Jump to content


Photo

shooting at 2:1 on red and going for print


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Ram Shani

Ram Shani
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • isreal

Posted 26 August 2010 - 01:23 PM

hi

i shoot a feature film on red one and used the 2:1 aspect ratio

now they decided to make a print from the film

i know 2:1 is digital format

what is the recommend film format i want to go with CinemaScope 1:2.35

the other option is to go with 1:1.85 with small black bars on top and bottom

is there any other way to go?

thanks

ram
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19762 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 August 2010 - 08:59 PM

35mm print projection is usually either matted widescreen 1.85 or anamorphic widescreen 2.39... but you can put a 2:1 image on either format by using black borders, though a 2:1 image inside 1.85 is a big waste of print area, printing black borders on the ends of an anamorphic 2.39 print to get 2:1 would be better.

However, some distributors may object to a 2:1 image printed inside 1.85 or 2.39.
  • 0

#3 Ram Shani

Ram Shani
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • isreal

Posted 27 August 2010 - 01:29 AM

thanks david

i was thinking more of scaling the image to 1:2.35 (this is the aspect the lab advice)

with out using black bars

is it possible?
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19762 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 27 August 2010 - 07:12 PM

Sure you can crop 2:1 to 2.39 by losing some picture on top and bottom, but you may need to program some tilt & scan info to fix the headroom. Unless you framed for cropping to 2.39.
  • 0

#5 Ram Shani

Ram Shani
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • isreal

Posted 28 August 2010 - 07:42 AM

great thanks

is the crop and rescale can de done on baselight?
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19762 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 August 2010 - 09:53 PM

great thanks

is the crop and rescale can de done on baselight?


I think so.
  • 0

#7 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 29 August 2010 - 12:22 AM

Out of respect to those films reformatted by Storaro to fit his "golden ratio," I vow to never shoot 2:1 AS! ;)
  • 0

#8 Ram Shani

Ram Shani
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • isreal

Posted 29 August 2010 - 02:26 AM

so i am a little confused

why there are two aspect ratios for cinemascope?

1:2.35
and
1:2.39 or 1:2.40

is it cinemascope Vs anamorphic?
  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19762 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 August 2010 - 08:23 AM

so i am a little confused

why there are two aspect ratios for cinemascope?

1:2.35
and
1:2.39 or 1:2.40

is it cinemascope Vs anamorphic?


CinemaScope and anamorphic are the same thing, though CinemaScope is specifically a 2X horizontal squeeze (and all anamorphic projection has a 2X unsqueeze). "Anamorphic" is a more general term but 2X is the most common amount of optical compression/expansion. So anamorphic 35mm prints are also called "scope" prints. This is because the original anamorphic format was 20th Century Fox's CinemaScope.

Like I said, the amount of squeezing is standardized at 2X. So if the final image on the big screen is 2.40 : 1, then the area of the print being used has a 1.20 : 1 ratio but the image has a 2X squeeze to it and the anamorphic projector lens expands it horizontally by 2X so 1.20 becomes 2.40.

I just said "2.40" to make the math easier for you to understand. The amount of compression/expansion is 2X... but the size of the projector aperture is not exactly 1.20 : 1, it is a little less wide. For example, if the projector aperture was 1.175 : 1, then the unsqueezed image on the screen would be 2.35 : 1 because of the 2X horizontal expansion caused by the anamorphic projector lens.

4-perf 35mm Full Aperture is 1.33 : 1. The original idea for CinemaScope was to shoot and project the 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture, so with the 2X anamorphics used, that would give you a 2.66 : 1 image on the screen (matching what Cinerama was doing at the time.) But the trouble with that is that the soundtrack to the movie would have to run separately in interlock using a 35mm mag roll (which is how Cinerama did their sound.) Then it was decided to put tiny mag stripes on the 35mm print itself. To make room for that, Kodak made a special print stock with smaller perfs on the sides ("CS Perfs") and magnetic stripes were added to each side of the image on the print. This shaved the width of the projected image down from 2.66 to 2.55 (again, this means that the actual projector aperture was shaved down horizontally from 1.33 : 1 to 1.275 : 1, and 1.275 x 2 = 2.55.)

A few years later, by the late 1950's, they decided that they should make normal 4-perf 35mm prints with normal sprocket holes and a standard optical soundtrack running on the left side of the image, the way that all other 35mm movie prints worked. This shifted the optical center of the printed image over to the right, as it is with all sound projection formats like 1.85 and Academy 1.37. It also reduced the width of the area available for projection even more so the projector aperture became 1.175 : 1, and thus with the 2X expansion during projection, the image on screen was 2.35 : 1.

So this was the way all CinemaScope / anamorphic 35mm print projection was until the early 1970's. But because you could mentally think of the anamorphic projector gate as being a sound aperture width (like Academy) but Full Aperture in height (meaning thin frame lines between each image since the max possible height was being used for the projected image), there was a problem with splices at the frameline being visible on the screen because of the slight gap that could form between the two frames. So it was decided to make the projector mask a bit shorter vertically, hiding the splices better. So by shortening the height, the image became more widescreen in shape, from 2.35 to about 2.39. The shape of the gate was changed again in the early 1980's (to standardize all sound projection apertures to .825" across) but the aspect ratio was still around 2.39. Some people round this up to 2.40 when talking about scope, some people use the old term 2.35.

But officially, the current standard for scope projection is to use a projector mask that is .825" x .690" (20.96mm x 17.53mm). If you do the math, that means an aspect ratio of 1.1956521 : 1 on the print image, so with a 2X horizontal expansion by the anamorphic projector lens, the image on the screen would be 2.3913042 : 1.
  • 0

#10 Ram Shani

Ram Shani
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • isreal

Posted 29 August 2010 - 03:04 PM

thank you David very much

for the very interesting and detailed explanation
  • 0


Opal

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Technodolly

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Opal

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Technodolly

CineLab

Visual Products

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies