Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Weird Aspect Ratio

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Weird Aspect Ratio (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Weird Aspect Ratio

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 04-22-2007 12:20 AM

quote: Ron Curran
So what would be wrong with a Super35 width negative with a 1.5 squeeze?

The problem, assuming I understand your question, would be that using a Super-35 aperture with a 1.5 anamorphic squeeze would yield only a 2.00:1 aspect ratio, not the 2.39:1 I assume you're desiring.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 04-22-2007 12:54 AM

Sorry Michael, my maths was a tad off. The exposed area would have to be .625 x .980 - still more than 2x anamorphic and much more than flat Super 35.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 04-22-2007 03:34 AM

quote: John Hawkinson
I'm suggesting the negative is in super 35, and it was contact printed to a flat release print with the left edge cut off, rather than step-optical printed to a scope release print, which would be more expensive.

Am I confused?

No - I was; sorry.

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-22-2007 10:08 AM

Actually, I was wrong.

Super 35 negatives fill the full 1.33 frame, so those huge black framelines wouldn't exist if it were Super 35. (Of course, it could have been step-printed, but why presumably that's about as pricy as step-optical printing.)

Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

Edit: 1.33 (above) means the full silent width, not the 1.37 Academy ratio...

--jhawk

[ 04-23-2007, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: John Hawkinson ]

| IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 04-22-2007 02:38 PM

There are (or were) a few cinematographers who insist on shooting hard-matted Super-35 to make sure their original composition cannot be "opened" for TV and home video, just cropped horizontally. I have screened dailies for two S-35 productions with hard matte, just a simple contact print with very, very thick black bars...

| IP: Logged

Bastiaan Fleerkate
Film Handler

Posts: 85
From: Linschoten, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Registered: Jun 2006

posted 04-23-2007 07:06 AM

I got an answer from the studio. The director shot the film in scope but printed it in Flat. This was an artistic choice. So no screw-ups or other weird things happened. The only question there's left is...........WHY [Confused]

Some cinema's got complaints about the movie. Remarks like 'is this like TV. There are black bars below and above the picture' and 'the picture is too small' were regularly heard... We haven't had those complaints yet, but I think in time we will have some people knocking on the booth door. [Eek!]

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-23-2007 09:31 AM

John said "Super 35 negatives fill the full 1.33 frame"
actually they fill the entrire area between the perfs

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 04-23-2007 01:22 PM

quote: Bastiaan Fleerkate
The only question there's left is...........WHY

Abso - flippin' - lutely !

It's not as if there are many cinemas out there which don't own 'scope lenses...

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 04-23-2007 02:13 PM

quote: Gordon McLeod
John said "Super 35 negatives fill the full 1.33 frame"
actually they fill the entrire area between the perfs

You're both correct. A fully-exposed 4-perf 35mm camera aperture (AKA Super-35, perf-to-perf left-to-right and frameline-to-frameline top-to-bottom) is, according to Panavision's specs, .980" x .735" = 1.33:1.

Ron seems to be suggesting the use of an all-new format with never-before-used specs...and history has shown that such a process will never fly.

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-23-2007 04:32 PM

"I got an answer from the studio. The director shot the film in scope but printed it in Flat. This was an artistic choice. So no screw-ups or other weird things happened. The only question there's left is...........WHY"

Well, that's what they said? But was it really true?

Reading between the lines, I would expect it means the director shot the film Super 35 and then found out how much the optical printing to Scope cost and said, "no way." This doesn't explain the hard matte, but perhaps it was in the camera aperture for some strange reason ("No! You will not produce a pan-and-scan version with more height!").

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 04-23-2007 07:41 PM

More accurately Michael, I was wondering why such a method was not not adopted instead of simply naming Superscope Super 35. All of the elements existed - STILL exist. There would be no additional cost to producers or exhibitors but a significant quality benefit.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 04-24-2007 03:06 AM

quote: Leo Enticknap
My guess would be that digital intermediate post-production was involved, and that a letterboxed dupe neg was burnt out by the recorder as distinct from an anamorphic one, possibly due to as simple a cock-up as someone clicking the wrong button on a menu screen.

I lean this way, I have to admit that now days I doubt any optical work would be done with super 35.

Ron, Im confused, I thought Superscope was 2 perf, Super 35 is full frame including soundtrack.
It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong however!

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 04-24-2007 03:28 AM

I have been wrong too Cameron. I thought it was in 1974 but I was mistaken.

Check the Widescreenmuseum website for full specs on Supercope/Super 35.

Techniscope was 2 perf. Super 35 can be 4 or 3 perf, using the full width including the sound track area. Some producers prefer 4 perf so that they have latitude in composition when editing, while others choose 3 perf with modified cameras that save stock; though I have heard that some labs won't handle 3 perf.

It is sad that so many people are anxious to tell us why something can't be done.

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 04-24-2007 05:28 PM

It can be done. [Razz]

Allow me to re-quote your post above Ron, in full (necessary for full understanding):

quote:
On the subject of aspect ratios, one of the arguments against full scope is that 2x camera anamorphics are problematic, which is one reason why some prefer Super35 with spherical lenses.

I have also noted that 1.5x anamorphics will not scare the horses. Iscovision proposed something like this.

So what would be wrong with a Super35 width negative with a 1.5 squeeze? This would yield an exposed area about 12% larger than 2x anamorphic (.65” x .98” – I quote Imperial rather than metric to avoid getting a breadstick up my nose) without the 2x distortions.Release prints would be our standard Scope variety or digital files .

(My bold)

It's much easier to innovate at the taking end of the process than at the exhibition end because of the huge installed base of cinema equipment worldwide. The limiting factors would be the availability of 1.5X anamorphic camera lenses, new scanning accessories and other items.

But it's a good idea in that it restores a larger negative area to conventional 35mm photography. Low-rent spherical Super-35 is one of the reasons for ongoing deterioration in image quality. Unfortunately only James Cameron can do it right!

But 65mm is the real way to go. The latest data shows that the increase on production costs with 65mm, taken in total, is marginal against 35mm origination.

A return to 65mm photography is less fanciful than one might think, given the move to 4K D-Cinema, continuing IMAX DMR blow-ups, HD TV and Blu-Ray / HD DVD formats. These are all a demand for the larger, wider film negative [beer]

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 04-24-2007 07:58 PM

Agreed Brian but there is a call for 70mm prints for large screens. If they originate from 35mm it would be nice to take them from a bigger piece: .625 x .980 inches.

Wouldn't there be a fair amount of those 1.5 lenses kicking around in bottom drawers from the Ultra/Super 60s?

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.