Arri 2perf

[Mitch Gross]

Hi,

 

That is correct.

 

2 perf 22mm x 9.4mm

S16 12.3 x 7.4mm

 

Stephen

Yes, making it well more than twice the image area. Even if you cropped the 2-perf to 1.85 or 1.66, it is still a dramatic difference. Anyone have the image area numbers handy for S-35 2.35 extraction?

 

2-perf: 206.8 mm/s

S16: 91.02 mm/s

[Paul Bruening]

Another benefit with going with Bruce at Aranda is the discount you get when converting greenbacks to Aussie-bucks. I saved 25% on the last pile of dough I sent Bruce. (US$0.75=AU$1.00)

[Nathan Milford]

Yes, making it well more than twice the image area. Even if you cropped the 2-perf to 1.85 or 1.66, it is still a dramatic difference. Anyone have the image area numbers handy for S-35 2.35 extraction?

 

2-perf: 206.8 mm/s

S16: 91.02 mm/s

 

It's different for every manufacturer. Aaton's spec for S35-2.35 is 24mm* 10.25mm or 246mm/s. ARRI may be a bit different.

[David Giancola]

Hello- so great to see so many friends I have talked with in the past on this site - I love it.

 

We at Edgewood are embracing 2-Perf in a big way. In the past, we have spent a mint on (2) Super 16mm CP-16R Cameras over the years and had many successful features (all for sale if anyone is interested lenses, follow-focus, video tape, etc. all immaculate call (802) 773-0510) and had great success (seven feature films - check out our website www.edgewoodstudios.com) While we are losing speed and flexibility, Techniscope makes sense as our budgets have gone up. We have a Arri 2C/T in a lightweight Cine 60 Blimp adapted for our Canon Speed Primes, we also have a Cooke zoom, and the standard Angenieux 25-250, all BNCR and a rare Cinema Products XR-35 Studio Camera professionally converted which is being finished with a new ground glass.

 

I have spent years collecting and researching this format and, I may be crazy but I think it is perfect for my company at this time and maybe others. If you go to our site and get to the camera section there is a comparison of all the formats (double-checked at the Panavision site) and they speak for themselves. Our ground glasses are set for scope with a 16x9 safe zone. I know, why the XR-35? I have heard too many horror stories and owned a couple of Russian cameras with sad results. I wish I had met Ed DeGulio (who recently passed away) of Cinema Products as I am a big fan. Our Super16mm CP's ran great in ANY environmental conditions and have excellent and very simple electronics. The XR has tested the same so far and has the "heart" of a Mitchell anyways.

 

While I will gladly rent this equipment out for someone else's feature, I need to have one of my AC's go with the stuff as it's condition is very important to the studio. Plus, it's worth it to have someone who knows the equipment anyways. More to come. GREAT SITE! -David Giancola dave@edgewoodstudios.com www.edgewoodstudios.com

[Keith Mottram]

I am trying to estimate what 2perf would look like, since I have never seen a 2 perf film projected.

 

yes you have, 235 extracted from 3 perf is the same dimension as 2 perf.

[David Mullen ASC]

yes you have, 235 extracted from 3 perf is the same dimension as 2 perf.

 

No, it's slightly smaller.

 

2.35 (2.39 actually) extracted from 3 or 4-perf is the same size since both formats have a full aperture that is taller than 2.35 (1.78 for 3-perf and 1.33 for 4-perf), but 2-perf full aperture is 2.66 so you can't use the full aperture width.

 

Therefore the overall size of the 2.35 frame extracted is slightly smaller than if you used 3-perf or 4-perf.

 

However, the difference is neglible and choices like film stock, exposure, lenses, etc. will have an overriding effect on grain and sharpness.

 

The only recent 2-perf movie I saw was "The Slaughter Rule" but it was shot to have a gritty look.

[Mitch Gross]

Hey David (from Edgewood)--

 

Good to hear you've switched successfully to 2-perf. I think your mostly closed-loop production model is perfectly suited to the format. That and I'm sure you're glad to be rid of the Ultracams.

