quote: Ron Curran

---

I gather that dci projection in 2.35 uses less information for Scope images.

---

quote: James Robertson

---

I haven't seen a really SHARP Super 35 image YET and dearly miss the pin sharp Anamorphic Panavision films of yore.

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

Many people who speak d and e cinema are not interested in the 2.35 format. One tech told me that 35mm camera film was cropped for the Scope image, so 16x9 was the way of the future.

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

I gather that dci projection in 2.35 uses less information for Scope images.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

There are also many other Super 35 films that look awesome, many have been blown up to 70mm, also wasn't Titanic Super 35? The 70mm prints looked dam good! The main reason for the format it because it affords better depth of field... or should I say the wide angle lenses the format uses offer more depth of field than any camera scope lens affords.

---

Only a very small percentage of all Super35 movies have blown up to 70mm. And not all looked great in 70mm either. James Cameron's movies, The Abyss in 1989, True Lies in 1994 and Titanic in 1997 are among the very best looking examples of Super35. I thought parts of Backdraft looked great as well (the same DP on The Abyss worked on that one).

However Super35 has a number of drawbacks. When dealing with 70mm, the optical enlargement step from the Super35 camera negative to 70mm must be handled correctly. James Cameron used customized Arri cameras, lots of custom made lenses and lots of different film emulsions to get the most detail out of the frame as possible.

I have seen lots of other Super35 movies that looked like grainy crap on the screen. Steven Soderbergh's remake of Oceans 11 is one that immediately comes to mind. I think Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country was the only one of that series to be shot in Super35. It also looked very grainy.

Spherical lenses do indeed have greater depth of field capability than an anamorphic lens in the same focal length and aperture size. However, anamorphic 'scope cinematography uses all of the 4-perf 35mm negative. Super35 uses a little over half the frame. The optical enlargement step will not only amplify grain but it also adds a nasty effect similar to diffraction. The blown up image looks softer. That's why it's so critical for the original photography to have very high image quality.

There's a lot of Super35 shows that appear to be seriously drained of color as well. Anamorphic 'scope photography, especially when its well done, can have very rich color. Again, that's the advantage of being able to use the entire 35mm film frame. Moulin Rouge had some pretty incredible looking shots (even though the movie itself was pretty wacky).

Sometimes the more narrow depth of field in anamorphic photography can add more dramatic "pop" to the image. Subject matter within the focus plane is usually very sharp. The out of focus blur in the background is more dramatic. And you get the oval-shaped "bokeh" happening in the background to gain more of that movie look.

Perhaps the thing I like best about anamorphic 35mm cinematography is it forces the director and director of photography to really use the frame instead of playing it safe with blah composition like most of the movies shot in Super35. In general, I find movies that were shot in 'scope (or in other true widescreen formats like 5/65mm) to have more dynamic compositions. The framing seems to feel right. James Cameron and David Fincher are among very few directors whose Super35 movies seem like they were really composed for the 'scope aspect ratio. Most other movies released in Super35 merely feel like they were severely cropped just to fill the entire width of a movie theater screen.

The advent of digital cinema and preponderance of lower resolution 2K digital intermediates being used is taking away a lot of the advantages in shooting a movie in anamorphic 'scope. The resolution bottleneck also masks a lot of the imperfections of blown up Super35 cinematography as well. Perhaps if Hollywood studios ever get around to using the 4K format more seriously then the advantages of shooting in 'scope will be more obvious again.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 03-11-2007, 05:13 PM:
 
I am under the impression that super 35 mm is popular because it is easy to intergrate with modern cgi effects. The depth of field photography in Titanic, was one that took advantage of the Australian "Frazier Lens" for extreme depth of field results.
more info

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

All in all if Super 35 is done carefully and correctly it can look better than anamorphic scope but the problem lies withhigh speed stocks and the over use of it today... in fact I wonder if many DP's even kow how to light any more

---

Why is it that cinematographers now tend to light at real life levels? I can see that it is quicker on set, but what a trade off with image. Kodaks one billion dollar investment in film stock quality has resulted in a generation of cinematographers who use minimal light levels, why because for the first time in history they can (still very hard for the focus puller), instead of better looking movies than ever before.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-11-2007, 07:33 PM:
 

quote: Cameron Glendinning

---

I am under the impression that super 35 mm is popular because it is easy to intergrate with modern cgi effects.

---

quote: Cameron Glendinning

---

Why is it that cinematographers now tend to light at real life levels? I can see that it is quicker on set, but what a trade off with image.

---

quote: Cameron Glendinning

---

Why is it that cinematographers now tend to light at real life levels?

---

I can only suspect that its budgetary constraints that dictate this. Since film stock is far less expensive than lots of extra lights cabling and the folks to set em up and tear em back down... and the costly time it takes. These days the budgets can be kept at bay and less lighting used as negative costs escallate. I agree its very backwards to light less as older cinematographers would always use lots of light, fine grain stocks and end up wih a much better looking film overall. Take the day for night scenes in LOA... they look fantastic. Again... there are ALOT of disadvantages to using camera anamorphics in the flexibility of a shoot and for some reason you guys seem to ignore that fact. They are heavy, slower in speed, way less depth of focus and possess their own unique distortions and artifacts.

Today I see most DP's and camera crews as a bunch of spoiled weenies.... at least many of the crews I ran dailies for were. Todays camera equipment has been developed to beyond many peoples wildest dreams... If they had to shoot a film with the 65mm Super Panavision or BNC rangefinder cameras of yesteryear out in the desert or in remote locations for long periods or for years on end most would simply quit and walk away. Indeed there were films made with these cameras that no one would attempt to re-make today. Excepting a very few today the real cameramen that shot great looking films are all gone.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 03-11-2007, 10:43 PM:
 
1.85 images on anamorphic release prints look clean. It has been suggested before that all prints could actually be released this way. It would upset the constant width movement but they can get counseling.

Mark, on a shoot gaffers used to drive me batty with their cutters and scrims while we were trying to shoot as deep as poss. The results always proved them right, though.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 03-11-2007, 10:58 PM:
 
With rare exception, I've always gotten along really well with DPs. It was only the rare exception whom I considered to be a spoiled weenie.

While tight budgets and tight schedules could account for many decisions to go with Super 35 instead of 'Scope, I'm not convinced that budgets have dictated the low-light-cinematography that we're noticing. I think it's more of a popular trend... a fad. Certainly, technology is changing much faster than most people would have predicted. I'm anxious to see what the "fad" will be in just a couple of years from now, when the creative people are even more comfortable with whatever the technology offers them.
 

---

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 03-12-2007, 02:17 AM:
 
“Age of Innocence” was the first film I watched with the awareness that it was shot in Super 35 and the image impressed me. I just watched “Dreamgirls” and I do not know whether it was Super or anamorphic but it looked excellent (at least on the print we are projecting).

It is a long time since I have been involved in film or tv shoots. All of my recent experience has been projecting and watching film and electronic images. IMHO very few flat images look as good as the majority of Scope images on a cinema screen. 16x9 images look great on my plasma at home, but so do 2.4 dvds.

Although I prefer 4-perf anamorphic, if I had my druthers, I would ask for Scope printed down from 65mm. At the other extreme, I have seen so many excellent Super 35 films that negate my position. The “no depth of field” argument against anamorphic seems arbitrary in a dramatic context – most of the time you want selective focus.

Bobby, I agree that creative artists should be able to choose their canvas. Unfortunately, they are not always given the full picture.
 

---

Posted by James Robertson (Member # 888) on 03-12-2007, 03:21 AM:
 
Notwithstanding the fact that a FEW really good Super 35 films get to the screen they are few and far between. I repeat- most of them look like shite.

JIm
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-12-2007, 06:46 AM:
 
In that case you'd really love a Super 16 to 35 'scope blow job. There were a few made here during the lottery funded production boom of the late '90s. The definition and saturation looked broadly similar to that of a projected VHS.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 03-12-2007, 11:45 AM:
 
I agree with Mark about many filmmaker being spoiled brats. Over the years, I found that U.S. movies looked sloppier every year. More and better CGI effects, sure, but in classic studio films, it was an exception to find a second rate shot (totally out of focus for more than a second, overly grainy). Over the years, editors and directors seem to have lost every bit of reluctance to put even totally unacceptable footage into a movie.

Although there is nothing bad in formats and procedures like Super-35, high speed stocks or Digital Intermediate, they certainly have speeded up the degeneration of cinematic craftsmanship.

You can use any lens and are not restricted to Panavision or a few other makes of 'scope lenses? Fine. You don't need much lighting to get an image? Fine. You can alter and fine-tune your images after shooting? Fine with me.

But now we have people who do only minimal lighting, use high speed film ("Film stocks are so good no one notices"), they use Super-35 ("Lenses are so good that you don't need the larger 'scope format") and they put their films through a D.I. process ("We can do grain reduction anyway").

Every week I see some of the results at the theatre: Grainy pictures ("Adds a nice texture"), out-of-focus shots that would have been found on a traditional cutting room floor with actor's eyes totally blurred ("We can get away with that one") and an image that lacks resolution in every long shot. ("2K is more than enough for 35mm"). When the image has no detail, I still can focus my eye on wonderful digital artifacts (hello, Technicolor-Thomson!) that make the silver screen look like a huge first-generation LCD-TV.

Who's to blame? Not the small format, Sergio Leone and James Cameron got great prints (even from smaller TechniScope negs) - because they took care.

BTW, although some Super-35 movies indeed do look fantastic, I always think: How good could it look if the same care and progress in film stocks and optics were applied to shoot it in 65mm?

As Mark said, most of today's filmmaker would rather not use a superior imaging system like 65mm because it would restrict their freedom to do every insert close up as a Steadicam shot or do a shot handheld within a minute.

From my experience, many DPs just talk technical nonsense to impress their audience, sometimes contradicting technical and physical laws. They want to look good and sometimes justify whatever poor solution they came up with under budgetary or time restrictions.

Many times when I watch old American films, I feel with certainty that there is no one left who could - with whatever new technology available - recreate certain styles of classic cinematography. Mark mention LOA, but even classic b&w is terra incognita to most DPs. I cringe whenever an new film comes out with director and DP claiming they used vintage technology to create a faithful look of, let's say: film noir . Then I see the usual DI'd color neg, some contrasty lighting to make it look like a woodcut and of course fancy camera moves that don't fit the time & style.

/end of rant/

PS: I don't think everything used to be better back then - two days ago I saw a vintage print of M*A*S*H and just couldn't believe how far even Robert Altman would dare to degrade the cinematic image. I hastily left before MCCABE AND MRS MILLER started...
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-12-2007, 04:01 PM:
 
I think the late 1970's hit a certain "high water-mark" for quality 35mm cinematography. Movies like Apocalypse Now and Days of Heaven still remain as great visual achievements. Days of Heaven wasn't in 'scope, but Néstor Almendros work on that film is among the very best in film history.

These days the "quick and dirty" and "good enough" fashions seem to be preferred. A defensive explanation, "we're going for a documentary look," is often given.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 03-12-2007, 07:14 PM:
 
Let's be careful. The Director of Photography for The Abyss and Backdraft has received praise in this thread. Yet that same man also went on to be Director of Photography on the 65mm production of Far and Away. And I would be surprised if Far and Away gets a whole lot of praise here.

Of course, it's a pipe dream to think that 65mm photography will ever make a comeback. It's also unwise to assume that movies would look better if only there was more use of 65mm photography. We've listed some of the visual shortcomings of Super 35 and of 'Scope. Don't forget that 65mm raises its own set of visual disadvantages too.
 

---

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 03-12-2007, 07:39 PM:
 
In the 70s flourish of Australian film production, we saw some magnificent Scope prints – Careful He Might Hear You and The Man From Snowy River come to mind – and I think that they were all shot with Panavision anamorphics and processed at Colorfilm. Can anyone tell me of the deficiencies in those films?

Lenses and film stocks have improved greatly in the last three decades. So we should be seeing knockout images today, consistently.

As a cinema operator, I know that the audience is disappointed when some (not all) features are flat; it is part of the theatrical expectation.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-13-2007, 12:55 AM:
 

quote: Greg Anderson

---

We've listed some of the visual shortcomings of Super 35 and of 'Scope. Don't forget that 65mm raises its own set of visual disadvantages too.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Lots of movies are pretty dark and often very green or earthy looking because of what seems to be a fashion of sorts in cinematography

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

In the 70s flourish of Australian film production, we saw some magnificent Scope prints – Careful He Might Hear You and The Man From Snowy River come to mind – and I think that they were all shot with Panavision anamorphics and processed at Colorfilm.

---

Lab Quality is probably another big issue. Colorfilm was exceptional, Crocodile Dundee is another probably more wide seen example. Its fair to say that all labs are not equal.

One lab horror story was "Much Ado About Nothing" This film I saw in London at a old super cinema in the west end, Perfect Lenses, Projection staff and Kodak print of a Kodak negative. The experience perfect (well except for Keanus woodern acting). 3/4 horizens, fine grain stock and unforgetable long stedicam shots. The final shot is almost 4 minutes long

Unfortunatly for the Director of Photography, its U.S release was done on the cheap, printed on Agfa Stock, all the lovely gold highlights turned purple And his hard work was panned by Variety magazine as if it was his intention and fault!

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

We seen it pushed to the limits of the technology available at the given time with movies like Days of Heaven.

---

quote: Cameron Glendinning

---

Yes cinematographers seem to be getting away with mixing different color temprature lighting. The green is usually uncorected use of floresent lighting. Once apon a time this was considered bad practice.

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

Certain digital projection advocates are insisting that all movies are now being shot in 16x9.

---