 2.40?!
I'm not complaining but I feel a bit at odds with that.....
  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 September 2008 - 08:54 AM

I'm at a similar situation as yours Jess.
Shooting S35mm 2.40. The lab is saying to the producer that they don't charge extra cost on 2.40?!
I'm not complaining but I feel a bit at odds with that.....


There shouldn't be extra lab cost to process it, telecine it, workprint it...

And if you were going to do a D.I. anyway, there are no extra costs if recording the digital files to anamorphic versus 1.85.

But there are extra costs compared to shooting in a standard sound projection format (not Super) that allows you to make contact prints with an optical soundtrack on it, i.e. standard 4-perf 35mm 1.85 or anamorphic.
  • 0

#11 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 September 2008 - 11:37 AM

Hi,

Panavision have several ranges of Anamorphic lenses, Cooke Zooms with anamorphic adapters, Various Cooke converted & Lomo lenses so it should be quite possible to Shoot Anamorphic on a limited budget.

I'd avoid anamorphic zooms, the anamorphot is almost invariably at the back of the lens, hence they just don't look as good as primes.
  • 0

#12 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 September 2008 - 12:10 PM

I'd avoid anamorphic zooms, the anamorphot is almost invariably at the back of the lens, hence they just don't look as good as primes.


Hi Max,

Is that the case on hawk zooms aswell?

Keith
  • 0

#13 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 September 2008 - 01:33 PM

We did some tests for my feature and found that the Hawk primes look much better than the zoom. I'd love to see more front anamorphot zooms (like Panavision's 40-80mm T2.8, a converted stills lens), because they give you the typical anamorphic look, plus the image is sharper because a bigger anamorphot can be used and the lenses can be faster also.
  • 0

#14 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

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

Posted 01 October 2008 - 10:40 AM

If you're stuck with PV's flat primes, will they let you shoot PV 2-perf? It sounds like you're getting only a 2-perf frame out of a 4-perf pull-down. Why not see if they'll let you get the real 2-perf savings? Can they get a hold of that 2-perf PV mechanism where you are? They might like the publicity value of that unique format in their camera.
  • 0


Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery