Miguel Bunster Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 any1 has experience working in the 2.35 aspect ratio under s16mm? I know there is anamorphic for s16 and well of course it could be cropped for that aspect ratio as well and jsut shoot 1.85 and then crop (or 1.77) now the later option I think should be fine if going to video but in case of theatrical release it would be a huge loss in quiality. If any has experience in this area would be of great help. Thanks Miguel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Mathew Libatique used this technique for Never Die Alone, a visually stunning piece of work. They used a 2k "digital scope" if you would to make the blow up. I have always thought that it might be a cool thing to try out on a short. Good luck and please keep us posted along the way. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rizos Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 There is plenty of info on this in the archives. Mitch Gross and David Mullen have covered this a lot. If you use anamorphic lenses you will have to crop the sides(since the squeeze is 2X). With spherical you crop the top and bottom. Both methods result in about equal quality. In the final analysis, it's a lot easier to use spherical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aaron Farrugia Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 There is plenty of info on this in the archives. Mitch Gross and David Mullen have covered this a lot. If you use anamorphic lenses you will have to crop the sides(since the squeeze is 2X). With spherical you crop the top and bottom. Both methods result in about equal quality. In the final analysis, it's a lot easier to use spherical. unless you letter box it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Bunster Posted October 17, 2006 Author Share Posted October 17, 2006 sweet. Thanks guys. I will look into it=. Its for a movie which should be done in that aspect ratio. Will keep posted still in the talks. Best Miguel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delorme Jean-Marie Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 hi a french lens exists, it's an anomorphic lens "invented" by thierry tronchet, it's a zoom lens and you have to compensate aperture with the change of focal lens ... maybe not that hard to use? i don't know if it's for 16 or s16? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Nathan Milford Posted October 17, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted October 17, 2006 I've had a few clients come through wanting to shoot cropped 2.35 S16. We have the groundglasses for it and I've even custom modified an A-Minima for it... but I think it's wasteful and from what Mitch tells me (and from what I've read elsewhere) any optical solution is kludgy. Shoot 2-Perf 35mm >8) Natural 2.35 aspect ratio with (faster, lighter) spherical lenses using half the negative real estate per image record keeps the costs (and mag running times) near S16. If you're finishing on a video format or with a D.I. already, the cost differential is negligable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Bunster Posted October 17, 2006 Author Share Posted October 17, 2006 Jmm 2 perf. I thought about 3 perf but two is not really 2.35 right? I will look into it. thanks! Miguel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted October 18, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted October 18, 2006 Jmm 2 perf.I thought about 3 perf but two is not really 2.35 right? I will look into it. thanks! Miguel 2-perf 35mm Full Aperture (the entire negative) is naturally 2.66 : 1 (being half the height of 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture, which is 1.33 : 1) but generally with 2-perf, you don't use the soundtrack area, cropping the sides to get closer to 2.35 : 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Nathan Milford Posted October 18, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted October 18, 2006 2-perf 35mm Full Aperture (the entire negative) is naturally 2.66 : 1 (being half the height of 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture, which is 1.33 : 1) but generally with 2-perf, you don't use the soundtrack area, cropping the sides to get closer to 2.35 : 1. It's usually cropped and off-centered as per Academy 4-perf, but the soundtrack area remains unused. The 2-perf ARRI 2C's, Eclairs and Kinor's I've seen all use this method.. I imagine Aaton will follow suit so when you switch from 4-perf to 2-perf you will not need to re-center the lens mount and viewing optics. Eric at ARRI mentioned that they were developing a 2-perf movement for the 235 at the last SMPTE NY meeting, but didn't give a timeframe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tim O'Connor Posted May 28, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted May 28, 2008 2-perf 35mm Full Aperture (the entire negative) is naturally 2.66 : 1 (being half the height of 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture, which is 1.33 : 1) but generally with 2-perf, you don't use the soundtrack area, cropping the sides to get closer to 2.35 : 1. I was just watching the special features section on the "American Graffiti" DVD and Ron Howard, who acted in it, talks about how the film being shot in Techniscope (a name for 2-perf that was usually utilized for budgetary purposes) gives the combination of the 2:35:1 ratio with some of the feel of 16mm. grain. There are a lot of great comments and insight on the DVD from George Lucas, Haskell Wexler and many others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Andrew Janes Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 (edited) I shot S16mm with 35mm Anamorphic lenses on my debut feature FAKERS which Balazs Bolygo lit for me (and did an amazing job!). I thought it looked great. The only problem was the amount of light we had to use and the wide shots. We shot inside the National Gallery for one scene where we were really really limited on light. As a result the scene still jumps out of the movie for me... We then telecined the film to D5 graded and output to 35mm. Was it worth it???? Probably not... Whilst it looks great, and many people believe it was shot on 35mm, it took so much time away from the shooting day (waiting for enough sunlight during an English winter) and added extra complications in post which, for the type of film and our budget I don't think it quite warranted it. I'm about to start prep on a movie about Errol Flynn. 60% of the film is all set on a yacht and I'm considering 16mm for the camera size on this... However, if it goes that way I'm going to stick to 1.85! - Vistas and wides would still be 35mm My 2 cents worth! :-) Richard FilmIndustryBloggers.com Edited June 17, 2008 by Richard Andrew Janes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bruce Taylor Posted June 17, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 17, 2008 The only problem was the amount of light we had to use and the wide shots. Richard Which is another reason why 2 perf is so great on a project like that, 'cuz you are using fast spherical lenses. Depending on the size of the boat, 16mm does sound like a good idea on your next shoot. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Teulon Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 (edited) s Edited June 17, 2008 by Serge Teulon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Andrew Janes Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Which is another reason why 2 perf is so great on a project like that, 'cuz you are using fast spherical lenses. Depending on the size of the boat, 16mm does sound like a good idea on your next shoot. Bruce It's only 35ft... However I've just heard that we might be able to use an exterior water tank for the majority of the shoot. In which case 2 perf could be brilliant. I just had a look at your website Bruce. It's great! Brilliant prices... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Alderslade Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I shot S16mm with 35mm Anamorphic lenses on my debut feature FAKERS which Balazs Bolygo lit for me (and did an amazing job!). I thought it looked great. The only problem was the amount of light we had to use and the wide shots. We shot inside the National Gallery for one scene where we were really really limited on light. As a result the scene still jumps out of the movie for me... I recall when this came out, I think I must have seen a trailer somewhere for it. How did you handle and limit the extra grain caused by such a small negative area? Trailer looks good, nice to see Art Malik playing a different role. Cheers, Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Andrew Janes Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I recall when this came out, I think I must have seen a trailer somewhere for it. How did you handle and limit the extra grain caused by such a small negative area? Trailer looks good, nice to see Art Malik playing a different role. Cheers, Andy Whilst I could try and answer fully, I'm going to ask Balazs to jump on the board and give you the details on that one :-) www.FilmIndustryBloggers.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Andrew Janes Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 (edited) we just lit to a healthy stop of 2.8 1/2 or T4 and used really slow film stocks( Balazs seems to remember) 7293, 7274, 7248 and the 7218 which had just come out at that time. We also aimed for mid 30 ish printer lights to get a really punchy neg to help in the DI. Hope that helps... And just wanted to give a shout out to Bruce who has just joined our film blog community!!! You can read his blog here: http://www.FilmIndustryBloggers.com/thecamerarentalhouse . We are really missing blogs from the camera department so if anyone is interested in joining us let me know! Cheers Richard www.FilmIndustryBloggers.com Edited July 8, 2008 by Richard Andrew Janes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now