The only way how I see Super35 being done right is to either show it in 1.85:1 or blow it up to 70mm if the optical enlargement process has to be used. In going through the extra optical printing steps to get to 'scope 35mm a generation in image quality is lost.

Anamorphic 'scope is superior to Super35 for being able to use the full 4-perf frame and have all that extra emulsion used to capture image detail. Super35 imagery is getting blown up across both horizontal and vertical axis, just like a non-anamorphic widescreen DVD. Ugh!

The one single advantage that Super35 has is depth of field over use of spherical lenses. But that is more a matter of convenience (and price) than over quality. If depth of field is what the DP and director wants, they can get razor sharp focus across the entire frame if they choose their lenses and T-stop setting correctly. I have seen plenty of anamorphic movies where this has been done.

Shooting anamorphic 35mm forces the film crew to actually compose for the format rather than doing the proverbial "having their cake and eating it too" with Super35. Most Super35 films have a lifeless quality when it comes to the composition. The top and bottom of the frame has simply been lopped off and the composition really just looks like it. Super35 compositions (and quality) often look no better at all than the trailers for 1.85:1 films that have been blown up to 'scope.

 |  IP: Logged

The claims about Super35's superiority in terms of depth of field are a bit dubious. Sure, I could improve the depth of field of anamorphic photography by 200% if I loppped away half of the frame and used only 2 perfs of it for composition.

Depth of field and capability of detail should be seen as two different things. 5-perf 70mm has a very very low level of depth of field when compared to 4-perf 35mm. But if you can get the lighting and exposure settings just right, 70mm just absolutely blows away 35mm in terms of extreme high resolution razor sharp detail. Seeing a 70mm film like "Lawrence of Arabia" versus a 'scope 35mm print is like the difference between having 20/20 vision and needing glasses to correct blurry eyesight.

I see some of the same kinds of things going between Super35 and anamorphic 35mm. Sure, in some tight close up shot the background is going to be very blurry and vertically distorted using anamorphic. Rack focus moves on such shots are going to be awkward. But Super35 has its own tradeoffs on image quality. You often get an image with more noticeable grain and a lot less in terms of rich color. I think about it in terms of blowing up a colored balloon. When it is deflated, the color is very solid. When overinflated, that balloon's color gets very weak. I feel Super35 just stretches the emulsion out past what it is worth. It always falls short of 35mm anamorphic quality, especially when anamorphic is using the same high grain/high speed films.

 |  IP: Logged

Two recent movies that really took maximum advantage of the 35mm anamorphic production format are "Moulin Rouge" and "The Thin Red Line" --- very sharp images with almost no graininess.

"Super-35" can be "Done Right" too: e.g., "Titanic", "True Lies". But underexposure or using inappropriately fast film stocks can result in grainy images.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Camera negative image area that ends up on the screen:

1.912 x 0.870 inches: 65mm 5-perf 2.20:1

1.912 x 0.800 inches: 65mm 5-perf 2.39:1

0.825 x 0.690 inches: 35mm anamorphic 2.39:1

0.945 x 0.394 inches: Super-35 2.39:1

0.825 x 0.345 inches: Techniscope 2.39:1

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

No, I thought overall that 65mm was as waste on Far And Away. It was just was not very good looking film inspite of the 65mm cinematography....way too much diffusion was used to be able to tell what format it was shot in. There are alot of older films that looked far better than Far And Away! Sure the 70mm prints would provide brighter, steadier images with less visible dust and scratches but it is what was put on the negative that I didn't care much for.

It is true that the balance of exposure, lighting and focus gets ever more critical with the larger the film negative, but a larger negative is going to have better contrast, better color quality and an overall sharper image. A smaller negative is easier to shoot. It takes more skill to correctly photograph a larger one. People using Hasselblad view cameras really have to know their stuff.

"Far and Away" had its own problems here and there, but there were plenty of points in that film where is was noticeably much sharper and richer in color than any 35mm 'scope film. Out of 1990's 70mm films, I tend to point out "Baraka" as a good example of 70mm work. I think the motion control shots of stars rotating around the earth's axis with Monument Valley and Bryce Canyon mountains as a backdrop ranks as some of the best imagery I've ever seen on 70mm.

I see the same general differences in color quality, contrast quality and sharp image with anamorphic 35mm shows. If done well, anamorphic 35mm looks better than just about any Super35 show. With the grain getting stretched out too much, its like putting only two tea bags in a gallon of sun tea when you really need at least eight. It gets weak.