Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Why is a film shot flat or scope?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Why is a film shot flat or scope? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Why is a film shot flat or scope?

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 10-22-2004 09:01 PM

Michael, you are incorrect.

Super-35 is not "Techniscope." Super-35 really only means that the full width of the 35mm film between the perforations is used (they reclaim the soundtrack area).

Thus, the width of the picture in the camera is the same, only need to compose their film for a particular ratio and crop the height to achieve it.

So, a Super-35 film that is composed for 1.85 will actually use more negative area than Super-35 composed for "Scope" An example of Super-35 composed for 1.85 The Villiage. However, to make release prints, one must optically reduce the picture to fit the conventional projection aperture.

Most Super-35 films though are released Scope...at least from what I can tell.

Now Techniscope is a 2-perf process that is used to shoot "scope" on a budget. None other than George Lucas used this format before he was the famous George Lucas. Examples are THX-1138 and American Grafitti. Note the boulder sized grains on any remotely darker scenes.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 10-22-2004 09:54 PM

Two perf would be Techniscope. This is inherently a Scope dimensioned frame (half height has the same effect on image proportions as the doubling an anamorphic lens would do). It does not make use of the optical track area and thus is not a "Super" format.

Super 35 is normally shot on 4 perf cameras however it can be done with 3 perf. Compared to Techniscope you are pushing out into the track area (the full width of negative is used) and then raising the height to keep the 2.40 proportions. Something a 2 perf format cannot do.

Note at least one Super 35/2.40 film ("Silverado") carried a credit that said "Super Techniscope." This was the same Super 35 we are familiar with today, not Techniscope in the 2 perf sense.

How is Super 35 used for 1.85? Simple. Use the full width of the film and compose for a 1.85 height. In post the image is reduced and moved over where it belongs. This is not a commonly used format although perhaps with digital intermediate it may see more use.

You can "Super" any format except anamorphic as it already uses the full height. But you can have Super 35 not only in 2.40 and 1.85 but even 1.66 or 1.33(1.37). In the case of the latter it would mean shooting full silent aperture and reducing to Academy.

| IP: Logged

Webster Colcord
Film Handler

Posts: 23
From: Alameda, California
Registered: Oct 2003

posted 10-24-2004 12:02 AM

Am I mistaken in my belief that one of the reasons shooting in Anamorphic is more expensive is because the lenses require more light, at least in the early days? So to get the equivalent depth of field that you would get with normal lenses you would have to pump quite a bit more light into the set, which of course could be much more expensive.

Isn't it one of the artifacts that you notice right away with a movie shot in scope? The depth of field is very narrow, and you get that beautiful separation of the foreground and background, in addition to those really cool horizontal lens flares.

I have always shot Super 35 in commercial animation production, especially for stop-motion, it minimizes the risk that you will lose something outside the frameline- you have a lot more area to "pan and scan" in the telecine. And it's relatively simple to get a Mitchell camera modified for it- you just have to have a machinist shave some metal out of the gate.

A few years ago I worked on CG fx for "Minority Report"- Spielberg shot that in Super 35, for a scope release. It definitely simplified things on the fx end, as we output our final shots unsqueezed. However I'm not sure when exactly the film was optically squeezed, it would have meant a generation loss.

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 10-24-2004 02:03 PM

quote: Phil Hill
at Panavision we charged 4x the package rate for an anamorphic package vs. a spherical package.

That got you a Panaflex camera rather than a... Mitchell reflexed NC. The... Panaflex camera was only available for films shooting anamorphic.

Phil, I knew you'd have the straight dope. So, evidently, the "Halloween" blurb has some merit.

And Steve's (more recent) info jibes with what I recall:

quote: Steve Kraus
My rate sheets... gave rates for each type of camera... The moderately greater rates on anamorphic optics was the only difference.

Where an overall film budget is concerned, the difference in rental rates between anamorphic and spherical lenses is, for all intents and purposes, negligible.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 10-24-2004 07:09 PM

Super35 has its various trade-offs. A film shot with good anamorphic lenses will have a sharper picture with less noticeable grain than something originated in Super35.

The bigger problem I have with Super35 is the generally loose, lacking compositions I often see with such films. It's as if the producers just shot something for TV with a loose composition and then simply cropped the shot. It is very rare to see a movie shot in Super35 where the film seemed tailored to the 2.39:1 aspect ratio.

With anamorphic production, you're forced to compose for that 2.39:1 frame. The director and DP have to make adjustments for it. Even the production designer and set decorator has to take the wide aspect ratio into account. Some of this extra preparation will certainly raise production costs. But the extra effort spent will often result in a great looking movie.

| IP: Logged

Rich Ferrando
Film Handler

Posts: 64
From: Royal Oak, MI
Registered: Nov 2003

posted 10-24-2004 10:16 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
The bigger problem I have with Super35 is the generally loose, lacking compositions I often see with such films. It's as if the producers just shot something for TV with a loose composition and then simply cropped the shot. It is very rare to see a movie shot in Super35 where the film seemed tailored to the 2.39:1 aspect ratio.

