Jump to content


Photo

2-perf, 3-perf or 4-perf?


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Martin Hong

Martin Hong
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Student

Posted 18 December 2011 - 03:29 AM

Kodak had released few interesting videos on Youtube comparing different stocks and their relatively perforations..

Even there are commentary telling you the difference but my eyes just can see! :(

And my question is, what does the number of perf affect to the image (basically) and why? And what kind of scene would be adequate for each one?

Thanks in advance




  • 0

#2 Raz Birger

Raz Birger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Israel

Posted 18 December 2011 - 06:20 AM

Hi Martin.
The YouTube compression on these clips is a killer, one of the reasons you may not be able to notice the differences so well.
The 2-perf, 3-perf and the 4-perf refers to how many perforations of the 35mm film makes a frame. This affects the frame size, the area which is exposed on the negative.
Take a look at the PDF Kodak has released with the "Choices" clip:

PDF file from Kodak

On page 5 you can see a side by side comparison of the 2,3 and 4-perf as they actually appear on the negative. There is even further information on each format.
If you still can't find your answers let me know.

Best,
Raz.
  • 0

#3 Martin Hong

Martin Hong
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Student

Posted 18 December 2011 - 01:39 PM

Hi Martin.
The YouTube compression on these clips is a killer, one of the reasons you may not be able to notice the differences so well.
The 2-perf, 3-perf and the 4-perf refers to how many perforations of the 35mm film makes a frame. This affects the frame size, the area which is exposed on the negative.
Take a look at the PDF Kodak has released with the "Choices" clip:

PDF file from Kodak

On page 5 you can see a side by side comparison of the 2,3 and 4-perf as they actually appear on the negative. There is even further information on each format.
If you still can't find your answers let me know.

Best,
Raz.


Hey Raz! Thanks for the info! Didn't see the PDF there, its very helpful!
Yeah too bad Youtube compression kills the quality, just couldnt really see the differences, perhaps would have been better if they did a blow-up of the pictures.

Thanks lots!
  • 0

#4 Raz Birger

Raz Birger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Israel

Posted 19 December 2011 - 11:43 AM

Hey Raz! Thanks for the info! Didn't see the PDF there, its very helpful!
Yeah too bad Youtube compression kills the quality, just couldnt really see the differences, perhaps would have been better if they did a blow-up of the pictures.

Thanks lots!


I'm glad I could help.
I have found the PDF on Kodak's website. I do not know why they didn't mentioned it on YouTube.
About the blow-ups - I think they did some on the 2-perf / 3-perf demo, I have watched it as soon as it was released and by now I don't remember exactly everything which was shown, but I think they did some. Anyhow, presenting 2-perf as 16:9 is actually a kind of blow-up, the footage is quite massively cropped when you do so. You could see that on the Choices clip where it shows the whole 2-perf frame (which is much wider than 16:9, should be 2.39:1 or even wider).
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19760 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 December 2011 - 12:06 PM

Basically it comes down to the total negative area used for the final image affects grain and sharpness, all other things being the same. Bigger negative means less grain and better detail recorded. However, there are a number of mitigating factors (like using spherical lenses vs. Anamorphic for 2.40, or switching film stocks, or how the footage is handled in post, the resolution of the release/display format, etc.) that make the differences a matter of degree, or hard to see.
  • 0

#6 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 19 December 2011 - 07:06 PM

I saw the uncompressed versions of those demos during the Kodak dog & pony show in Dallas and you could notice the difference just barely if you knew what to look for. If I remember correctly I was pleasantly surprised at how well Super 16 held up although it was definitely noticeably different from any 35mm format.

5201/7201 is such a low grain stock anyway... it looks really good in well shot Super 16 and even better in 2-perf.
  • 0

#7 Kip Kubin

Kip Kubin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Director

Posted 20 December 2011 - 09:01 PM

Does anyone know if there has been any grain management done to any of these tests?

The Super 16 500T looks so low grain, even on youtube.

Opinions welsome
  • 0

#8 Martin Hong

Martin Hong
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Student

Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:19 AM

I have never worked with film before, that's why i couldnt tell the differences, now i wonder, how is it done, when you set the camera for the each choice?




