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

This is topic Why is a film shot flat or scope? 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=006654

Posted by Stephen Frazza (Member # 2320) on 10-21-2004, 12:40 PM:

What determines whether a film is shot in flat or scope?
Is there a cost differental between shooting one or the other and if so is it marginal or significant.Or is it just an artistic decision at some level.I only ask because it seems odd to me sometimes when things are shot one way and not the other.
Just to use recent examples like Ladder 49 being flat and Raise your voice being scope.

I searched and read some other post on this but none touched upon whether $ was an issue or is it just artistic?

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 10-21-2004, 12:50 PM:

I think for many directors, it is an artistic choice. For instance, Spielberg was once asked why Jurrasic Park was not in the scope format, and he stated that to convey the height of the dinosaurs, the Flat format was more effective. I like the idea of the artist having this freedom, but what bugs me is when they shoot Super35 and make scope out of it. In many cases, like Master and Commander, it looks worse than it should. Now Lord of the Rings was an exception to this rule, as I think it looked magnificent. In addition, LOTR would have been extremely difficult to do in true anamorphic because of all the shots that used "forced perspective."

AJG

Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 10-21-2004, 01:51 PM:

I think when scope came in in the 50s, it was sort of assumed that eventually all pictures would be shot that way. But a lot of directors / cinematographers balked, for various artistc and technical reasons. 1.85 and 1.66 flat were the compromise.

I like Super 35. Some people don't like shooting with anamorphic lenses, for the artifacts they produce and other reasons. It's better they should be able to use the lenses they want and still have the choice to shoot widescreen.

In the end, I don't think cost is much of a factor in the decision-making process.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 10-21-2004, 02:17 PM:

I think now with the advent of HDTV widescreen televisions you will start to see even more use of the scope aspect ratio. From its introduction with The Robe all the way through the 60's and into the early 70's, it was primarily a tool to draw people away from their televisions. Then it became reserved for those massive production sci-fi and action type films that were also blown up to 70MM. Now just about anything uses the format and Hollywood knows it has to satisfy the home consumer who want their televisions to utilize the full potential of the TV screen.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 10-21-2004, 04:55 PM:

quote: Aaron Garman
For instance, Spielberg was once asked why Jurrasic Park was not in the scope format, and he stated that to convey the height of the dinosaurs, the Flat format was more effective.

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.

Many effects people prefer spherical footage to work with. I recall that in the making of STAR WARS Episode 1 they did a lot of extra work to match effects and composites to the special look of anamorphic live action scenes.

In other words, it saves time and money.

I have noticed that many cinematographers like to speak about the problems of shooting anamorphic. If you check their filmographies, you'd be surprised to learn that most of them never shot a single film anamorphic, so they're talking about tools they never laid hands on. Some DOPs are in love with certain lenses and pieces of equipment, especially when they come from shooting commercials and music videos. They prefer to use the same equipment for theatrical productions and don't want to get involved with the special style of work that goes with anamorphic production.

And there are producers who do not know the differences anyway. A friend of mine spoke to a local producer who had done his third feature film and asked him in which format the film was shot:

FRIEND
Did you shoot in Super-35 or anamorphic Scope?

PRODUCER
???

FRIEND
Was it anamorphic Cinemascope or Super-35?

PRODUCER
...?

FRIEND (indicating with hands)
Did you have big heavy lenses like this... or smaller ones like that?

PRODUCERS
Ah, I see. Yeah, the smaller ones, the big ones would have been to expensive.

[Big Grin]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-21-2004, 05:24 PM:

You might want to search Google / Groups for postings on rec.arts.movies.tech on this very topic. Look especially for posts by David Mullen who is a working DP (recently inducted into ASC) who has done films in both formats and beat George Lucas to market with the first significant release in HD cropped to 2.40, "Jackpot."

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 10-21-2004, 07:01 PM:

It's artistic. It's the producer's choice. Expenses involved in possible wider set design notwithstanding, seems I recall (Phil?) the equipment rents for the same money. At the very least, the difference is negligible considering the overall budget of a picture.

Flat is preferred if they're counting on the show being particularly suited for television. Although eventual television screenings are alloted for, to a degree, when composing shots in 'scope.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 10-22-2004, 04:10 AM:

Another tidbit would be that much of the budget for the original Halloween was used on the panavision anamorphic lenses that Carpenter still prefers to my knowledge. Well, he prefers shooting anamorphic that is.

AJG

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 10-22-2004, 11:35 AM:

quote: Aaron Garman
much of the budget for the original Halloween was used on the panavision anamorphic lenses

That sounds like a stretch (no pun intended). Unless they made custom lenses for him or something, I find that hard to believe. I'm sure there's not that much of a difference in price for the rentals.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 10-22-2004, 12:47 PM:

From The Internet Movie Database

quote:
Half of the $300,000 budget was spent on the Panavison cameras so the film would have a 2:35:1 scope.

AJG

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 10-22-2004, 03:53 PM:

Well, that's not quite the same thing - cameras and lenses are two different parts. They had to have a camera package to shoot the picture, and a complete package (with lenses, and accessories included) can rent for $2,000 a day or more...

The fact that it was anamorphic didn't make it cost more.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 10-22-2004, 04:17 PM:

So far as the Panavision equipment is concerned, whether the production is to be shot Anamorphic or Spherical, the camera rental cost is the same.
While anamorphic lenses cost more to rent than spherical, the chances are that fewer will be taken, if for no other reason than the range of focal lenths is limited compared to spherical. Straightforward Academy format 1.85 release has has its additional costs as higher sets and more ceiling pieces will be required and with Super-35 an important consideration is the additional cost of making the optically printed internegatives. Both of these costs help to offset the additional costs of anamorphic lenses.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-22-2004, 04:50 PM:

quote: Tim Reed
The fact that it was anamorphic didn't make it cost more.

Actually it does..or did at least at that time. Dunno 'bout now, but back when I worked on "Halloween" and "Jaws" for example, 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 big ol' PSR... a Panavision rebuilt and blimped Mitchell reflexed NC. The revolutionary (at that time) small and lightweight, hand-held, self-blimped Panaflex camera was only available for films shooting anamorphic.

Of course every film had a contract for the equipment that was negotiated between the producer and Panavision so the rates varied. Some films even were donated the equipment to help get it made.

Not sure now, but it used to be required to have a screen credit of: "Filmed in Panavision" if anamorphic and "Filmed with Panavison Equipment" if spherical.

>>> Phil

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-22-2004, 06:24 PM:

My rate sheets are no longer current but they gave rates for each type of camera (including a couple magazines & batteries etc.) and each individual lens. The moderately greater rates on anamorphic optics was the only difference.

BTW, Panavision has a real web site now; not just a redirect to their T-shirt vendor.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-22-2004, 07:15 PM:

From the Panavision website

Q. What is Panavision Super 35®?

A. Panavision Super 35® is a format for shooting full aperture, utilizing a greater camera negative area. This format provides the option of releasing a film in any of 3 formats: 70mm, 2x Anamorphic, and 1.85, without cropping any of the sides. The final decision can be made in post-production, as it does require an optical process. Allows the cinematographer to use spherical lenses, while achieving a 2.40:1 finished product.

[Confused]

How do you do 1.85 from Super 35 without cropping the sides?
I understand you actually use a camera which only pulls down 2 perforations, correct?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 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

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 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.

Posted by Webster Colcord (Member # 1955) on 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.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Rich Ferrando (Member # 2056) on 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.

Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 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 ]

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 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.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 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.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 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?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 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

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 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."...