Jump to content


Photo

FAQ


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 03 October 2008 - 12:47 PM

Once I wrap shooting in November, maybe I can tackle another update to the FAQ.

What I'd love is to see some written submissions for entries, answers to what you think are common questions. You'll get a credit!
  • 0

#2 Joseph Arch

Joseph Arch
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Director

Posted 04 October 2008 - 10:12 AM

I have a few questions. I will write them down and get back to you.

Thank you for taking the time to help us mere mortals.
  • 0

#3 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 October 2008 - 11:03 AM

How's about something on dealing with uncompressed HD on the desktop? A question came up just today and it's not the first.

P
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 04 October 2008 - 12:03 PM

How's about something on dealing with uncompressed HD on the desktop? A question came up just today and it's not the first.

P


Sounds like you're the man to write it!

Since the FAQ is a few years old, it doesn't touch on many (now) common digital questions we get.
  • 0

#5 Kiarash Sadigh

Kiarash Sadigh
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Toronto

Posted 04 October 2008 - 07:32 PM

28. What is the difference between Super-35 and anamorphic?

Super-35 and anamorphic (Cinemascope) are both 2.40:1 film formats, however there is a fundamental difference between them.

The image of the anamorphic format is first squeezed by an anamorphic lens in the camera in such a way that it incorporates the entire vertical (all 4 perforations), and not the entire horizontal area of the academy aperture. So, in the anamorphic format, the image captured on the original camera negative is squeezed. This squeezed image is then kept through the process of creating the release print and then unsqueezed by anamorphic projection lenses in theaters.


The image of the Super-35 is not squeezed in the camera, on the contrary this image is captured by normal lenses in such a way that it incorporates the full academy aperture; from left to right (including the sound track area) and from top to bottom (including all four perforations). So in Super-35 format the original camera negative image is NOT squeezed. From this image, the desired 2.40:1 composition is extracted (by masking the top and bottom) and then SQUEEZED optically to create a dupe negative. The image of this dupe negative (or internegative) captures the exact same area of an anamorphic camera-original negative; meaning from top to bottom stretching four perforations and from left to right leaving the soundtrack area empty. From this squeezed internegative, thousands of squeezed positive prints are made and sent to theaters to get unsqueezed and projected.

So the fundamental difference is that in anamorphic format, the image is first squeezed by the camera lens but in Super-35 the image is captured normal and then squeezed to create dupe negatives and prints.
  • 0

#6 Will Earl

Will Earl
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Other
  • Wellington, NZ

Posted 04 October 2008 - 07:37 PM

Common ones that seem to come up every so often...

  • What is a T-Stop?
  • What is the best (and cheapest) Film/HD camera for a beginner to learn on?

The "Should I go to Film School or should I try find a job instead?" seems to keep cropping up, but I see it's in the FAQ already.
  • 0

#7 Kiarash Sadigh

Kiarash Sadigh
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Toronto

Posted 04 October 2008 - 09:20 PM

12. What does anamorphic mean?
Anamorphic cinematography is a technique of calculatedly distorting (squeezing) the camera image by using anamorphic lenses. The purpose of this distortion is to achieve a 2.40:1 image aspect ratio
( 2.35:1 in older days) from an academy aperture of a 35mm film. Anamorphic cinematography produces images that have a wider horizontal span compared to a standard 35mm frame.
One of the advantages of filming anamorphic is achieving a drastic increase (almost 60%) in usage of the negative area, thus a noticeable increase in resolution, sharpness and overall quality of the image.
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 04 October 2008 - 10:18 PM

I'd have to do some rewriting for those Super-35 vs. anamorphic answers for an FAQ, sorry (though I fully admit that many of my answers can be worded poorly and need some revision).

For one thing, Super-35 is not necessarily a 2.40 format. 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture (Super) is actually 1.33 : 1 and can be used to compose 4x3, 16x9, 1.85, or 2.40 images. And saying that anamorphic cinematography is the process of distorting the image using anamorphic lenses is a circular definition. You'd want to specify earlier in the definition that it involves using lenses that compress (squeeze) horizontal information relative to the vertical information, traditionally by 2X in the case of CinemaScope (i.e. "scope").

And anamorphic doesn't use the 1.37 Academy Aperture. It uses the Anamorphic aperture, which is Academy in width but nearly Full Aperture in height. And you didn't mention that the squeezed image is unsqueezed in the projection stage using an anamorphic projector lens.

You really have to start by mentioning that all 35mm 2.40 projection in movie theaters involves scope prints with a 2X optical squeeze in them, but that there are different ways of getting an anamorphic image for projection. One involves shooting with anamorphic lenses and the other involves using spherical lenses and cropping later to a widescreen image, etc...

You also didn't mention that most Super-35 films do the crop and stretch digitally these days, not in an optical printer. And that the cropping is not always centered vertically. And that many films now are using 3-perf instead of 4-perf to do it, etc.