Does anyone know if there has been any grain management done to any of these tests?

The Super 16 500T looks so low grain, even on youtube.

Opinions welsome


They have used Arri Relativity Grain management in some of the shots.
  • 0

#9 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1599 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 21 December 2011 - 02:07 AM

I have never worked with film before, that's why i couldnt tell the differences, now i wonder, how is it done, when you set the camera for the each choice?


On an Arricam (2, 3 or 4 perf) or Moviecam Compact II (3 or 4 perf) the gate and camera movement are exchanged, a different reduction gear and belt fitted for the sprocket drive and the frame counter electronics are switched over. Each movement also has its own balancing wheel fitted to the back of the motor to eliminate vibration. I think it's pretty similar with Panavision cameras.

The movement is responsible for transporting the film down 2, 3 or 4 perfs each exposure cycle (and registering it), the sprockets feed the film into and out of the gate at the appropriate speed so as to keep a constant loop size.

Arricams and Moviecams can usually be converted in a few hours, provided the new movement has already been measured, checked and adjusted for that camera. On other cameras like a 435, 535 or BL the conversion is not so simple. Most conversions of older cameras would be more or less permanent I imagine.
  • 0

#10 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11939 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 December 2011 - 03:44 AM

That's another one for the Photochemical Euphemisms book: "Grain Management".

Er, noise reduction.
  • 1

#11 Alejandro Gonzalez

Alejandro Gonzalez
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 April 2013 - 11:14 PM

3-perf sounds like the sweet spot for me.


  • 0

#12 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 28 April 2013 - 06:13 AM

 Anyhow, presenting 2-perf as 16:9 is actually a kind of blow-up, the footage is quite massively cropped when you do so. You could see that on the Choices clip where it shows the whole 2-perf frame (which is much wider than 16:9, should be 2.39:1 or even wider).

 

Yes! 2perf is natively 2.40:1 or something like that so you if you are not shooting in a cinemascope style aspect ratio you have to crop the negative heavily. I think that Kodak are doing this in this case (even tho it works heavily against them) as some broadcast outlets demand 16:9 only. No letterboxing. So Kodak are showing how well it holds up even in a not so ideal situation.

 

Freya


  • 0

#13 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 28 April 2013 - 06:21 AM

Arricams and Moviecams can usually be converted in a few hours, provided the new movement has already been measured, checked and adjusted for that camera. On other cameras like a 435, 535 or BL the conversion is not so simple. Most conversions of older cameras would be more or less permanent I imagine.

 

The Aaton Penolope could be switched over very quickly from 2perf to 3perf:

 

http://www.aaton.com...elope/index.php

 

They are claiming 30 minutes.

 

I think you are right that most older cameras it is a permanent conversion (Such as Kinor and Eclair CM3 etc) and I think most cameras that can be converted in the field are just kept in one state or another generally.

 

Freya


  • 0

#14 Dustin Supencheck

Dustin Supencheck
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 17 May 2013 - 12:45 AM

Another thing I've not been so clear on is the difference for "super 35" is this simply adding the soundtrack area in the negative? In which case you get same aspect ratio as 2 perf plus extra resolution from exposing more of the film negative. Plus 1/4 the cost of course.
  • 0

#15 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19760 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 May 2013 - 12:57 AM

Once you get down to 2-perf you don't really use the Super-35 (full aperture) width because if you did, the aspect ratio is 2.66 : 1 (half the height of 4-perf which is native 1.33 : 1).  

 

So the 2.40 : 1 area you use in 2-perf is about Academy Aperture (sound aperture) in width, thus is a slightly smaller 2.40 area than when shooting in 3-perf, which is full aperture.


  • 0

#16 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:42 AM

Has anyone worked in the VistaVision format? I know there are a few cameras still lingering out there... I know there are plenty of Spirits out there that can handle it (not sure why though). I'd be curious if the scanned final would have any noticeable improvement in quality. I'm sure it would depend on lenses ect. Obviously not a practical format to shoot on but for a thought experiment it would be fun.


  • 0

#17 Mathew Collins

Mathew Collins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • India

Posted 29 December 2015 - 10:13 PM

Once you get down to 2-perf you don't really use the Super-35 (full aperture) width because if you did, the aspect ratio is 2.66 : 1 (half the height of 4-perf which is native 1.33 : 1).  

 

So the 2.40 : 1 area you use in 2-perf is about Academy Aperture (sound aperture) in width, thus is a slightly smaller 2.40 area than when shooting in 3-perf, which is full aperture.

 

David,

 

>Once you get down to 2-perf you don't really use the Super-35 (full aperture) width because if you did, the aspect ratio is 2.66 : 1 (half the height of 4-perf which is native 1.33 : 1).

 

While using 2-perf or 3-perf in 35mm film, the sound area reserved for soundtracks are used/ never used?

 

Is there any formats in shooting on film/digital  like,

1) 2-perf or 3-perf in 35mm silent film

2) 2-perf or 3-perf in 35mm film with sound track?

 

Is shooting in 2-perf or 3-perf or 4 perf in 35mm silent film / Digital known as Super-35 formats?


  • 0

#18 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19760 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 December 2015 - 10:28 PM

You don't use the soundtrack area for 2-perf just because most people don't want a 2.66 : 1 aspect ratio.  Think of it this way, if 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture / Silent / Super is 1.33 : 1, then half of that would be 2.66 : 1.  I mean, you could use the Full Aperture if you wanted to, if you wanted a 2.66 : 1 image.  

 

2-perf 35mm (Techniscope) cameras vary in terms of whether the 2.40 crop area is centered on the negative or offset to the right like Academy is in 4-perf.  Most 2-perf cameras today will expose the Full Aperture area even if you are only using a 2.40 area.  Old 2-perf Techniscope cameras from the 1960's will have the 2.35 area (the old scope ratio) offset to the right side, but I don't know if the camera gates were cut to 2.35 or left open out to 2.66.

 

3-perf 35mm does use the Full Aperture width however.  Some people call that Super-35, some just use that term for 4-perf 35mm to differentiate the difference between using Full Aperture / Silent / Super width versus Academy Aperture / Sound width.  Since all 3-perf is Full Aperture, there isn't really a need to call it Super-35.


  • 0

#19 Mathew Collins

Mathew Collins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • India

Posted 30 December 2015 - 03:45 AM

You don't use the soundtrack area for 2-perf just because most people don't want a 2.66 : 1 aspect ratio.  Think of it this way, if 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture / Silent / Super is 1.33 : 1, then half of that would be 2.66 : 1.  I mean, you could use the Full Aperture if you wanted to, if you wanted a 2.66 : 1 image.  

 

2-perf 35mm (Techniscope) cameras vary in terms of whether the 2.40 crop area is centered on the negative or offset to the right like Academy is in 4-perf.  Most 2-perf cameras today will expose the Full Aperture area even if you are only using a 2.40 area.  Old 2-perf Techniscope cameras from the 1960's will have the 2.35 area (the old scope ratio) offset to the right side, but I don't know if the camera gates were cut to 2.35 or left open out to 2.66.

 

3-perf 35mm does use the Full Aperture width however.  Some people call that Super-35, some just use that term for 4-perf 35mm to differentiate the difference between using Full Aperture / Silent / Super width versus Academy Aperture / Sound width.  Since all 3-perf is Full Aperture, there isn't really a need to call it Super-35.

 

David,

 

>Most 2-perf cameras today will expose the Full Aperture area even if you are only using a 2.40 area.

 

Then during those days, were did they place sound track?

 

>3-perf 35mm does use the Full Aperture width however.  Some people call that Super-35, some just use that term for 4-perf 35mm to differentiate the difference between using Full Aperture / Silent / Super width versus Academy Aperture / Sound width.  Since all 3-perf is Full Aperture, there isn't really a need to call it Super-35.

 

So the Super-35referred by modern cameras are either of the size/aspect ratio of 3-perf or 4-perf?


  • 0

#20 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2422 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 30 December 2015 - 05:58 AM

 

David,

 

>Most 2-perf cameras today will expose the Full Aperture area even if you are only using a 2.40 area.

 

Then during those days, were did they place sound track?

 

Techniscope isn't a projection format. It's optically printed to anamorphic 4-perf.


  • 0


Glidecam

The Slider

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Technodolly