"• Focusing Anamorphics-Tips for achieving a better focus on scope films."

To answer an earlier question, yes, optical printers are usually pin-registered. (Some continuous optical reduction printers have been used in the past, primarily for printing 16mm to Super 8). By "forcing" pin-registration to be used for making the duplicate negatives, Super 35 can result in better steadiness.

Do we see these abberations in real life? Well, put it this way - do we see aliens in real life? Cowboys? Robots from the future on motorcycles, being chased by large trucks through the LA drainage system? Monsters from the bottom of the ocean? The only thing I've seen in real life that resembles a 'big picture' is 9/11.

 |  IP: Logged

The last two can be used to artistic effect, and it's great when they seem to fit in. However, there are many cases when they are merely annoying, simply because they're not real life. Anamorphic IMAX, for instance, just wouldn't make sense. Special effects (prior to the CGI era) would've been a lot harder if they'd shot in Technirama instead of VistaVision. Anamorphic effects would have seriously screwed up the lighting.

Do we see some fantastic images in movies? Sure. But do you also enthusiastically accept fake-looking CGI imaging because it has "character?" Most of us would prefer that it look believable, even if it's a scene that we'd never see in real life.

I agree that the larger image area of the 35mm anamorphic frame makes the most efficient use of the camera negative image area. The area that ends up on the screen is 0.825 x 0.690 inches. With Super 35, the area that ends up on the screen is 0.945 x 0.394 inches, or about 65% of the anamorphic area. And "size does matter".

But for Super 35, using slower films, avoiding underexposure, and care in printing can all be used to reduce the graininess, with many examples of "Super 35 Done Right".

------------------
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

 |  IP: Logged

(topic) Super 35 done right - Is "Titanic" recent enough? Was it considered to be grainy?

You're missing my point, as detailed below.

"Brian, there is such a thing as going too far in anamorphic advocacy."

Perhaps, but I wasn't advocating anything.

"It's not great because it has less depth-of-field, uneven focus shifting, and unusual lens flare effects."

Those very traits may be what gives anamorphic its character.

"But do you also enthusiastically accept fake-looking CGI imaging because it has "character?" "

Yes! Many have commented that the original Star Wars films looked a lot better with their fallible models than the new 'perfect' looking films. What about Knight Rider? I loved the cheesy models - CGI in a new Knight Rider just would look too plastic for me. Your inspirations are determined by your experience. If the best movie you ever saw had fake-looking CGI, you may just look upon this fake-looking CGI as nostalgic, and very comfortable, depending, of course, upon the context of the material you're viewing. Indeed, I don't want to see anamorphic abberations in IMAX Lions of the Serengeti, or bad, fake-looking CGI in Lethal Weapon!

"Most of us would prefer that it look believable, even if it's a scene that we'd never see in real life."

Sure. But I'm not advocating anything, and therefore not speaking for "most of us."

The point is that I grew to love anamorphic 35mm, and all that represents it, warts and all.