But thanks for trying, we definitely need to discuss it more in the FAQ. You just picked a particular topic that I'd rather write the FAQ entry about, and/or get Max Jacoby to help me.

The topic deserves more than a paragraph or two to answer.

But anyone who wants to write FAQ answers, please email me the text privately so I can eventually edit and assemble the info and submit to Tim Tyler.
  • 0

#9 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 05 October 2008 - 02:51 AM

How's about which is better film or video with a description of the strengths and weaknesses of each so we can lay that topic to rest for once and all? What's the best camera for a beginner, how does one become a DOP, whats the best stock for......whatever? :rolleyes:

Edited by James Steven Beverly, 05 October 2008 - 02:53 AM.

  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 05 October 2008 - 11:25 AM

How's about which is better film or video


Oh, I'm sure my answer will end the debate finally... ;)
  • 0

#11 Brian Dzyak

Brian Dzyak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1517 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Encino, California USA

Posted 05 October 2008 - 11:54 AM

Once I wrap shooting in November, maybe I can tackle another update to the FAQ.

What I'd love is to see some written submissions for entries, answers to what you think are common questions. You'll get a credit!


Q: My filmschool taught me how to make a movie, but what will my life really be like in the film industry? How long will it take and what do I have to do to get a real career? Is life in the business as fun as I hope it will be?
  • 0

#12 stephen lamb

stephen lamb
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York, Connecticut

Posted 05 October 2008 - 01:57 PM

I have a silly lighting question out of curiousity. Anyone feel free to answer. How did they come up with the different wattages for Tungsten/HMI lights. 1k v 1.2k, 5k v 6k, 20k v 18 k etc? Does it have to do with the mathematics of the electronics within the ballasts? Perhaps it was simply to keep them easily differentiated on set, to avoid:

"Get me the 5k."

"Tungsten or HMI?"

Also, another question that a lot of beginners have is what is the difference between Panavision, Arri, Aaton and Moviecam. Is one better than the other, etc etc?
  • 0

#13 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 05 October 2008 - 03:20 PM

I don't know the answer to the first, and the second one is a classic "wrong" question from students, i.e. what is "better" (better film stock, better lens, better camera, etc.) Better is determined by need, and need is determined by the specific shot and look you are trying to achieve. An IMAX camera can be "better" in one case but an Eyemo in another, a Zeiss Master Prime can be better in one case and an old Cooke Speed Panchro in another -- just depends on what you are trying to achieve.
  • 0

#14 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 October 2008 - 04:31 PM

Do we have a "how do I make my video look like film" yet?

If not we should.

P
  • 0

#15 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 07 October 2008 - 12:51 AM

Oh, I'm sure my answer will end the debate finally... ;)


:lol: Yes that's true but now that you're a RED guy, I just worry your evaluation for each format might be a little video biased :rolleyes:
  • 0

#16 Kiarash Sadigh

Kiarash Sadigh
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Toronto

Posted 07 October 2008 - 07:10 PM

I'd have to do some rewriting for those Super-35 vs. anamorphic answers for an FAQ, sorry (though I fully admit that many of my answers can be worded poorly and need some revision).

For one thing, Super-35 is not necessarily a 2.40 format. 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture (Super) is actually 1.33 : 1 and can be used to compose 4x3, 16x9, 1.85, or 2.40 images. And saying that anamorphic cinematography is the process of distorting the image using anamorphic lenses is a circular definition. You'd want to specify earlier in the definition that it involves using lenses that compress (squeeze) horizontal information relative to the vertical information, traditionally by 2X in the case of CinemaScope (i.e. "scope").

And anamorphic doesn't use the 1.37 Academy Aperture. It uses the Anamorphic aperture, which is Academy in width but nearly Full Aperture in height. And you didn't mention that the squeezed image is unsqueezed in the projection stage using an anamorphic projector lens.

You really have to start by mentioning that all 35mm 2.40 projection in movie theaters involves scope prints with a 2X optical squeeze in them, but that there are different ways of getting an anamorphic image for projection. One involves shooting with anamorphic lenses and the other involves using spherical lenses and cropping later to a widescreen image, etc...

You also didn't mention that most Super-35 films do the crop and stretch digitally these days, not in an optical printer. And that the cropping is not always centered vertically. And that many films now are using 3-perf instead of 4-perf to do it, etc.

But thanks for trying, we definitely need to discuss it more in the FAQ. You just picked a particular topic that I'd rather write the FAQ entry about, and/or get Max Jacoby to help me.

The topic deserves more than a paragraph or two to answer.

But anyone who wants to write FAQ answers, please email me the text privately so I can eventually edit and assemble the info and submit to Tim Tyler.


You're absolutely right David, sorry I wrote all that based on my personal understanding and without enough research...looking forward to see yours.
  • 0


Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

The Slider

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Opal

CineLab