Jump to content


Photo

What's shooting on Penelope in 2 perf


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Chris Burke

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

Posted 24 April 2009 - 04:18 PM

Just curious what shows or features or shorts or anything anyone might know is using the camera. Or what film is out right now or will be that I can see.
  • 0

#2 DavidFu

DavidFu

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 03 May 2009 - 10:54 AM

Just curious what shows or features or shorts or anything anyone might know is using the camera. Or what film is out right now or will be that I can see.



If you have to see example of 2perf 35mm, check out Sergio Leone's films, they're all 2perf. I wouldn't expect anything shot with Penelope to look much different than anything shot in 3perf and matted to 2.35 in post. I see this is as more of a "producer's camera" in that it saves film stock (money) and really doesn't affect the image quality from shooting 3perf matte to 2.35.
  • 0

#3 Tim Carroll

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

Posted 03 May 2009 - 04:25 PM

If you have to see example of 2perf 35mm, check out Sergio Leone's films, they're all 2perf. I wouldn't expect anything shot with Penelope to look much different than anything shot in 3perf and matted to 2.35 in post. I see this is as more of a "producer's camera" in that it saves film stock (money) and really doesn't affect the image quality from shooting 3perf matte to 2.35.



Traditional 2-Perf neg only has an image area as wide as the Academy Aperture, whereas a 3-perf (Super 35) neg has an image area as wide as full aperture. So a 2.35 crop from a 3-Perf neg will not need to be blown up as much as a 2.35 crop from a 2-Perf neg.

Now maybe the Penelope is not doing the 2-Perf frame the same size it was done in the 1950's and 1960's, I don't know.

Best,
-Tim
  • 0

#4 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 03 May 2009 - 04:31 PM

So, reading between the lines, there isn't a single production at any kind of professional level utilizing the 2-perf. format.

That is encouraging :unsure:
  • 0

#5 Ryan McGregor

Ryan McGregor

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 May 2009 - 05:02 PM

I am currently working as the loader on an independent feature shooting on 2 Perf. But it is Panaflex GII's not the Penelope.
  • 0

#6 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 03 May 2009 - 05:24 PM

I am currently working as the loader on an independent feature shooting on 2 Perf. But it is Panaflex GII's not the Penelope.


That's pretty cool. If it is not classified, could you give us all a ballpark to the budget they're working with?
  • 0

#7 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 May 2009 - 08:53 PM

So, reading between the lines, there isn't a single production at any kind of professional level utilizing the 2-perf. format.


I guess 2 perf is more of a producer's format in that the savings in cost are what drives a production to switch from 4 or 3 perf to 2 perf _and now also to HD and RAW video. Most DP's would rather shoot 3 or 4 perf 35mm hands down for most projects.

Once I was talking to a DP during a location scout. At some point I asked him what 35mm format they were shooting. To which he replied "3 perf." And I said "have you considered shooting 2 perf?" To what the executive producer (who incidentally was busily talking on his cell phone, but had been obviously following the exchange as well) countered, part in jest, "At this point I am considering shooting 1 perf."

I imagine one of the things most feature film DPs and directors like about shooting 3 or 4 perf is that you can cover for different aspect ratios while retaining more resolution and less grain. As we know, one can cover for different aspect ratios on 2 perf, but the frame lines are so tight that everything has to be within 2 perfs, as opposed to 3 or 4 _so grain starts showing up more. And, if there are any hairs on the to and bottom of the frame, then short of digital fixes, that is it.

Case in point: Last year I attended new 35mm print screenings of several spaghetti westerns shot on Techniscope 2 perf at a local art house cinema. Grain wasn't particularly bad, but I made a point of trying to count foreign objects on the bottom and top frame lines. Some were worse than others, but I know on a couple of them I counted close to 40 or so instances of dirt on the frame lines before I would just loose count and instead try to focus on the plot. ;)

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 03 May 2009 - 08:56 PM.

  • 0

#8 Bruce Taylor

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

Posted 04 May 2009 - 04:32 PM

Traditional 2-Perf neg only has an image area as wide as the Academy Aperture, whereas a 3-perf (Super 35) neg has an image area as wide as full aperture. So a 2.35 crop from a 3-Perf neg will not need to be blown up as much as a 2.35 crop from a 2-Perf neg.

Now maybe the Penelope is not doing the 2-Perf frame the same size it was done in the 1950's and 1960's, I don't know.

Best,
-Tim


This is true, 3 perf 2.35:1 extraction yeilds about 12-15% more film real estate (IIRC) than 2 perf 2.35:1. It uses 50% more film than 2 perf, but is more flexible.

I can't get the Penelope .pdf to open right now, but I recall that Penelope repositions the frame a bit into the soundtrack area unlike other incarnations of 2 perf. That doesn't really make much difference as the heigth of the frame is obviously limited by the 2 perf pulldown.

The old Leone westerns probably aren't a great way to look at 2 perf in today's world. Film stocks have changed drastically since he was making those films. Perhaps a better comparison would be 3 or 4 perf Super35 productions shown in 2.35 extraction.
  • 0

#9 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 04 May 2009 - 08:46 PM

Just curious what shows or features or shorts or anything anyone might know is using the camera. Or what film is out right now or will be that I can see.