That's one of the problems I had with the "Lord of the Rings" movies. Don't get me wrong, I loved each of the films, but the compositions of many shots were just as you say. A majority of the live-performer stunt action, as well as dramatic character scenes, were shot primarily in tight close-ups, usually framed dead center. I'm hard-pressed to remember specific shots where the full width of the frame was fully utilized. I personally feel that the three films translate much better on the small screen than they did in theaters.

"Road to Perdition" is a film I would point to that does exactly what it should with Super35. Every inch of every frame in that film is utilized for dramatic effect. But that, once again, just points out the genius that was Conrad L. Hall.

In my own shorts, I usually shoot similar to the concept of Super35, in that the video frame is cropped to 2.39:1, but I always have an on-set monitor that's gaff-taped off at the Scope ratio, just to be sure I'm playing with as much of that frame as possible.

| IP: Logged

Peter Mork
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 181
From: Newton, MA, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 10-24-2004 10:22 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
The bigger problem I have with Super35 is the generally loose, lacking compositions I often see with such films. It's as if the producers just shot something for TV with a loose composition and then simply cropped the shot. It is very rare to see a movie shot in Super35 where the film seemed tailored to the 2.39:1 aspect ratio.

Well, that is a rather sweeping accusation that would be tough to prove. I suppose some DPs are more careful about composition that others, but that goes for the ones shooting anamorphic as well as any other format. Just because Super 35 gives you the leeway to 'fix it in the lab' doesn't mean that that option is used as a matter of course.

[ 10-25-2004, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Peter Mork ]

| IP: Logged

William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-25-2004 02:46 AM

quote: Christian Appelt
Which makes sense only in theatres with top masking. Dinosaurs would not look smaller on a full scope screen just because the image extends more horizontally.

I'd have to disagree with this. It's a composition issue, like selecting a lens focal length, cropping, or umm... composing what's in the frame.

Things look very different depending on the a/r of the image.

Lots of directors have said that they prefer narrower, non-anamorphic frame shapes for different reasons - more intimacy in "smaller" dramas, etc. Lots of dramas have been shot scope, but it's an artistic decision in that case.

| IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 10-25-2004 03:46 PM

I believe that many filmmakers just prefer tighter composition in spherical formats because it makes their films look better on TV and DVD. Like shallow focus or certain lighting fashions, of course it's all a matter of artistic choice.

The original idea of theatrical wide screen presentation was to create an immersive effect by making the horizontal borders of the screen "psychological invisible" and to stimulate the viewer's peripheral vision. So wide screen was not just about creating a wider frame to compose in, but about making the frame disappear.

In the first years of CinemaScope, many cinematographers and directors used any kind of bric-a-brac "to fill the screen", which was IMHO a misconception. Many directors have commented on Scope not being useful for "intimate stories" and all that stuff. I believe that this is cliché and nothing more. Great landscapes, 500 horses and a volcano erupting? Let's shoot Scope! People talking in a room - spherical is good enough. Some of the greatest Scope movies like THE HUSTLER or THE APARTMENT prove this is just not true.

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 10-25-2004 07:32 PM

It should be purely an artistic choice to suit the story, but you do wonder at some of the decisions made.

We all must have seen films shot for 2.39 that would have worked just as well in 1.85...sometimes you do get the impression from interviews that directors are using the wider aspect ratio to make up for shortcomings in the script [Frown]

Also, has not the widespread use of top masking completely devalued the "immersive effect" of 'Scope?

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 11-30-2004 04:25 AM

Wasn't Super35 mainly used for the higher process and to retain the "depth of field", and still extract imagery for anamorphic presentations at the same time?

Plus, isn't Super35 a lot easier on the editors when they do the "film clipping" - to save on the budget?

One can also tell that "Titanic" used a lot of Super35 shots - good definition of the "depth of field" in a wide screen presentation. - Monte

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 11-30-2004 07:45 AM

"A Perfectionist's Guide to Super 35", where director James Cameron and cinematographer Russell Carpenter discuss the use of Super-35 for "Titanic":

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/dec97/titanic/pgs35/pg1.htm

quote:
While staunch advocates of the anamorphic process commonly deride Super 35 for qualitative reasons, even the harshest critics often temper their remarks with the words "except for Jim Cameron's films; he somehow manages to use it successfully."

This is not only a left-handed compliment to the director and the cinematographers with whom he has worked, but to Consolidated Film Industries. The Hollywood-based laboratory has provided processing and intermediate work on The Terminator, the Super 35 films Terminator 2: Judgment Day and True Lies, the 65mm special-venue production T2 3-D, and now Titanic.

When asked for the secrets to his success with the Super 35 format, Cameron responds with a laugh. "I'm not hiding anything. Super 35 is a very well-thought-out system, but there's a lot of responsibility thrown back on the director and cinematographer to follow it through on every step. You can't just walk away."...

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.