Jump to content


Photo

2-pef image quality


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Paul Bartok

Paul Bartok
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 December 2011 - 02:49 PM

Hey guys what do you reckon of the quality of 2perf vs 3perf in terms of image quality and grain, because you save so much film, any hassles with shooting on 2perf that you have heard of, or experienced
  • 0

#2 Chris Burke

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

Posted 18 December 2011 - 06:24 PM

Hey guys what do you reckon of the quality of 2perf vs 3perf in terms of image quality and grain, because you save so much film, any hassles with shooting on 2perf that you have heard of, or experienced



very little difference. the increase in grain is debatable and does it really matter. With stocks being the best they have ever been, I don't think you'll see a difference. people complain about the possibility of hair in the gate and no room to reframe. You're going through a DI anyway, so dust busting will solve that. All in all it is a great format that is very affordable and easy to use. Longer run times, quieter cameras, what's not to like?
  • 0

#3 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 18 December 2011 - 09:38 PM

Chris has the basic objections down, mainly it is completely unforgiving of any dust or hair. On paper it seems like it would be easy to overcome but the practical side is that it can be a real problem. Also you have no reframing options in post which shouldn't be an issue if you shoot well but having the option to fine tune framing is nice.

3-perf Super 35 is really almost the "perfect" format if you're going to 16:9 and if you are going wider it gives you a little reframing options in post.

With all the recans and short ends available in 35mm I'm less concerned about the extra running time.
  • 0

#4 Paul Bartok

Paul Bartok
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 December 2011 - 12:17 AM

thanks guys
  • 0

#5 Raz Birger

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

Posted 19 December 2011 - 02:59 PM

If we are talking about quality difference, not including problems like hair caught on the gate or re-framing options, you should consider what is your target aspect ratio.
For 16:9 (1.78:1) there is a difference. Part of the exposed area of the 2-perf frame is cropped from it's sides in order to get this aspect ratio. With 3-perf the whole width is used with very minor cropping of the top and/or bottom of the frame.
For 2.39:1 there won't be a big noticeable quality difference. The width of both formats is close. 2-perf is a bit less wide than 3-perf, about 3mm shorter (even if you shoot 2-perf and use these extra millimeteres, the area which is used for Super35, eventually it would be cropped in order to get the 2.39:1 aspect ratio). Therefore it uses a smaller area on the film.

In conclusion, there is a quality difference which is more apparent when shooting 16:9, but with 2.39:1 the qualities are very close.

Best Regards,
Raz.
  • 0

#6 Chris Burke

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

Posted 19 December 2011 - 03:54 PM

If we are talking about quality difference, not including problems like hair caught on the gate or re-framing options, you should consider what is your target aspect ratio.
For 16:9 (1.78:1) there is a difference. Part of the exposed area of the 2-perf frame is cropped from it's sides in order to get this aspect ratio. With 3-perf the whole width is used with very minor cropping of the top and/or bottom of the frame.
For 2.39:1 there won't be a big noticeable quality difference. The width of both formats is close. 2-perf is a bit less wide than 3-perf, about 3mm shorter (even if you shoot 2-perf and use these extra millimeteres, the area which is used for Super35, eventually it would be cropped in order to get the 2.39:1 aspect ratio). Therefore it uses a smaller area on the film.

In conclusion, there is a quality difference which is more apparent when shooting 16:9, but with 2.39:1 the qualities are very close.

Best Regards,
Raz.


Unless you shoot with Hawk Anamorphics 1.3 turned vertically. You use the entire area or most of it. But the cost of the lenses might negate the savings of 2 perf. Not really sure, I've never shot this way. The hair or what not in the gate really depends on the camera and the camera crew. Imperfects are very easily and quickly painted out. Not a big problem for the careful shooter. Bruce Taylor from indi35 should chime in here, he rents 2-perf cams.
  • 0

#7 Paul Bartok

Paul Bartok
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 20 December 2011 - 01:06 PM

Unless you shoot with Hawk Anamorphics 1.3 turned vertically. You use the entire area or most of it. But the cost of the lenses might negate the savings of 2 perf. Not really sure, I've never shot this way. The hair or what not in the gate really depends on the camera and the camera crew. Imperfects are very easily and quickly painted out. Not a big problem for the careful shooter. Bruce Taylor from indi35 should chime in here, he rents 2-perf cams.


Hi Chris, ive actually read the article your talking of, its really insightful, especially to find cheap places to process and telecine Film, I love Super 35 but I think only for budget reason's I will have to go with 2perf, and yes it works out better shooting 2perf then super 16mm so that's cool.
  • 0

#8 Hans Engstrom

Hans Engstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Sweden

Posted 21 December 2011 - 06:44 PM

Was the 1st AC on a feature film last year that was shot in 2-perf. We used Arricam ST and didn´t have any problems except when we tried to get it up to 60fps. 50fps was ok but on 60fps it looked like there was problem with the preassure plate, the rental house said something about it being possible to do 60fps but that they had to do something first (which I don´t remember right now but perhaps someone can fill me in?). I didn´t have any problem with hairs and I think that if you look carefully for emulsion buildups in the gate you avoid that problem.
  • 0


Wooden Camera

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Opal

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Glidecam

Tai Audio

The Slider

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

CineTape

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc