Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "Minority Report" in 2.39? What gives?

This is topic "Minority Report" in 2.39? What gives? in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003616

Posted by Nic Margherio (Member # 273) on 06-20-2002, 07:15 PM:

I just checked on a print of "Minority Report" and confirmed that it is in fact a 2.39 aspect ratio release. Correct me if I am wrong, but to this point Steven Speilberg has shot every last one of his movies in 1.85, hasn't he?

I found it quite curious that he would all of the sudden choose to shoot this movie in 2.39 and I was just wondering if anyone had any information on this.

Posted by Glenn Conatser (Member # 970) on 06-20-2002, 10:03 PM:

Good point Nic. I was asking the same question today. Anyone have more info on this.

Glenn

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-20-2002, 10:12 PM:

No, Spielberg has not always shot in 1.85. Lessee, there was some movie called "Jaws" and some others like the "Indiana Jones" Trilogy and "Empire of da Sun". Oh yeah and there was that one movie called "Close Encounters of da Turd Kind" or something like that. Sure, his latest stuff like Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan and other stuff (does AI even count as a movie?) has been 1.85.

Be thankful that Spielberg has chosen 2.39. There is no law saying that a director must pick an aspect ratio and shoot it forever. His next film will probably be 1.37.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-20-2002, 10:35 PM:

Empire of the Sun was flat. The only non-Lucas related scope movies Steven has made are Close Encounters, Jaws, Hook and maybe that first one (the title escapes me). By the time he finished those he started to see how bad the films transferred to video a-la pan and scan and has shot flat ever since.

Steve has always been paranoid about how his movies look on video, but he has always wanted the highest quality possible in the theaters. My guess is he finally realized that shooting in Super 35 gives him the best of both worlds (at a slight compromise of each). It gives him the security of knowing he can reframe each shot on the video transfer by showing more picture area at the top and bottom of each shot AND it gives him the larger aperture that scope provides (sharper and brighter picture) in the theater.

While I would rather see good old fashioned anamorphic photography, I will always take Super 35 over conventional flat ANY DAY! With today's filmstocks and cameras, Super 35 can look damned good. (The 70mm print of Titanic I ran looked sharper than any previous 35mm anamorphic blowup I have ever seen.) The real problem seems to be the guys at the labs screwing it all up printing too fast.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-20-2002, 11:57 PM:

"That first one" would have been SUGARLAND EXPRESS with Goldie Hawn.

Don't know if it was scope or flat.

Some have suggested that this choice may have been influenced by Tom Cruise.

I was told that Disney did not endorse the scope format because of the wildly varying quality of anamorphic theatre lenses.

I must say, I've got wildly varying scope lenses. Some of them make the picture look smeared. I am trying to replace them now because more and more movies are being released in the scope format. Nearly every movie we are running right now is scope.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-21-2002, 02:07 AM:

SUGRALAND EXPRESS was scope.

Posted by Robb Johnston (Member # 239) on 06-21-2002, 03:30 AM:

But wasn't his first "film" Duel, which was made for TV?

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-21-2002, 03:50 AM:

No, Duel was relesed to theaters in europe and later re-released to theaters in the U.S. around 1983. It was originaly a 73 minute made for T.V. movie released in 1971. THe theatrical version ran 91 mins. His first out right theatrical only film was Sugarland Express released in 1974.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-21-2002, 08:01 AM:

Brad said: "While I would rather see good old fashioned anamorphic photography, I will always take Super 35 over conventional flat ANY DAY! With today's filmstocks and cameras, Super 35 can look damned good. (The 70mm print of Titanic I ran looked sharper than any previous 35mm anamorphic blowup I have ever seen.) "

Super 35 can be "Film Done Right":
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/dec97/titanic/pgs35/pg1.htm
http://www.cameraguild.com/interviews/chat_carpenter/carpenter_titanic.htm

When using Super 35, the image can be composed for 2.39:1 "scope" theatrical release, but additional height of the frame "protected" so the video release can have a less severe "letterbox".

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

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-21-2002, 08:25 AM:

All the techies talk about the nuances of this or that format, this or that film stock, this or that lens type -- everyone trying to hone the storage and playback system so that the audience gets the very best looking image. Then the film is given to my local Loews Alpin, here in Brooklyn, and the only way you know if a picture is scope or flat is by looking at the halos around lights and the shape of the cues because this theatre runs EVERYTHING 2:1, and just so you don't think you were slighted only in the image department, some of their screens still play MONO sound. The pigs.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-21-2002, 10:46 AM:

Slightly OT, but I recently watched "Duel" on Encore. This was the full-length theatrical version. What a great little movie, and probably very low-budget. You can see many of those little patented Spielberg tricks he uses. Very memorable performance by Dennis Weaver too. I wonder what it was like for him to be working in the first film made by that punk newbie director Spielberg.

"Duel" was probably shot in 1.33 since it was made for TV. Correct? The opening credits in Encore's transfer were surrounded by a black border on all 4 sides so nothing would be cut off by TV overscan, but it was still a 1.33 (or so) frame.

"Minority Report" got 4 stars from Ebert. I can hardly wait to see it...

Posted by Brian Tristam Williams (Member # 1235) on 06-21-2002, 01:48 PM:

But Indiana Jones III was a scope film. Does this mean that it was 'Lucas related'?

------------------
"One man can make a difference."

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-21-2002, 02:57 PM:

Mr. Lucas was one of the writers and an executive producer:
http://us.imdb.com/Details?0097576

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-21-2002, 03:18 PM:

I'm thinking maybe it has to do with the fact that Cruse's production company is involved with the movie.

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 06-21-2002, 04:26 PM:

Spielberg originally intended Empire of the Sun to be projected at 1.66. I don't know how many US theaters actually did though.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 06-21-2002, 04:41 PM:

2.39 appears to be the standard for scope ratio now. AFAIK 2.39 first came into use on The Cell two years ago.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-21-2002, 04:59 PM:

I don't think that we are discussing the difference between 2.39 and 2.35 in this thread.

More about the fact that release prints of Minority Report are Scope rather than flat.

Posted by Arthur Allen (Member # 969) on 06-21-2002, 05:32 PM:

If Empire of the Sun was flat, it was at least hard-matted. The pay-tv version I saw had one isolated letter box segment early in the film where the young boy and a Japanese soldier face off from each other from opposite edges of the screen.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-21-2002, 07:04 PM:

quote:
The only non-Lucas related scope movies Steven has made are Close Encounters, Jaws, Hook and maybe that first one [The Sugarland Express]

Also "1941." Plus, as writer and/or producer, Spielberg has been involved with many scope releases, including "Poltergeist," "The Goonies," "Joe Versus The Volcano," "Twister," "The Mask Of Zorro," "Ace Eli And The Rodger Of The Skies," and others.

quote:
2.39 first came into use on The Cell two years ago.

Huh? 2.39:1 has been the standard scope projection ratio for the past thirty years! (Maybe John Pytlak can post a reference to the SMPTE standards here.) Most people, however, either (A) don't know that the standard is actually 2.39:1 (rather than 2.35:1) or (B) they simply use the more common term of "2.35:1." Others prefer refering to scope with the figure of 2.40:1, which is subjectively correct as well, but is simply a rounded figure.

quote:
When using Super 35, the image can be composed for 2.39:1 "scope" theatrical release, but additional height of the frame "protected" so the video release can have a less severe "letterbox".

True, though very few video transfers (on DVD anyway) are available this way to the public. Most are presented in the original composition ratio of 2.39:1 (or something close to that). Some of the handful of Super 35-originated films shown theatrically in scope that are available on laserdisc and/or DVD in other widescreen ratios (typically 1.78:1, 1.85:1 or 2.00:1) include "Top Gun," "Judgment Night," "The General," "Silverado" (first pressing only), "The Governess," "Set It Off," "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country," and "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" (LD only; DVD is in scope ratio), among others. A larger number of Super 35 films have appeared on TV (HBO in particular) broadcast in different widescreen ratios than the theatrical prints.

quote:
Spielberg originally intended Empire of the Sun to be projected at 1.66. I don't know how many US theaters actually did though.

References to 1.85:1 have appeared in interview pieces with cinematographer Allen Daviau, ASC in American Cinematographer and (a future issue of) Widescreen Review. According to Mr. Daviau, the film was composed for 1.85:1 and meant to be projected in that ratio. Of course, this wouldn't have prevented any theater from actually projecting it at 1.66:1; the imagery was there to do so. The film was shot with a 1.66:1 hard matte.

The DVD is framed at 1.78:1. The laserdisc versions were framed around 1.66:1, which is what I believe has led many to believe the film was meant to be projected at 1.66:1.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-21-2002, 08:16 PM:

I wonder why EMPIRE OF THE SUN prints were hard matted at 1.66? If you use a hard matte, why bother printing it at a ratio which is not the intended projection ratio? Why not hard matte right out to the correct 1.85? Unless they want to use the American prints in Europe, which traditionally has stuck to 1.66 as their preferred format.

Michael, 2.39:1 is not the 2.35:1 spec, just misstated. These are two different specifications, the 2.35 being the older one, dating back to the revised CinemaScope specification in the 1950s (the original scope spec being 2.55). The 2.39 spec was designed recently to prevent negative splice flashes from being projected and to conform to how most theatres have been cutting plates to prevent this distraction themselves. However not hard matting 2.39 can lead to new questions about how a print is intended to be projected. Not all current scope releases hard matted to 2.39, but leave the frame wide open. I suppose this might be to avoid exposing frame lines in theatres which are still projecting right out to full height.

2.4 is the 2.39 spec misstated, although I don't know why in the world of technical specifications where everything is based on correct numbers, someone decides to call relatively new specification by the wrong number. Is it easier to say "for-ty" than "thir-ty-nine" (you save one syllable)? It is bad enough that techies still refer to the Academy ratio as 1.33 when that is the spec for silent film; when sound was added it was changed to 1.37 -- two different specs. It's a small thing, but just goes to show how easily things can get messed up by inexactitude (yes, I made the word up).

In the re-release SW trilogy and Ep 1, which I ran recently, some had the frame hard matted at 2.39 while one did not. So it may be more of an arbitrary decision on the part of the lab rather than a conscious decision by the filmmaker.

And never EVER trust DVD or Laserdisc jacket material for correct information about what went on in theatres with respect to aspect ratios, especially older titles. The liner notes are written by video people, usually about films made before they were even born, and they are notorious for saying that the video release is "the way the film was intended to be seen." It is nothing but a marketing line; if the video folks were so intent on faithfulness to the film presentation, then they wouldn't be so fast to throw in half the junk that was originally left on the editing floor -- all those "additional scenes not shown in theatres." Usually there's a reason the director cuts scenes from a film....because, hello, they weren't intended to be there!

Frank

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-21-2002, 09:52 PM:

Michael Coate said:

"Huh? 2.39:1 has been the standard scope projection ratio for the past thirty years! (Maybe John Pytlak can post a reference to the SMPTE standards here.) Most people, however, either (A) don't know that the standard is actually 2.39:1 (rather than 2.35:1) or (B) they simply use the more common term of "2.35:1." Others prefer refering to scope with the figure of 2.40:1, which is subjectively correct as well, but is simply a rounded figure."

A few years ago, I researched the history of the "scope" standards, which is now posted on Marty Hart's "American Widescreen Museum" website:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/apertures.htm

From 1957 through today, there have been a number of small changes to the anamorphic projector aperture recommended standards. John P. Pytlak of Eastman Kodak dug through countless back issues of the SMPTE Journal in order to provide the following chronology of the changes to the standards:

The March 1957 SMPTE Journal has PH22.104-1957, the standard for 2.55:1 anamorphic (no optical track), with an aperture size of 0.912 X 0.715 inches. Notice of withdrawal of this standard was in the January 1964 Journal.

The December 1957 SMPTE Journal has PH22.106-1957 for 2.35:1 anamorphic, with an aperture of 0.839 X 0.715 inches. It was unchanged in the September 1964 Journal. The November 1965 SMPTE Journal published PH22.106-1965 still with the 0.839 X 0.715 aperture size.

In the September 1970 SMPTE Journal, a new draft of PH22.106 was proposed, with an aperture size of 0.838 X 0.700 inches, to minimize the flashes at splices. This was republished as standard PH22.106-1971 in the October 1971 issue.

In the June 1976 SMPTE Journal, the two (flat and scope) projectable image area standards (PH22.58 and PH22.106) were consolidated into one standard and renamed PH22.195. The publication of PH22.195-1984 in the October 1984 Journal still had the scope area as 0.700 X 0.838 inches.

The June 1992 SMPTE Journal published a proposed revision, with a scope area of 0.690 X 0.825 inches. In August 1993, the standard was published as SMPTE 195-1993, with the current area of 0.690 X 0.825 inches. So August 1993 is when the two formats became the same width of 0.825 inches.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-22-2002, 12:31 AM:

I'll have to visit my archives for the American Cinematographer which discusses Empire of the Sun but having handled the film at a campus theatre in 1988 I can tell you that it was 1.66 on the print (or something close to that... I never actually measured it). The matting was done in the camera, if I recall the American Cinematographer article correctly. There's a shot near the time of the atomic bomb blast mentioned in the film where the screen goes white... because they printed a "clear" effect and a dissolve to the next shot. That "clear" frame is not matted like the rest of the film.

Oddly enough, there's a shot on the laserdisc where you can see the boom microphone quite clearly in the bottom of the screen. It's around the time of the costume party (early in the film) and after the boy goes to get his glider and stumbles upon a group of soldiers. As the boy and two men are walking away, there's the fuzzy, gray microphone cover, plain as day. I don't think they wanted that to be seen in theatres and I'm disappointed that it's on the laserdisc and/or that the laserdisc was not 1.85. Also early in the film (but in a different scene) there's an odd dissolve right in the middle of a shot. It's really weird and I don't know if it was that way in the theatrical release or it's unique to the laserdisc. I always admired that film because, on the technical side, I consider it one of the most flawless movies ever made. So it's sad to start seeing errors on the disc.

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 06-22-2002, 07:58 AM:

Frank said,

quote:
Not all current scope releases hard matted to 2.39, but leave the frame wide open.

Are SCOPE releases ever hard matted (letter-boxed, not door-boxed) on the 35mm print material? I don't see the reason. It is not like there is anything left to hide.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-22-2002, 09:17 AM:

If the usual continuous contact printing is used to duplicate a negative shot with anamorphic lenses, the framelines on "scope" prints are the ones from the original camera aperture. If the movie was shot in Super-35, a contact IP is usually made, and the "squeeze" is done in the optical printing of the duplicate negatives. The framelines on the duplicate negative and release prints then come from the optical printer aperture.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 06-22-2002, 02:09 PM:

quote:
Release prints made from duplicate negatives can have excellent quality. For "Film Done Right", the proper procedure is to contact print the short pitch original negative (BH-1866 perfs) onto a long pitch master positive (DH-1870 perfs). Then use a (slower) pin-registered step printer to make the short pitch duplicate negatives (BH-1866 perfs). The sound negative is recorded directly onto short pitch sound recording film (KS-1866 perfs). Then contact release prints are made onto long pitch print film (KS-1870 perfs). This method minimizes any slippage in the printers to give the optimum steadiness and sharpness, even with high speed release printing.

John, are optical printers inherently pin-registered devices? I'm thinking that if this is the case, then this would remove one of the variables for 'film done wrong' at the lab stage (with super 35). Yet, I have seen that super-35 print quality can vary substantially. Would most of the loss in sharpness from one procedure to another come down to incorrect pitch choices at each printing stage?

As an example, I projected two prints of 'The Beach' (super 35) prior to its release - one print of the movie was 20 minutes longer and sharpness and colour were outstanding - even long shots were extremely crisp and fine-detailed. The next print came from a different lab, and it was extremely grainy even on a modest-sized screen. Sharpness and detail were lacking in absolute terms, but *especially* in comparison to what I knew was possible from the source material - it was like watching a different movie. What went wrong? I assume that the duplicate negative of the inferior print was already flawed, meaning that the fault was either with the IP or the optical-squeeze step used to create the DN. I'm therefore wondering where can such discrepancies occur and what can be done to prevent them?

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-22-2002, 02:16 PM:

quote:
Are SCOPE releases ever hard matted (letter-boxed, not door-boxed) on the 35mm print material? I don't see the reason. It is not like there is anything left to hide.

What would the hard matting be anyway? The difference between 2.35 and 2.39

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-22-2002, 03:00 PM:

The only hard matting on anamorphic prints I remember is on the 4 track mag prints of Benhur that held the original UltraPanavision(MGM Camera65) AR

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-23-2002, 01:55 AM:

I'm confused. Is the grain on Super 35 films caused primarily by the smaller negative or by some step in the printing process? Also, are there any extra generations in between the original negative and the release print of Super 35 films in comparison to something which was shot anamorphic?

I really hate how most Super 35 movies look. I suppose that there are valid reasons for using the format. It seems ideal for someone like John Frankenheimer, who likes to have really deep focus and wide aspect ratios. But I don't understand people like James Cameron who think it's great for when the film is released on video. Why bother? Anamorphic films look so much better for so many reasons. And now, especially with DVD, it doesn't seem like a good compromise at all.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-23-2002, 02:15 AM:

I'll take a guess here and say it's because the mass public doesn't give a flip and just wants their tv pictures to be as big as their tv screen, artistic integrity be damned. Even people who I have educated to understand the whole "scope" aspect ratio will still say they don't care if they are losing half of the picture, just so long as their tv's picture fills the screen.

Posted by Brian Tristam Williams (Member # 1235) on 06-23-2002, 07:09 AM:

What I've seen done often enough, despite the standard aperture sizes, is the filing of the aperture plates to customise them to the house in which they're utilised. If they are removed for cleaning, and then replaced in the wrong house, they cause problems.

That's the way it's done here. Curious: is the filing of aperture plates standard procedure?

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-23-2002, 08:18 AM:

Yes, filing of plates is a normal part of installing a theatre.

Given that lenses are made in specific focal length increments (generally 5mm, sometimes 2.5mm) it is unlikely that one will be able to precisely size and mask the image over different formats with whatever screen dimension is being held constant (preferably a constant height) and the proper amount of spill onto the masking without some small adjustment of the aperture.

And that's just regarding overall image size. Correction is also required for keystoning of the image when there is down-tilt or up-tilt (the keystoning of the image will still be there but will be less noticable when the sides are kept straight. Ditto for projection onto curved screens. A small percentage loss of image at the edges for this purpose is built into the industry standard specs (SMPTE etc).

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-23-2002, 09:15 AM:

Michael Brown said:

>What would the hard matting be anyway? The difference between 2.35 and 2.39<

Exactly. The 2.39 frameline is a bit thicker than what you usually see on scope prints and if your optical system is projecting EXACTLY 2.35, then a print that IS hard matted to 2.39, will project frame lines, albeit slight, on the top and bottom of the screen.

As Steve points out, this difference will not usually be correctable by changing the prime lens. With lenses manufactured for the most part in 5mm increments, the next FL step would be to much to make that slight correction. The easy way around this problem would be to replace the prime lens with the new Schneider variable FL prime which is adjustable to about 7% of the mean focal length. That would allow you to make the slight adjustment that would be needed to eliminate the visible frame lines of a hard matted 2.39 print. This is an expensive proposition, however, especially for a non-profit like us.

We will probably wind up doing the simplest option, and that is dropping the top mask to compensate -- a lot cheaper than buying two new lenses. Dropping the mask, however, will mean cropping our 1.37 a bit, but it actually will help our 1.85 since that was a tad overcut (maybe like 1.83 or something). It would be really nice if ALL lenses had that 7% variable option.

Frank

PS -- Has anyone ever considered mechanizing that laborious plate filing job? While filing plates for 4 formats and two projectors, I had plenty of time to think of ways to make this job easier. I pictured rigging the file to a reciprocal saw using the saw blade clamp to hold the file; then I'd put the saw on a jig to keep it immobile. It just might work and believe me, the next time I have to file a complete set, I will give this a try.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 06-23-2002, 09:42 AM:

Frank; I've seen people use those "nibblers"; a tool that takes little bites out of thin sheet metal to at least get close to the desired size.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-23-2002, 10:43 AM:

Brad,
I totally agree with you that filmmakers use Super 35 to cater to the general public's demands to have their TV screens filled, regardless of artistic integrity. But since that artistic integrity is going to be thrown out the window for the video release, and nobody who's seeing that release is going to care anyway, why lose artistic integrity in the theater by not shooting in anamorphic?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-23-2002, 12:38 PM:

I have no idea Mike, but I wholeheartedly agree with your reasoning. It's ashamed the people making the films don't.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-23-2002, 01:30 PM:

I would tend to disagree with the notion that there are no artistic concerns driving the choice of Super 35. Let me offer some examples. James Cameron has gone on record saying that he can't stand the visual artifacts of anamorphic photography. The fact that he chooses Super 35 seems to be driven by this aesthetic concern and he quite obviously makes sure that the labs he works with minimize the visual limitations of the format. The fact that he also utilizes the flexibility and options afforded by Super 35 (for both video and theatrical releases) is just a bonus for him. In the case of Apollo 13, the filmmakers decided that in order to have enough depth of field in cramped "capsule sets" (some of which would be inside airplanes where they wouldn't be allowed huge lighting set-ups) they needed to go with Super 35. There were a lot of side shots of the three astronauts sitting side-by-side and they wanted those guys to be in focus. And don't forget that Digital Domain (James Cameron's company) was doing visual effects for that film. In the case of Top Gun they were able to get more bang-for-the-buck using Super 35 with 3-perf pull-down on their cameras mounted to fighter jets (and this required slightly fewer camera reloads). In the case of Lord of the Rings, both Peter Jackson and his visual effects team were experienced in and comfortable with Super 35 for previous projects. Refering to all this in terms of abandoning "artistic integrity" seems a bit extreme.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-23-2002, 02:04 PM:

I think if "artistic integrity" of the filmed image was the primary concern, then some of these Super35 films would have been shot on spherical 65mm film, or at least have the Super35 elements enlarged to 70mm blowup prints.

The avoidance of optical abberations from 'scope compression lenses is just one thing. I think the tyranny of home video's need for "full frame" is the top reason to use Super35 far above all other reasons.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-23-2002, 07:26 PM:

"I think the tyranny of home video's need for "full frame" is the top reason to use Super35 far above all other reasons."

...Then there must be a conspiracy to conceal this top priority from the readers of American Cinematographer. I don't wish to be contrary, but switching from spherical to anamorphic isn't quite as easy as changing lenses on a 35mm still camera. And shooting in 65mm introduces even more problems with depth of field issues. I have to face the fact that much of the know-how which was used to shoot the 65mm masterpieces of the 1960s has been lost. I think Far and Away is a prime example of what happens when an over-confident cinematographer decided it would be easy to switch to 65mm and get great results. I doubt there are very many cinematographers working today who'd like to make such a high-profile stumble... especially when the industry (on both the production and exhibition side) believes that 35mm is good enough.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-23-2002, 07:35 PM:

Other than economics if quality was the issue to avoid anamorphic elements then shoot on 65 spherical or VV horizontal.
But I think it comes down to "Super35 is GOOD ENOUGH" mentality

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-23-2002, 11:45 PM:

Greg,
The reasons you list for filmmakers choosing Super 35 are definitely good reasons. I had heard many of these examples before, as well others. David Fincher, for example likes Super 35 because the lenses are smaller and do not interfere as much with actors. That's OK. What I think is not OK is people like Martin Scorsese, who preferred the widescreen ratio, but didn't feel comfortable shooting films in anamorphic because of what would be lost on video. Another would be John Woo, who, I'm told, shot WINDTALKERS in Super 35 because he didn't want to deal with the hassle of anamorphic lenses.

As for Cameron's reasoning, I had not heard that he does not like the artifacts created by anamorphic lenses. This is a good reason for him not to use them. But at the same time, I think he's nuts. What I love more than anything else about anamorphic lenses are all of the little imperfections. This is why I'd prefer them over one of the larger formats. I grew up with movies like ALIEN and DIE HARD, so to me, those imperfections are just a part of movies. I think they're beautiful. But that's just my opinion, and, unlike Mr. Cameron, I haven't directed four or five of the best pictures ever made, so I'll shut up now.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-24-2002, 12:55 AM:

I believe the reason the SUPER 35 format was FIRST used was precisely for the depth of field problem. The DP of the 1983 GREYSTOKE wanted the SCOPE look but a better depth of focusthen was achievable by SCOPE lenses, especially in the jungle scenes (this was fairly well documented in AMerican Cinematographer). If depth of field is the one determining factor in avoiding scope, then shooting in 65mm would be even more of a problem with the larger lenses used.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 06-24-2002, 12:56 AM:

Here is an interview in which James Cameron discusses his use of Super-35. Here is a quote from page 2:

quote:
Whenever you have lens flares in anamorphic, you get these straight lines all the way across the frame. Some people like those, but I think they're ridiculous and don't correspond to anything in the way the human eye sees things. People associate that effect with 'big movies,' but that's just because for a long time big movies were all shot in anamorphic. So some people think a picture has that 'big movie' look because the headlights on a car create these white lines that go from one edge of the frame to the other. That doesn't correspond to anything I see in my daily life ... Super 35 just lacks certain anamorphic artifacts that I think are detriments, and I much prefer that look.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-24-2002, 01:32 AM:

James Cameron is a wacky guy. Personally, I don't associate anamorphic lens flares with big movies. I associate them with cool movies. And one of the reasons why they are so cool is because they have anamorphic lens flares. He says that the human eye doesn't see lens flares in daily life. Well, it doesn't see grain either. Personally, I'd rather see the lens flares. But that's just me. Cameron can and should do whatever he wants. Having made THE ABYSS, he has earned that right. Just as long as the only reason isn't because of his concern for the video release.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-24-2002, 02:51 AM:

I dunno, I look at those new super high intensity designer headlights that look like they've got 4000w xenon bulbs in them, and not only do I see flare that goes across my entire field of vision, but for the next quarter mile I don't see ANYTHING and then for the next three miles, all I see is big round dots.

I am very close to perfecting a secret invention (patent pending) that easily installs in the front dash; it senses those super bright "designer" headlights while they are still miles away and aims a cryaton particle beam at them, creating a sympathetic vibration of the filaments which causes them to EXPLODE before they get anywhere near my car. The deluxe model will also immediately jam any "On-Star" transmitter should it be used to call for help.

Oh, and excuse me, James (King-of-the-World) Cameron, are you saying that spherical lenses have no flare? How about those shots made with a spherical lens where a bright light will produce a line-up of dots that radiate progressively outward from the light source, and if the light source moves, the line of dots swings around the radius -- do we see THAT in real life? Some of these artifacts are a given in cinematography. Years ago such shots might have been re-done; in recent years this kind of artifact is more and more tolerated. It's really a matter of taste and what bothers or doesn't bother the director and/or cinematographer. If Mr. Cameron is annoyed by the flare caused by anamorphic lenses as opposed to the flare caused by spherical lenses, you really can't argue with him; but as far as the audience is concerned, if polled, they probably would say that anyone arguing about which is the better kind of flare, needs to change their medication or just say no to drugs all together.

Frank

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-24-2002, 03:15 AM:

FWIW when my glasses get little droplets of water on them I tend to see reflections of headlights similar to what you see in spherical.

I've never seen the anamorphic flare occur anywhere else in real life.

Besides, a lot of scope projection lenses suck. I'm running test loops in all of my projectors to determine which (if any) of the scope lenses are still any good. So far...I'd say they all need to be replaced for one reason or another. Mainly it's a focus problem.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-24-2002, 04:51 AM:

Manny, odds are the anamorphic is not focused properly. Load up a PA35 loop. Dial the anamorphic's focus to it's extreme so the picture is incredibly blurry. Now use the projector's focus to focus the horizontal lines razor sharp. From this point on, do not touch the projector's focus again. Now adjust the anamorphic's focus until the vertical lines converge and you have the sharpest picture possible. Now lock down the anamorphic's focus and you're done. You have now just focused the lens THROUGH the lens, instead of relying on those footage marks on the barrel which are always a bit off.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-24-2002, 07:13 AM:

Wow Brad! It's funny you know...Never focused them like that before. Seems like it should've been one of the first things I learned, huh?

Thanks. I will try that today and let you know if it helps...these were used lenses when I got them, so it was easy to assume that they weren't aging gracefully.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-24-2002, 09:45 AM:

It's all in the "Tips" section of Film-Tech:

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

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-24-2002, 09:56 AM:

Standard SMPTE 59 specifies the Camera Aperture Image and Usage. For "Style B" anamorphic pictures, the aperture dimensions are 0.864 x 0.732 inches. So if the usual continuous contact printing was used for duplicating, the height of the "scope" frame on the film for a production shot with anamorphic camera lenses would be 0.732 inches, and the framelines would be 0.014 inches thick (4 x 0.1866 - 0.732 = 0.0144). Of course, SMPTE 195 specifies the projectable image area as 0.825 x 0.690 inches.

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.

Posted by Brian Tristam Williams (Member # 1235) on 06-25-2002, 01:48 AM:

Personally, I love the anamorphic process. I love the character of it - the lens flares, the elliptical abberations, all of it.

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.

We're not going to the pictures to see real life. If we wanted that, we could sit in the park. Anyhow, each to their own. I just happen to like the 'feel' of anamorphic.

Posted by David Baum (Member # 568) on 06-25-2002, 06:41 AM:

Panavision (ideally with 70mm) looks the best, imho. non anamorphic 35mm 2.39:1 is however prefered for its "easiness" to shoot (compared to Panavision) and it "looses" less when transfered for the crappy 4/3 viewings on TV

, so 35mm 2.39:1 transfered to video "looks" often sharper (but less with less depth!!) than Panavision.
Btw,is Minority Report print so blurry and fusy because of the filtering as some say? http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/static_subpages/formats/shooting_formats.html

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 06-25-2002, 01:35 PM:

Brian, there is such a thing as going too far in anamorphic advocacy. It's great because it gives better resolution, less grain, and widescreen images, while still using 4-perf 35mm. It's not great because it has less depth-of-field, uneven focus shifting, and unusual lens flare effects.

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.

Interestingly enough, some of the CGI in Minority Report was mistakenly rendered with anamorphic lens effects. The scene on the highway, for instance, showed some anamorphic flare (watch for ovals). Poor communication with the effects house, I suppose?

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-25-2002, 01:59 PM:

I'm guessing that the CGI lens flares were intentionally made to look anamorphic. Movies do this all the time and it drives me crazy, because it seems like they're cheating. STAR WARS: EPISODE II--ATTACK OF THE CLONES does this. So does PANIC ROOM. The only thing that bothers me more than that are when spherical lens flares are used for anamorphic movies. Spielberg did this with HOOK, and it also happened in BLESS THE CHILD.

I'm sure that it is very annoying to work with anamorphic lenses, and there are certainly some problems with them. But I'd still rather have shallow focus and lens flares than excessive grain.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-25-2002, 02:53 PM:

Mike said: "I'm sure that it is very annoying to work with anamorphic lenses, and there are certainly some problems with them. But I'd still rather have shallow focus and lens flares than excessive grain."

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".

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-25-2002, 04:04 PM:

I'm still confused. Is the massive amount of grain found in most Super 35 films caused mainly by the smaller negative or by some step in post-production? Also, are there any extra generations in between the original negative and the release print of a Super 35 film as opposed to something which was shot anamorphic?

John, what's a recent example of "Super 35 done right"? Can this vary from print to print of a single movie? I'm just wondering, because I saw a print of WINDTALKERS at school a couple of months ago, and it looked substantially better than the one which is at my theater right now. Of course, we're showing it on a much larger screen, but the difference seemed to be pretty big.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-25-2002, 07:38 PM:

Certainly the very fact that optical printing is being used will have a tendency to bring up the grain. Super 35 generally looks great in dailies. The falloff in quality that typically ocurrs seems greater than the simple IP/IN generational loss one sees with regular printing. It's useful to look at the 2.39 projected image and try to imagine the size of the entire original silent-width 35mm frame above and below it. When one considers how large such a tiny sliver of negative is being enlarged then it doesn't seem so bad.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-25-2002, 08:53 PM:

Steve,
Thanks a lot for the info. But now I have a somewhat unrelated question. What exactly is the aspect ratio of a full 35mm frame without a soundtrack? I've been told that it's 1.67:1. Is that true? I'm just curious.

By the way Steve, (and this completely off-topic, I'm sorry) but I've been fortunate enough to see a couple movies in your theater and I was really impressed. It has this atmosphere of, like, a total love for movies. It's really cool. Thanks for the experience.

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 06-25-2002, 09:16 PM:

(topic) Anamorphic Flare - If flare is going to happen, I like AF as opposed to plain old, spherical lens flare. Gives you that good old Hollywood/Panavision feeling. (I like cue dots too. I will miss those guys someday.)

(Ditto that feeling about distant, out-of-focus points of light, but either circle (or oval)-of-confusion is acceptable.)

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

(topic) Graininess in "Minority Report" - until Spielberg says differently, I believe that was his vision. I don't like graininess normally, but for this picture I think it worked, as did his Black & White vision for "Schindler's List".

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-25-2002, 11:12 PM:

Mitchell,
I totally agree with everything you said about MINORITY REPORT.

Can you think of anything more recent than TITANIC? I didn't have a very good eye for things like this at that point. Could you give an example of something from, say, the past 2 years? If not, then doesn't that say something about the quality of Super 35 in general? Also, how much of "Super 35 done right" falls on the filmmaker's shoulders as opposed to other factors, like the lab, money, etc.? From that Cameron interview, it seemed like he had a bit more control over the process than most people, but he was also taking greater care to ensure that it would turn out OK. Thanks.

Posted by Brian Tristam Williams (Member # 1235) on 06-26-2002, 02:28 AM:

Tao:

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.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-26-2002, 05:02 AM:

There are some parts of Minority report with the hard matte 2.39 framelines and other scenes without it. Unfortunately, on our reel one, the frame seems to have been slightly printed 'up' in the frame so we get to see the frameline unless the machine is adjusted. This printing error has not been confirmed, but I'll do that soon when I actually remember to take in the camera, but from the looks of it so far it is the case.

The Fox snipe has no matted line but the Dreamworks does, as an example.

BTW, both my Fox snipe AND my Dreamworks snipe look like the neg. has been water damaged. You'd think a director of Spielberg's quality would never allow a negative out of his control with those sort of obvious faults.

Just goes to show, eh?

------------------
Too much of the rest of the film is given over to a romance between Padme and Anakin in which they're incapable of uttering anything other than the most basic and weary romantic cliches, while regarding each other as if love was something to be endured rather than cherished. There is not a romantic word they exchange that has not long since been reduced to cliche.

No, wait: Anakin tells Padme at one point: "I don't like the sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating--not like you. You're soft and smooth." I hadn't heard that before.

- Roger Ebert reviewing Episode 2. :)

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 06-26-2002, 07:09 AM:

John said,

quote:
BTW, both my Fox snipe AND my Dreamworks snipe look like the neg. has been water damaged. You'd think a director of Spielberg's quality would never allow a negative out of his control with those sort of obvious faults.

John, are you talking about the snipes looking like they are submerged underwater? I'm not sure what the symbolism was supposed to be about that. Were these snipes to be like the pre-cogs in the film? I personally thought that the snipes didn't work. Why mess with those great looking Fox and Dreamworks logos?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-26-2002, 08:02 AM:

Mike Schindler asked: "Can you think of anything more recent than TITANIC?"

AFAIK, a majority of "scope" features today are shot in "Super 35". Here is what a quick search of the imdb yielded:
http://us.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PCS%3ASuper+35
http://us.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?for=PCS%3ASuper+35&skip=200

Some pretty good (as well as bad) looking pictures on that long list. For example, both "American Beauty" and "Titanic" won Academy Awards for Best Cinematography.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-26-2002, 08:05 AM:

I think that the snipes were supposed to be seen from the Pre-Cog's perspective. The very first seen in the movie is also from their perspective.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-26-2002, 08:32 AM:

Out of the movies on that list that I remember well, there are a few that lacked grain. One that comes to mind as looking particularly nice is JAY AND SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK. But the overwhelming majority of them were very grainy. Actually, two movies that looked very nice were O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU, and PANIC ROOM. Does this have something to do with the fact that they were colored digitally?

As for AMERICAN BEAUTY, This was the first time that I remember noticing the excessive graininess of Super 35. Actually, I also remember reading an interview with Conrad Hall somewhere where he talked about how he did something like underexpose the film a bit in order to intentionally get a grainy look, but forgot about how much grain was naturally in the Super 35 process, and wished that he would have given the film a bit more exposure.

By the way, did you notice how many movies on that list were not actually shot in Super 35? Gotta love the imdb

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-26-2002, 08:42 AM:

Yes, "O Brother Where Art Thou" and "Panic Room" utilized "Digital Intermediate". The original negative is usually scanned with a very diffuse light source (Kodak builds the scanner head for the Spirit DataCine). Grain-reduction is often part of the Digital Intermediate system.
______________________________________________________________________
Kodak won an "Emmy" for its work on the scanning optics for the Spirit DataCine:
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/oct98/emmy/sidebar/pg1.htm

"Awarded to Michael Broesamle, Uwe Braehler, Volker Massmann and Wolfgang Steinebach of Philips Digital Video Systems and Arthur J. Cosgrove, Andrew F. Kurtz, Roger T. Lees and Leslie G. Moore of Eastman Kodak for the design and manufacture of the industry-standard high-definition digital telecine.

The Spirit DataCine Film Scanner is a joint development between Philips Digital Video Systems and Eastman Kodak. The combination of the Advanced Imaging Head from Eastman, and the precision transport mechanisms and high-speed digital signal processing developed by Philips, has resulted in a new benchmark for high-quality film transfers in both standard-definition and high-definition video standards and high-speed data scanning."
______________________________________________________________________

A "grainy" look can be an artistic choice --- using very high speed stocks and underexposure are "tools" to achieve that "look". But Super 35 can be very sharp and fine grained too.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-26-2002, 03:15 PM:

I thought I'd add just a little something to cheer up those of you who fear that Hollywood directors are consumed with a desire to please the fans of full frame video.

Most of the work I do is behind-the-scenes on made-for-TV poductions. However, this Spring I worked on a theatrical feature film... a big-budget science fiction movie from a major Hollywood studio. (!) The format was 2.39:1 using Panavision anamorphic lenses. The viewfinders had framing lines for 2.39 only... no hint of any other aspect ratio during production. I never heard the director say a word about video transfer issues. He never watched anything but the wide, "letterbox" image on his video assist monitors. In fact, they did a lot of shots where you'd see, for example, four guys standing shoulder-to-shoulder filling the whole frame. (!)

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-27-2002, 07:54 PM:

I think CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON was also shot in Super 35.
Michael

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-27-2002, 08:02 PM:

quote:
Mitchell,
I totally agree with everything you said about MINORITY REPORT.
Can you think of anything more recent than TITANIC? I didn't have a very good eye for things like this at that point. Could you give an example of something from, say, the past 2 years? If not, then doesn't that say something about the quality of Super 35 in general? Also, how much of "Super 35 done right" falls on the filmmaker's shoulders as opposed to other factors, like the lab, money, etc.? From that Cameron interview, it seemed like he had a bit more control over the process than most people, but he was also taking greater care to ensure that it would turn out OK. Thanks.

Super 35 films:

Harry Potter
Lord of The Rings
Panic Room
The Musketeer

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-28-2002, 03:24 AM:

From what I remember, CROUCHING TIGER was pretty good, wasn't it? I suppose HARRY POTTER was OK too (although I don't remember it very well), and PANIC ROOM doesn't really count. But LORD OF THE RINGS was grainy as hell and THE MUSKETEER was worse.

Posted by David Baum (Member # 568) on 06-28-2002, 05:06 AM:

2 very different looking super 35mm movies:
THE 5TH ELEMENT, which looks gorgeous, ultra sharp with no grain

THE LORD OF THE RINGS, which looked awful, grainy as hell ( especially the outdoor greeny scenes, with that city in the moutains and of course the beginning )

BLADE is also superb, I always thought it was shot in Panavision but it's not

HEAT was shot in Panavision and looks a bit too grainy...

PEARL HARBOR and CAPTAIN CORELLI'S MANDOLIN both shot in Panavision and look gorgeous.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-28-2002, 06:03 AM:

Again, the camera negative format is only part of the story. Moderate speed films and "rich" exposure can reduce graininess significantly. Even Super-16 "done right" can look very good on a big screen.

Posted by David Baum (Member # 568) on 06-28-2002, 07:52 AM:

You're definitely right. maybe we could run down some known super 35mm movies and see which color process etc were used and see how grainy there were and then draw conclusions. ( via IMDB most likely )

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 06-28-2002, 09:35 AM:

OK, last night I found the following recent films that were supposedly made in Super 35 according to IMDB. As I remember seeing these on the large screen, I don't remember any particular problem with the picture quality.

Charlie's Angels
Ocean's Eleven (Las Vegas dark)
In The Bedroom
Proof Of Life

Others have been made, but due to CGI or what I consider may have been the director's vision (e.g., "Minority Report"), they have not been named for comparison.

Any comment?

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-28-2002, 10:50 AM:

BLADE wasn't shot in "Panavision," but it was shot with anamorphic lenses.

You're right, CHARLIE'S ANGELS did look good. Interestingly, it had the same D.P. as TITANIC, Russell Carpenter. IN THE BEDROOM looked OK too. But OCEAN'S ELEVEN was super grainy. I was just watching the DVD, and you can even see the grain on there.

So, assuming the filmmaker's not James Cameron, how much control do they have over the quality of Super 35? Is it just about getting a good negative, or do they need to hold the lab's hand through the process, or is it just a case of trial and error, and studios not willing to pay for something that's good when they already have something that's OK?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-28-2002, 12:30 PM:

Mike Schindler asked: "...how much control do they have over the quality of Super 35? Is it just about getting a good negative, or do they need to hold the lab's hand through the process...?"

It is MOSTLY about "getting a good negative". Compared to fast camera negative films, the Kodak intermediate and print stocks used by the lab have very fine grain:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/5242.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/global/images/en/motion/products/lab/f002_1140ac2.gif
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2383.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/products/curves/2383Diff.pdf

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-30-2002, 06:23 PM:

Mike Schindler asked:

quote:
What exactly is the aspect ratio of a full 35mm frame without a soundtrack? I've been told that it's 1.67:1. Is that true?

The answer to your question is 1.33:1 (.980 x .735" = 1.33:1).

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-30-2002, 08:13 PM:

OK. That makes sense. But it brings up two more questions. What is the aspect ratio of a full 35mm film frame with a soundtrack? And where does the whole 1.37:1 thing come in?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-30-2002, 08:16 PM:

And you got those numbers from where?

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-30-2002, 08:26 PM:

1.37:1, I've been told was the ratio for most sound films made before 1953. I've heard this from multiple sources, but the one which is currently in front of me is Leonard Maltin's 2002 MOVIE & VIDEO GUIDE.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-30-2002, 08:52 PM:

Michael Coate answered:

quote:
The answer to your question is 1.33:1 (.980 x .735" = 1.33:1).

Mike Schindler then asked:

quote:
OK. That makes sense. But it brings up two more questions. What is the aspect ratio of a full 35mm film frame with a soundtrack? And where does the whole 1.37:1 thing come in?

I don't have any actual numbers for 35mm with optical soundtrack. I don't think there is a projection spec on this because nothing is meant to be shown that way, though the figure would be fractionally larger than the anamorphic projection aperture, which is .825 x .690" (1.20:1). Actually, some films were shown in the range of 1.15:1 - 1.20:1 in the late 1920s and early 1930s in between the introduction of sound and the establishment of the Academy format.

The 1.37:1 Academy ratio falls *within* the anamorphic spec. Same width and slightly less height (.825 x 600").

I think many people mistakenly think the frame *with* the optical soundtrack is 1.33:1/1.37:1, which may be what led you to believe the full aperture was in a wider ratio (1.67:1 was the figure I think you noted).

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-30-2002, 08:57 PM:

Michael,

Where did you get your full frame spec?

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-30-2002, 09:46 PM:

Steve Guttag asked:

quote:
Michael,
Where did you get your full frame spec?

The "Film and Camera Formats" section of the Panavision catalog. Other specs have been referenced from the BKSTS series of wall charts.

Steve, why do you ask? Do you have a different figure?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-01-2002, 12:41 AM:

Turning this topic a bit further back; Steve Kraus, when you project Super 35 dailies, what aspect ratio do you use? Do you project them in 2.39:1? Are you ever asked to run them in 1.37:1 (or other)?

--jhawk

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 07-01-2002, 02:19 AM:

I agree that getting good results with super-35 starts with a good negative. Russell Carpenter spoke about that specifically with regards to 'Titanic'.

However, I'm still interested in what else can go right/wrong. In an example I cited earlier, I saw two prints of 'The Beach' (ergo, same camera negative) and one of them was of the 'I can't believe it's not 70MM' variety (well, not quite, but you know what I mean), whereas the other one was 'Is this 16MM or just grainy, soft 35MM?', and that's not an exaggeration.

So what could have contributed to this?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-01-2002, 01:59 PM:

Standard SMPTE 59 specifies the 35mm Camera Aperture Images and Usage.

Style A is 0.864 x 0.63 inches (21.95 x 16.00 mm) (Non-Anamorphic)

Style B is 0.864 x 0.732 inches (21.95 x 18.59 mm) (Anamorphic)

Style C is 0.981 x 0.735 inches (24.92 x 18.67 mm) ("Special Processes", including Super-35)

Standard SMPTE 195 specifies the current projectable image areas for 35mm prints. The 1.37:1 aspect ratio (0.825 x 0.602 inches) traces its origin to the "Academy" aspect ratio of 0.825 x 0.600 inches (e.g., old ASA Standard Z 52.37).

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-01-2002, 04:26 PM:

So would it be safe to assume that Styles A & B have less width than Style C because they are taking the soundtrack into account?

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-01-2002, 07:43 PM:

I've only run Super 35 dailies in 2.39. I don't recall ever having anyone ask to see the rest of the frame.

I have run Super 35 workprints in approx. 2.2 : 1. Absolutely not my idea but that of another tech who took 1.85 plates and widened them to cover the Super 35 full silent width. The idea was to continue to fill the height of the screen (given common height projection) while still using the same lens as for 1.85. I kinda liked the 2.2 thing as a sort of guilty pleasure. Just set framing so the headroom aligns with their chart and you get a bit of excess picture at the bottom which rarely matters. Wrong...very wrong. But with the sharp image of a workprint off the camera negative and the 2.2 : 1 ratio you could easily imagine you're watching 70mm.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-02-2002, 09:46 AM:

The centerline for projection prints with optical sound (SMPTE 195) is 0.738 inches (18.75 mm) from the Reference Edge (soundtrack side) of the print. The "Super-35" centerline is 0.688 inches (17.48 mm) from the Reference Edge.

And 0.738 - 0.688 = 0.050 inches, or half the nominal width of the analog soundtrack, the reason for the shift in centerline.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-02-2002, 02:28 PM:

Nic Margherio said:

quote:
I found it quite curious that [Spielberg] would all of the sudden choose to shoot [MINORITY REPORT] in 2.39 and I was just wondering if anyone had any information on this.

There is a feature article on the photography of MINORITY REPORT in the July issue of American Cinematographer. While the article does not go into specific detail on *why* the 2.39:1 ratio was selected, there were a couple passages that may be of interest and are related to the selection of film format.

"MINORITY REPORT also marked Spielberg's first foray into Super 35 filmmaking. [DP Janusz] Kaminski chose Panavision Super 35 cameras and Primo lenses, because he knew the Primos' sharpness would help maintain the quality of the image during the optical blowup to an anamorphic print. 'I always use filters and Dior nets, which automatically remove a certain sharpness,' he notes. ' When I saw the blowup test for MINORITY REPORT, the movie benefitted from [Super 35] because the highlights got slightly brighter, the shadows got slightly harder and the colors got slightly more pastel-ish."

Another factor in the selection of Super 35 (over anamorphic) may have been related to the selection of wide angle lenses for the majority of the production. Of course, they could've used the *same* wide angle lenses in the 1.85:1 spherical format, but I'm guessing that the 2.39:1 wide screen ratio was selected first, then the origination process was selected to accommodate achieving that ratio.

"Steven likes the actors to be as close to the camera as possible, so we're most often shooting with a 17mm, 21mm or 27mm," [Kaminski] says. "He's very much an old-fashioned filmmaker in terms of how he tells his stories; that seems like a very tricky statement because his movies are so technologically advanced, but when you see a special effect in Steven's movies, you can experience it in a wide shot, He likes to see action play in one continuous shot rather than being interrupted by an editor's cut, and that's very old-fashioned. We staged a lot of scenes in wide shots that have a lot of things happening within the frame. Of course, there is plenty of quick cutting in the film because there are extensive action sequences, but many scenes are about people and emotions, and we often let the emotions play in a single wide shot."

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-02-2002, 03:54 PM:

[rude sarcasm mode] Mike, this is clear evidence that American Cinematographer is trying to invent artistic reasons for using Super 35 and covering up the overriding need to adapt films for 4:3 video.[/rude sarcasm mode]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-02-2002, 10:19 PM:

So, the July issue of In Camera showed up today, and on the back there's the usual Kodak film ad. I took a little bit of a closer look at it for some reason, and in the upper left, it says about Kodak Vision 800T: "world's fastest tungesten-balanced stock; sharpness and grain of slower products; low light, fast action, anamorphic, super 35mm."

Curiously, it's the only one of the 9 film stocks in the ad that mentions Super 35. Yet it's a fast film; I was under the impression that all the issues with grain in Super 35 meant that you wanted to use slower stocks, not faster ones. So, John, why is Kodak promoting Super 35 with Vision 800T?

--jhawk

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-02-2002, 10:50 PM:

The ad said it: "sharpness and grain of slower products". The VISION color negative technology is constantly improving.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/negative/5289.shtml

Sure, VISION 200T will have finer grain. But if the situation demands, the 5289 can yield remarkable images for being such a fast film.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-02-2002, 10:55 PM:

"Hmm."

I guess I find myself wondering what sort of negative film tends to be used on the Super 35 films that we do see as looking grainy. Thanks for the snappy response., btw.
--jhawk

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-02-2002, 11:42 PM:

Here's that scan I promised of the out of frame frame line in Minority reel one.

As you can see, it is up in the frame...it seems that the bottom of the 'printed' frameline sits on the actual frameline and thus gives the illusion you need to frame down. But don't or you will ACTUALLY be out of frame.

Is every print like this?

John

No, wait: Anakin tells Padme at one point: "I don't like the sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating--not like you. You're soft and smooth." I hadn't heard that before.

- Roger Ebert reviewing Episode 2.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-03-2002, 05:22 AM:

Greg,
I don't think that anyone was arguing that there aren't people who use Super 35 for artistic reasons. It's just that there seem to be a lot of people who don't.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-03-2002, 06:04 AM:

John, yes the prints I've seen are like this too. We thought it an odd defect. Just wait until I get the time to post some examples of the defects in the print I screened!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-03-2002, 08:03 AM:

jhawk said: "I guess I find myself wondering what sort of negative film tends to be used on the Super 35 films that we do see as looking grainy. Thanks for the snappy response., btw."

Having looked at MANY movies in my career, my own feeling is that underexposure is the most frequent culprit in "grainy" pictures. An underexposed negative will print with low density shadow areas ("smoky blacks"), so the fast negative grains that capture shadow detail will be printed light enough to be easily seen on the print. A "richer" exposure pushes the image further up the negative's characteristic curve, onto the finer grained emulsion components, and even the grainer fast components are printed to a "rich" solid black that minimizes the grain.

If I had a limited amount of light, I would choose to use a film that was a stop faster, rather than be forced to underexpose by one stop.

I do not dispute that all things being equal, the larger image area of 2.39:1 anamorphic will yield lower graininess than 2.39:1 Super 35. But the excellent sharpness and low graininess of the KODAK VISION family of films allows Super 35 "Done Right" to look very good:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/negative/

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-03-2002, 08:11 AM:

John Wilson said: "As you can see, it is up in the frame...it seems that the bottom of the 'printed' frameline sits on the actual frameline and thus gives the illusion you need to frame down. But don't or you will ACTUALLY be out of frame."

That Dreamworks title is either a CGI or optical element. Someone erred on the vertical positioning when it was made. It would affect ALL prints.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-04-2002, 08:07 AM:

Yes John. BTW, it's not on the Fox tag yet it continues into the opening pre-cog murder sequence.

Posted by Arthur Allen (Member # 969) on 07-04-2002, 08:30 PM:

Not only was the Dreamworks logo out of line with the Fox logo, but I could swear the first scene after the black titles was also printed up, but I couldn't get my bearings up just then to tell for sure. On later reels there were lots of intermixed scenes with and without the black band at the bottom, but that could partially be because of bi-directional printing.

Posted by Brian Tristam Williams (Member # 1235) on 07-10-2002, 06:11 AM:

Well, I got my first exposure to this print long after this thread was begun, but yes, I did notice that the film was particularly grainy, and it was not shot using an anamorphic process, as there were no aberrations. There were some elliptical lens-flares, but those were done with CGI.

If Super-35 can be 'done right', why isn't it? Why did every print I've seen using it have to be grainy?

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-10-2002, 09:04 AM:

Is "We were soldiers" Super 35 too?
Michael

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-10-2002, 09:34 AM:

Brian asked: "If Super-35 can be 'done right', why isn't it? Why did every print I've seen using it have to be grainy?"

Could be many reasons:

They wanted a grainy/"gritty" look
They couldn't get enough light to avoid underexposure
They preferred the "look" or flexibility of a faster film stock
A proprietary (non-standard) "silver retention" or "bleach bypass" process was used

It can be "done right":
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/dec97/titanic/pgs35/pg1.htm
http://www.cameraguild.com/interviews/chat_carpenter/carpenter_titanic.htm
http://www.cinesite.com/core/press/articles/1998/01_00_98-titanic.html
http://www.cinesite.com/core/press/articles/1998/02_00_98-digital_revolutn.html

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-10-2002, 10:14 AM:

>>Is "We were soldiers" Super 35 too?
Michael<<

From memory, yes.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 07-10-2002, 10:51 AM:

No, "We Were Soldiers" was definitely shot anamorphic. I've read the reason it looked grainy is because it was shot entirely on 800 ASA negatives. Also, according to IMDb, it underwent a 2K digital intermediate (a la "O Brother Where Art Thou"), so the grain size must have been pretty big in order to still show up at 2K resolution.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-10-2002, 11:09 AM:

http://www.editorsguild.com/newsletter/MayJun02/digital_intermediate.html

"On the feature We Were Soldiers, the negative was "overscanned" at 4K, and the resulting data was then down-sampled to 2K, yielding a crisper image than a straight 2K scan, but making it possible to work more quickly and efficiently. Seasoned film timer Mike Stanwick, on loan from Deluxe, was brought in to help with the digital timing. Efilm's proprietary timing and conforming software is resolution-independent, and allows 2K and 4K scans to be mixed in the same reel, a feature that's useful for things like resizes and push-ins. In an effort to eliminate lab timing entirely, Efilm's Arrilaser film recorders are recalibrated constantly to compensate for chemistry fluctuations and the high definition video projector used in timing has settings that closely emulate each film emulsion used. According to Efilm's president, Joe Matza, We Were Soldiers is the first film to have been fully mastered at true 2K resolution, timed entirely on a computer and released with no lab timing. Editor William Hoy was very satisfied with the process and indicated that digital intermediate gave the team creative possibilities that they couldn't have had otherwise."

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-10-2002, 07:11 PM:

In this context, what does "digital timing" mean?
Michael

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-10-2002, 08:35 PM:

In the photo-chemical world timing refers to adjustments to color balance and intensity of exposure as one element is printed to another. Therefore digital timing would refer to similar adjustments made to a digital image. In the digital realm additional adjustments are probably also possible.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-10-2002, 08:56 PM:

Links to information on conventional color timing for printing:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/printing.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h61/

Links to information about "Digital Intermediate" and digital timing:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/dlad/
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/digital/color.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/digital/mastering.shtml
Digital Intermediates
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/students/onCampus/oct2001/dfm.shtml

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-10-2002, 09:29 PM:

Hmmmm....they got someone to come in from Deluxe Labs to oversee the color timing? Digital Color by Deluxe, as it were.....all the digital elements are guaranteed to turn red in five years, heh heh.

Frank

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 07-13-2002, 04:49 AM:

Yup scope it is and good it looks. (And I saw it on a 60-70 foot screen)

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-13-2002, 01:50 PM:

Are you sure it's in Scope?

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 07-15-2002, 04:24 AM:

I guess

Posted by Nic Margherio (Member # 273) on 07-16-2002, 04:15 PM:

If anyone is interested in more information on the "digital intermediate" process there is a fascinating featurette on the "O Brother, Where Art Thou" DVD that gives a good overview of what its all about.