Probably none *with this camera*....i don't think they've started shipping yet...or if they have, they would have only just started.

jb
  • 0

#10 Chris Burke

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

Posted 04 May 2009 - 11:20 PM

Probably none *with this camera*....i don't think they've started shipping yet...or if they have, they would have only just started.

jb



I think they have shipped or are just about to. I would have thought that there would be something slated to go into production with a Penelope package. Anyone at Abel know anything?
  • 0

#11 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 04 May 2009 - 11:21 PM

I think they have shipped or are just about to. I would have thought that there would be something slated to go into production with a Penelope package. Anyone at Abel know anything?



In typical Aaton fashion they have been "just about to" for the last 18 months !!!!


jb
  • 0

#12 Chris Burke

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

Posted 04 May 2009 - 11:30 PM

In typical Aaton fashion they have been "just about to" for the last 18 months !!!!


jb



Well they are on the shelves at Abelcine, or at least in their rental and sales departments. I was more curious to hear any kind of feedback from the field on how it performs and such. There doesn't seem to be any savings on rental costs. It does really seem like a producer's format, the more I think of it. But I think that it is a valid one, good for some applications.
  • 0

#13 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 May 2009 - 12:56 AM

It does really seem like a producer's format, the more I think of it. But I think that it is a valid one, good for some applications.


Oh, don't get me wrong. I would love to shoot 2 perf for the right project . . .
  • 0

#14 reynald capurro

reynald capurro

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 May 2009 - 10:26 AM

Oh, don't get me wrong. I would love to shoot 2 perf for the right project . . .


in france, some commercials were shot in 2perfs. also several tv drama (they are still shooting: "PIGALLE" produced by Canal+) and also the last documentary of Raymond Depardon (as usual he operates the camera himself.)
  • 0

#15 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 May 2009 - 01:48 PM

The old Leone westerns probably aren't a great way to look at 2 perf in today's world. Film stocks have changed drastically since he was making those films. Perhaps a better comparison would be 3 or 4 perf Super35 productions shown in 2.35 extraction.

Bruce... I know you rent 2-perf gear. Have you found any treatments or techniques to minimize 'hairs in the gate'? (I recall having asked this question some time back, and don't recall if there was ever a response. If there was one that I missed, I apologize for asking it again.) I've found this to be one of the biggest drawbacks to an otherwise excellent format.
Thanks.
  • 0

#16 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 05 May 2009 - 05:45 PM

I've found this to be one of the biggest drawbacks to an otherwise excellent format.


How *could* they minimize hairs in the gate? Really, that has nothing to do with the camera, it has to d with the cleanliness of the manufacturer coupled with the cleanliness of the loading environment.

I'd be meticulously neat with 2-perf. just as I would with 16mm.

It's a natural state that, the more you magnify a given negative area, the more physical imperfections like dust, hairs, and scratches are going to show up.

This is one of the few things I like about 35mm 4-perf. academy that is later hard or soft-matted down to 3-perf.

You can get a hair in the gate and it doesn't matter most of the time unless it's huge!

Then again, even with anamorphic, hair isn't objectionable because it is magnified.

If I were shooting anamorphic, and had to do FX shots from planes or helicopters, I'd honestly consider 5-perf. 65mm, because I imagine it must be a nightmare to have to stage intricate ship/plane, action shots aerially and then have to go back and reshoot them because of a friggin' hair.

With cameras outside of the plane/helicopter, there really isn't an easy way to check. I guess you check right when you land, but even in this instance, there could be a hair for the earlier shots that cleared for the later ones.

Tora Tora Tora! got bitten by hair in the gate in quite a few of their aerial shots that were left in, although, fortunately for them, it was small-enough not to be too objectionable.
  • 0

#17 Bruce Taylor

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

Posted 05 May 2009 - 07:28 PM

Bruce... I know you rent 2-perf gear. Have you found any treatments or techniques to minimize 'hairs in the gate'?


I may have responded to this before, but my only response is that I have had no complaints from clients on this subject. I haven't used any special techniques other than trying to keep everything spotless, which I assume everyone does.

Bruce Taylor
www.Indi35.com
  • 0

#18 Nick G Smith

Nick G Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 88 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 06 May 2009 - 04:37 AM

'Hunger' 2008 Dir. Steve Mcqueen DOP Sean Bobbitt was shot on 2perf. http://www.arrimedia.com/Hunger.php

I played with an Aaton Penelope at the BSC show in London - Aimimage who took over ICE may purchase one? Fantastic ergonomic camera, very quiet. I would jump at the chance to use one. Nick
  • 0

#19 Serge Teulon

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

Posted 06 May 2009 - 04:56 AM

...... and also the last documentary of Raymond Depardon (as usual he operates the camera himself.)



If you mean "La Vie Moderne", I went to see that and thought it was great! Not as good as "Etre et Avoir" (although not his, its a firm favourite of mine) but nevertheless brilliant!
  • 0

#20 Chris Burke

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

Posted 13 May 2009 - 05:25 PM

I am currently working as the loader on an independent feature shooting on 2 Perf. But it is Panaflex GII's not the Penelope.




are you at liberty to divulge? If so, please do. love to hear about it, especially any extra troubles with hairs and such.
  • 0


Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

The Slider

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Visual Products

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

CineLab

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport