Jump to content


Photo

2 perf and S16


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#1 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 21 July 2017 - 06:03 PM

Are there any cinema release movies being shot today on 2 perf 35mm or S16? I know that cinemas are only showing DCP pictures these days, in most cases, but want to know if I can go along and see what a movie shot on 2 perf or S16 actually looks like in the cinema. I like the look of film grain. Just wondering if the definition of the image is generally going to be sharp enough for 'general audiences' today, or if people are going to be sitting there thinking "what's wrong with the image? It's blurry and poor quality". I don't have a particular genre of film in mind. Could be a small independent picture or a big feature.


  • 0


#2 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4158 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 21 July 2017 - 06:22 PM

Are there any cinema release movies being shot today on 2 perf 35mm or S16? I know that cinemas are only showing DCP pictures these days, in most cases, but want to know if I can go along and see what a movie shot on 2 perf or S16 actually looks like in the cinema. I like the look of film grain. Just wondering if the definition of the image is generally going to be sharp enough for 'general audiences' today, or if people are going to be sitting there thinking "what's wrong with the image? It's blurry and poor quality". I don't have a particular genre of film in mind. Could be a small independent picture or a big feature.

 

In a Valley of Violence was a Ti West film shot on 2 perf as was The Inkeepers.

Black Swan was Super16 and the new horror film from Darren Aronofsky is also supposed to be Super16, so you can keep an eye out for that when it is released. Apparently there are some trailers for it running against certain screenings of Dunkirk.

 

Freya


  • 0

#3 Reggie A Brown

Reggie A Brown
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Missouri

Posted 21 July 2017 - 11:55 PM

Just wondering if the definition of the image is generally going to be sharp enough for 'general audiences' today, or if people are going to be sitting there thinking "what's wrong with the image? It's blurry and poor quality". I don't have a particular genre of film in mind. Could be a small independent picture or a big feature.


You'll never know that the audience is thinking unless you ask them. Contrary to popular belief, the larger majority of people going to the movies aren't pixel peepers. The things that cinematographers and photographers look at are usually over looked by people who's not into those things. Most people don't see moire or aliasing for example.

Edited by Reggie A Brown, 21 July 2017 - 11:59 PM.

  • 0

#4 Reggie A Brown

Reggie A Brown
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Missouri

Posted 21 July 2017 - 11:57 PM

You'll never know that the audience is thinking unless you ask them. Contrary to popular belief, the larger majority of people going to the movies aren't pixel peepers. The things that cinematographers and photographers look at are usually over looked by people who's not into those things. Most people don't see moire or aliasing for example.
  • 0

#5 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1653 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 22 July 2017 - 12:32 AM

The Fighter, American Hustle and Joy are all 2 perf. Jackie, Carol were S16. Those are just a few that come to mind.  What Reggie stated is correct though. If you are concerned about less than one percent of the audience, OK, but otherwise no one will care


  • 0

#6 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3378 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 July 2017 - 01:33 AM

In 2016 there were a few S16 snd 2 perf releases. I haven't heard of any major releases of those this year, but there may have been one or two.

Kodak generally promotes anything shot on film, so the best resource is to hit up their site and see the list. Then you can go to IMDB and check the specs. http://www.kodak.com...ons/default.htm

Doug Liman's new movie 'The Wall' is coming to a theater near you and is S16. Probably the best thing to watch as he's a real film buff.
  • 0

#7 Charles Cadkin

Charles Cadkin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Ithaca, NY

Posted 23 July 2017 - 12:28 AM

Person to Person, which comes out in about a week and stars Michael Cera and Abbi Jacobson, was shot on Super 16 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5247026/


  • 0

#8 Manu Delpech

Manu Delpech
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Director

Posted 23 July 2017 - 04:22 AM

On The Road, The Place Beyond The Pines, Too Late, Outlaws & Angels, Mississippi Grind, Kill The Messenger, etc are 2 perf and look **(obscenity removed)** awesome. The Wall looks crazy soft though, it's ana 16mm, but I've seen much sharper super 16 elsewhere (like One Tree Hill for example).


Edited by Manu Delpech, 23 July 2017 - 04:22 AM.

  • 0

#9 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 23 July 2017 - 05:38 PM

I will go and see some of these films, thanks for all the tips. Will keep an eye on the Kodak website too - good idea. 2-perf to me seems ideal.

 

With arty projects, but still in 2.40:1 aspect ratio (if that's what you want to make your film in) if you're going to go for a more grainy, gritty look, why not go more in the opposite direction and shoot in S16 with spherical lenses and crop in post. With modern film stock and digital post would probably look great - sharp enough for the cinema, for certain types of movies. Maybe?


  • 1

#10 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3378 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 July 2017 - 11:25 PM

Well, if you take away the noise/grain issue, the moment you crop S16 you really alter the field of view. Now everything looks like you're shooting with long lenses, even wide shots.

With larger frame size formats like 2 perf 35, that issue isn't as much of a problem. However, it's still an issue with 2 perf because techniscope was designed with the sound track area in mind, so with modern 2 perf cameras, the image is actually wider then 2.40:1 in camera. You're actually throwing away negative space, like you would be with S16. Obviously, 2 perf is better on film usage. However, I do feel 3 perf is the ultimate format and what most things are shot on today.

When I was doing my research on buying a 35mm camera, I realized it was perfect because I never wanted to shoot square and I felt 1.75:1 (which is the base aspect ratio of 3 perf) was a great starting point. I almost always shoot stuff for the standard HD 1.75:1 aspect ratio ANYWAY because it just works with every distribution method properly. Also, I like what a 24mm lens looks like on 3 perf 35mm, it has a really beautiful wide angle look that is hard to achieve when cropped down to even 2:1, let alone 2.40:1. Plus any digital display device would be using less pixels for a 2.40:1 presentation.

So yea, as someone who shoots film every week, I prefer 3 perf 35mm over pretty much anything but 65mm. I like spherical lenses, I like fast lenses, I like a wide lens choice, I like small/quiet cameras and I like having the ability to select any aspect ratio I want, which is why 3 perf is such a powerful format. With short ends being so widely available, I've switched to productions over from S16 to 3 perf 35 and they've come out exceptional. I can't wait to share after things are edited later in the year!
  • 0

#11 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 24 July 2017 - 01:06 AM

Very interesting Tyler. Yes, I think 3 perf sounds great - the ideal I suppose in many ways. Saw a 3-perf camera for sale the other day more than the price of a decent new car. I can dream. 2 perf is very close but just has the slight problem of needing to check for hairs in gate. But I don't follow one thing. If final outcome is, say, 2.40:1, doesn't 3 perf have the same problem as S16 with wide lenses no longer being wide enough. Are there good solutions around this problem? I must admit I hadn't thought of that.


Edited by Jon O'Brien, 24 July 2017 - 01:08 AM.

  • 0

#12 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3378 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 July 2017 - 02:58 AM

Nope, no problems with wide lenses on 4 perf and 3 perf if you don't crop. The moment you crop down to 2.40:1, you kinda loose a lot of that field of view.
  • 0

#13 Giray Izcan

Giray Izcan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 July 2017 - 06:36 PM

When you crop 3 and 4 perf, you crop vertically. Field of view has more to do with horizontal angle of viewing.
  • 0

#14 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2907 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 July 2017 - 07:01 PM

 If final outcome is, say, 2.40:1, doesn't 3 perf have the same problem as S16 with wide lenses no longer being wide enough. Are there good solutions around this problem? I must admit I hadn't thought of that.

In my experience, cropping from 1.85:1, or 16:9, to 2.40:1 usually mean going one lens wider. So if you have a CU on a 50mm in 16:9, you'd need a 35mm to keep the same vertical FOV when cropped to 2.40. Unless you habitually use very wide lenses when shooting 16:9, you're unlikely to find it hard go wider.


  • 0

#15 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3378 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 July 2017 - 12:10 AM

The wider you go however, the less depth of field and the more potential lens distortion. If you're looking for that really nice S35 shallow depth of field look on a wider shot, you can't really get that if our cropping the image so much.

Obviously with S16 it's far worse then any S35 format. But 2 perf will never look like 4 perf anamorphic where your using the entire frame and compressing that wide of an image into it.

Also, with 3 perf you could use 1.3x anamorphic lenses to get close to 2.40:1 aspect ratio, but retain all that negative space.
  • 0

#16 Manu Delpech

Manu Delpech
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Director

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:08 AM

Hair is easily removable in post prod though. 


  • 0

#17 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1681 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:31 AM

Shame nobody told Ken Russel about that.. 


  • 0

#18 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4158 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 25 July 2017 - 10:43 AM

Shame nobody told Ken Russel about that.. 

 

 

Or George Lucas for the matter! ;)


  • 0

#19 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 25 July 2017 - 06:11 PM

Setting aside specialty features like lens flares and bokeh, what is the overall difference in 'look' between, say, 2 or 3 perf spherical lens cropped to 2.40:1 and 4 perf Panavision anamorphic, if digital post prod for both and distributed as a DCP? Is it just that 4 perf anamorphic will have slightly higher definition and less grain, seeing it in the theatre, or is there much more to it than that? I think David Mullen said that there is a big difference when it comes to shooting interiors or CUs in general as it gives the DP a lot more freedom in placing the camera. There does seem to be something about anamorphic that 'looks really cool', beyond just lens flares (lens flares don't interest me much). But shooting with 2 or 3 perf does seem such an attractive proposition with smaller camera/lens set up and so much simpler and less expensive for getting into 35mm.


  • 0

#20 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3378 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 August 2017 - 05:51 PM

So there is some confusion with formats that should be explained.

4 perf and 3 perf can be shot academy gate or full gate, super 35mm. Academy basically reserves the side of the frame for a soundtrack, for film prints. Full gate, or open gate Super 35mm uses the full frame width, the way films were shot PRIOR to the sound on film days.

2 perf is ONLY academy gate, so you're actually loosing quite a bit of negative space reserved for the soundtrack. Yes, there are full open gate 2 perf movements made, but they're wider then 2.40:1 so some cropping would have to be made for theatrical. 2 perf also has a big problem because the top and bottom of frame are literally on the edge of the gate, so if there were any hairs or debris in the gate, you couldn't crop them easily without loosing quality. 2 perf is great for saving money, but that's about it.

So quality wise, Super 35mm 3 perf would be your best option because you can crop the top and the bottom to 2.40:1 and not loose much from the 1.75:1 aspect ratio of the original format. Plus, it allows for some wiggle room for re-framing, where 2 perf does not. James Cameron use to shoot 4 perf Super 35mm because he could shoot 4:3 for television and then crop 2.40:1 for theatrical. It was a super clever idea and it makes his movies on video, look MUCH BETTER then the competition who always had to pan and scan left to right on a 2.40:1 in order to get the action in frame. Today with HD home video, everyone just runs the movie the way it was in the theater, with bars at the top and bottom.

Anamorphic is a whole other bag of worms because most anamorphic lenses are softer then spherical lenses, there are just too many elements involved. So right away, you're using softer glass, which is fine and all for digital, but on film it's nice to shoot with crisp glass. Obviously A LOT of people still shoot anamorphic 4 perf 35mm, it's very popular and it is the highest resolution vertical 35mm format in a 2.40:1 aspect ratio (vistavision is horizontal 8 perf 35mm, so much higher quality) It's also the only way to get 2.40:1 prints made without doing an optical blow up (expensive) and/or digitally making them. If you wanna go photochemical 2.40:1, ya really gotta shoot 4 perf, academy gate anamorphic.

So here is a breakdown:

4 perf Super 35mm anamorphic has the most real estate of all formats when shooting 2.40:1
3 perf Super 35mm spherical has the 2nd most real estate.
2 perf Academy 35mm has the 3rd most real estate.

When you take into account film stock, camera and lens rental, anamorphic 4 perf is generally too expensive. I don't even have it listed on my budget spreadsheet.

3 perf cameras are so widely used today, they can be had for less money and they use 25% less film then 4 perf. Plus renting spherical lenses, is A LOT CHEAPER then anamorphic.

2 perf cameras are impossible to find, they're either on shoots or they're expensive to rent. The added benefits of film savings, is kinda negated when you spend more on the rental package.
  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

The Slider

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

CineTape