Jump to content


Photo

Anamorphic 2-perf...


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Jesse Lee Cairnie

Jesse Lee Cairnie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Other

Posted 31 May 2009 - 05:16 PM

I am interested about seeing if anyone else has had the genius idea of putting anamorphic glass infront of 2-perf 35 and would be willing to admit in public.. hahaa..

I emailed Bruce of indi35.com to which he had not seen, but did mention a super wide 4.7:1 aspect.

I am intrigued at the "functionality" of this aspect as a DI format for online or straight to DVD option.. I can't imagine trying to fit it back on to 35 "in aspect".. and doing a 70 optical print would look pretty horrible im sure..

Im speaking strictly on an experimental level.. though it would be interesting enough as a feature format if a high enough scan was possible.. maybe for the right story?

Ultra Techniscope on digital projection... maybe?

Edited by Jesse Lee, 31 May 2009 - 05:20 PM.

  • 0

#2 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7115 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 31 May 2009 - 05:29 PM

Personally I'm all for experimentation; I mean I don't really see how it could fit into a film, per say, but it would be interesting to see how a 4.7:1 ratio translates to the screen; not to mention other things.
I would assume you could just put it back onto normal cine-film, matted of course, and project it, but I'm not expert therein, but when doing a DI with all the money/time that goes into that I'm sure one could find a solution-- letterboxing the film down to 4.7:1 to fit onto your release film.

I'd say if you ever happen to have the chance to give it a try, go for it. I'd've never thought of it (and honestly I'd rather do other things if I "happened" upon some stock, a 2 perf camera, and the money for a DI suite...) but it'd be interesting to see.
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 31 May 2009 - 05:41 PM

If you used the 2-perf 35mm Full Aperture, it would be even wider, 5.32 : 1. 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture is 1.33 : 1, half of that is 2.66 : 1, adding a 2X anamorphic lens would get you 5.32 : 1.

2-perf is only 2.35 because you can't use the Full Aperture anyway for theatrical release.

No need for super high scanning resolutions because it's still just a 35mm frame that you are scanning (24mm wide if scanning Full Aperture / 22mm wide if scanning Academy Aperture).

Question is what to output it to and what the purpose will be for such a wide image.
  • 0

#4 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7115 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 31 May 2009 - 05:49 PM

The only thing I could really think of it would be as a special shot of a wide vista or say a city, Panoramic. Or, you could maybe play with aspect ratio to "mirror" comic book panes.. Just my quick thoughts.
  • 0

#5 Jesse Lee Cairnie

Jesse Lee Cairnie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Other

Posted 31 May 2009 - 06:05 PM

Hahaha.. 5.32.. wow.. thats awesome.. I will surely ask Bruce about that..

Im definitely only seeing it as a digital distribution.. online, DVD, Digital projection, etc..

As for motivation for it.. I would say anything you would want to see in a completely different way than you are traditionally seeing it.. maybe the transition of a character to a new world in scifi/fantasy.. maybe for example in Being John Malkovich, when ever he goes into the tunnel and into Malkovich's mind emphasizing the DRASTIC change of the characters world.. maybe using it to further emphasize the reasons 2.35 was being used originally as we have all now "gotten used to" the idea of widescreen and its sub-conscious affect on us as a viewing culture isnt the same as when the 1.33:1 was the standard..

cause if my film history serves me right.. it was to give a different "view" from the 1.33:1 TV's that were becoming popular.. which now with HD as the standard 1.85 is in all of our homes.. then after some experimenting maybe desovering its emotional impact on the audience.. then using that as a new tool..

Edited by Jesse Lee, 31 May 2009 - 06:09 PM.

  • 0

#6 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

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

Posted 31 May 2009 - 08:33 PM

IIRC one of the guys at Abel Cine saw some 1-perf anamorphic footage. The format does the stretch vertically so you can get a 2.39:1 de-squeeze from a 1-perf original exposure area. He admitted that it looked remarkably good given the limitations. I have continued to mull over the idea ever since. It's a weird quirk in the brain that with anamorphic images twice the resolution in one axis seems to imply the same in the other axis.

Now, if you squeezed 1-perf the other way, you could get a 10.6:1 aspect. Think of all the snakes, trains and funeral processions you could shoot in that format.
  • 0

#7 Bruce Taylor

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

Posted 01 June 2009 - 01:28 AM

If you used the 2-perf 35mm Full Aperture, it would be even wider, 5.32 : 1. 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture is 1.33 : 1, half of that is 2.66 : 1, adding a 2X anamorphic lens would get you 5.32 : 1.


That would be true.

Most 2 perf cameras I know of are not full aperture width at the gate, though I would think any camera set up for S35 that was 2 perf capable could have a 2 perf gate made that way. The old Techniscope cameras and many of the more recent 2 perf modified cameras used the Academy aperture width. I think I recall that the new Aaton Penelope used a 2.35 or 2.4:1 width gate, but moved it slightly into the sound track area.

But perhaps Paul's 10.6:1 aspect ratio suggestion is even more intriguing.

Bruce Taylor
www.indi35.com
  • 0

#8 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 01 June 2009 - 03:01 PM

IQuestion is what to output it to and what the purpose will be for such a wide image.

I AC'd a corporate video for Intel last year where we shot 4:1 - it was for their interactive website and they wanted specific places where the graphics and buttons would go. Of course, we shot HD with monitor overlays and used digiprimes, but it would have been sweet to shoot anamorphic! Not a lot of out of focus areas in the frame with a 7mm digiprime...
  • 0

#9 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 01 June 2009 - 04:43 PM

Question is what to output it to and what the purpose will be for such a wide image.


A likely purpose could be part of a museum display.

Most likely outputing the 2.35 image to a letterboxed HD and projecting with a 2X anamorphot.
  • 0

#10 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 June 2009 - 06:05 PM

It's a weird quirk in the brain that with anamorphic images twice the resolution in one axis seems to imply the same in the other axis.


Actually, it works the other way. It's one of those no-free-lunch type things. Given a resolution mismatch of 2:1 or less, the human visual system sees the picture as having the lower of the two resolutions.





-- J.S.
  • 0

#11 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 02 June 2009 - 01:06 AM

I once worked on a promo for GM (remember them?) where we were shooting 65mm for the Detroit auto convention. We weren't shooting anamorphic, but were doing some crazy aspect ratio, like 7 to 1 or something and went to 65mm for the extra resolution it afforded them, since they were going to lose the top and bottom of the image and digitally project the super-wide image at the show.

Coincidentally (and quite ironically), we were shooting footage of the very big gas-guzzlers (Hummers and the like, all in glorious settings) that are credited with ultimately helping to sink the company . . . I bet that crew is not getting a lot of those corporate gigs anymore _unless the federal bailout includes outrageous advert budget allocations. ;)

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 02 June 2009 - 01:10 AM.

  • 0

#12 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

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

Posted 02 June 2009 - 09:37 AM

I once worked on a promo for GM (remember them?) where we were shooting 65mm for the Detroit auto convention. We weren't shooting anamorphic, but were doing some crazy aspect ratio, like 7 to 1 or something and went to 65mm for the extra resolution it afforded them, since they were going to lose the top and bottom of the image and digitally project the super-wide image at the show.


Now, there's an idea. Shoot 1-perf 65mm and do the stretch horizontally. I'll have to Wikipedia the specs to figure out the ratio on that one.
  • 0

#13 Jesse Lee Cairnie

Jesse Lee Cairnie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 June 2009 - 10:07 AM

5 perf 65..

52.48 by 23.01 mm = 2.28:1

23.01mm/5 = 4.602mm

52.48 by 4.602mm = 11.4:1

11.4:1 x 1.25 = 14.3:1
11.4:1 x 2 = 22.8:1

so depending on the squeeze! either way.. hahaa ULTRA SUPER TECHNIPANAVISION DELUXE!
  • 0

#14 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7115 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 02 June 2009 - 10:12 AM

Cylon centurion vision!

OK.. dorking out over.
  • 0

#15 Jesse Lee Cairnie

Jesse Lee Cairnie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 June 2009 - 10:27 AM

hahaha.. agreed..

if anyone has actual footage of any of these ridiculously awesome ratios or tests or anything of the like.. please try to post some fun stuff..

IM looking to do some test coming up.. i'll surely post my results..

Im looking more at in camera film ratio's.. (my buddy did a spot for Walgreens online.. they shot every aspect ratio imaginable for online banners, but it was all masked monitor digital)

Cheers!
  • 0

#16 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 June 2009 - 03:14 PM

_unless the federal bailout includes outrageous advert budget allocations. ;)


IIRC, in the case of Chrysler, the feds cut the ad budget in half for the BK period. Car ads are a big part of TV's revenue, so this hurts our part of the biz.





-- J.S.
  • 0

#17 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 02 June 2009 - 07:02 PM

IIRC, in the case of Chrysler, the feds cut the ad budget in half for the BK period. Car ads are a big part of TV's revenue, so this hurts our part of the biz.


Don't I know it. It is killing me. Worst year I have had since I started in this industry. :(

But over the years, I have assisted on some commercials where the director reputedly gets paid as high as $30K a day, peddling Hummers and the like. I don't care who they are, $30K a day is outrageous for anyone to make, particularly when taxpayers foot the bill. But we digress.
  • 0

#18 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

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

Posted 02 June 2009 - 07:33 PM

At 30K/day we could all use some more digressions. Digress away!
  • 0

#19 Frank Love

Frank Love

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • New York City

Posted 27 June 2009 - 09:34 PM

I've occasionally thought about how one could shoot your standard 2.40:1 Anamorphic....except make it 1:2.40...or configure a way that it would be closer to 1:1.85 or something. Living in NYC I've often pondered shooting in a vertical format to really breath in the city, plus like in 35mm still photography, it'd be like a portrait mode cinema.
  • 0

#20 Hal Smith

Hal Smith
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2280 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • OKC area

Posted 30 June 2009 - 08:22 AM

I've occasionally thought about how one could shoot your standard 2.40:1 Anamorphic....except make it 1:2.40...or configure a way that it would be closer to 1:1.85 or something. Living in NYC I've often pondered shooting in a vertical format to really breath in the city, plus like in 35mm still photography, it'd be like a portrait mode cinema.

All 35mm anamorphic projector lenses (and lens and adapter combos) can be rotated 90 degrees in the projector. You could test your idea by shooting with an anamorphic lens mounted at 90 degrees in the camera (you might need a lens tech to fiddle with the lens). It wouldn't be 1:2.4 (by a 3:4 factor assuming academy projector aperture) but it certainly would be a cheap way of testing since it would all be standard gear.
  • 0


Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

The Slider

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

CineTape

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

The Slider

Glidecam

CineLab

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC