my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Odd interframe marks on Frida? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Odd interframe marks on Frida? John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-23-2003 09:22 AM                     OK, I buy your argument that a digital intermediate film might as well use the full width. And I guess, if you're going to do that, you would get the maximum possible benefit if you used an anamorphic such that the entire height of the frame could be used. What's the full Super35 frame? Let's say 937x735? That's a native aspect ratio of 1.27:1, so so applying a 1.45x squeeze would get you 1.85:1 optimally. It seems unlikely that 1.45x anamorphics are commonly available, and if Frida used a 1.45x or 1.5x anamorphic, you'd think it would be Big News (tm). Steve, do you have 1.5x anamorphics for these weird-ass dailies? --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 03-23-2003 10:36 AM                    Huh? Where are you getting this business about anamorphic photography? Super 35, as the term is customarily used, does not involve anamorphic lenses for original photography whether intended for Scope or Super 1.85 or anything else. Super 1.85 means shooting the full width, composing the image to a 1.85 shape, and later a slight optical reduction and re-centering. Likewise one could do Super 1.66 or shoot a full 1.33 silent frame and convert to a 1.37 Academy sound frame. So no oddball anamorphic projection lenses although I suppose if pressed I could whip out a couple of old Panatar prism units.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-23-2003 12:06 PM                     Again, Steve, the American Cinematographer article asserts Frida was shot in "Anamorphic 1.85:1". (This is in the summary box at the end of page 4). Using oddball anamorphics is the only way I can make sense of that, unless it's simply an error (which seems likely). The clincher against this (aside from Occam's Razor and sheer implausibility) is that they didn't know they were doing to do DI before they started shooting, and it seems unlikely they would have adopted a format that would have required them to do either DI or optical printing. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.