[John Holland]

Mitch never seen or touched an Ultracam over here , always wanted to know what they are like ! not that good i presume ? John holland , London.

[Stephen Williams]

Mitch never seen or touched an Ultracam over here , always wanted to know what they are like ! not that good i presume ? John holland , London.

 

Hi John,

 

I bought 1 of David's cameras & 1 from Roderick Stevens, I think not quite finished is a good way to describe Ultracams! For about the price of an HVX200 I can't complain. The Ziess MK 1 superspeeds with 16 iris blades are very cool!

 

Stephen

[John Holland]

Stephen , the Leonetti guys , seem to have used it on quite a lot of pics, they shot in 80s/90s, i know it was there "baby " , noisy ? . John.

[Mitch Gross]

Mr. Mullen can tell you some of his long=ago experiences with the Ultracam. There's a reason it was nicknamed the UltraJam. I always liked the way it could suddenly decide to roll like crazy and rip the film. Fun.

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen , the Leonetti guys , seem to have used it on quite a lot of pics, they shot in 80s/90s, i know it was there "baby " , noisy ? . John.

 

Hi John,

 

The specs claim 20db, The one from Roderick Stevens is very quiet, the other rather quiter than a DigiBeta.

 

They went with a Mitchell style movement, but did not think to make the apeture plate light tight! If your unlucky light can very slightly fog film through the registration pins and advance claw! Nothing a bit of black tape can't fix. For some reason problems only occur with Kodak stock, the ramjet of Fuji seems blacker by a couple of stops.

 

Stephen

 

Mr. Mullen can tell you some of his long=ago experiences with the Ultracam. There's a reason it was nicknamed the UltraJam. I always liked the way it could suddenly decide to roll like crazy and rip the film. Fun.

 

Hi Mitch,

 

The only way I have been able to Jam an Ultracam is with incorrect film lacing, missing out the roller with a buckle switch attached! If the batteries are low, the take ups don't take up fast enough and the film raps itself around the main drive sproket. It's a mistake you won't make twice!

 

The only problems I can report from the Edgewood camera is the cut out swich on the door needed replacing. Strangely the switch had been 'repaired' before, about $1 and 5 minutes with a soldering iron fixed it! also the shutter was very slightly out of sync, but not enough to notice!

 

Stephen

[Keith Mottram]

No, it's slightly smaller.

 

2.35 (2.39 actually) extracted from 3 or 4-perf is the same size since both formats have a full aperture that is taller than 2.35 (1.78 for 3-perf and 1.33 for 4-perf), but 2-perf full aperture is 2.66 so you can't use the full aperture width.

 

Therefore the overall size of the 2.35 frame extracted is slightly smaller than if you used 3-perf or 4-perf.

 

However, the difference is neglible and choices like film stock, exposure, lenses, etc. will have an overriding effect on grain and sharpness.

 

The only recent 2-perf movie I saw was "The Slaughter Rule" but it was shot to have a gritty look.

 

i stand corrected- as you said i doubt anybody could spot the difference between an extracted 3 perf and 2 perf particularly since they would, both with all probability, have the same pixel count scanned for DI.

Edited January 16, 2007 by Keith Mottram

[Stephen Williams]

i stand corrected- as you said i doubt anybody could spot the difference between an extracted 3 perf and 2 perf particularly since they would, both with all probability, have the same pixel count scanned for DI.

 

Hi Keith.

 

I would think the 3 perf would be 2048 v 2 perf 1828, as 2 perf retains space for the soundtack.

 

Stephen

[Mark Henderson]

I have a thread going on Super 35mm, 3-perf and members were commenting on 2-perf a lot, so I guess I'll ask you guys. What do you prefer or think is a better OVERALL/GENERAL format, 2-perf or Super 35mm 3-perf?

 

Thanks, Mark

[David Mullen ASC]

I have a thread going on Super 35mm, 3-perf and members were commenting on 2-perf a lot, so I guess I'll ask you guys. What do you prefer or think is a better OVERALL/GENERAL format, 2-perf or Super 35mm 3-perf?

 

Thanks, Mark

 

The only possible answer is "just depends". Better for what? Better for your budget? Better logistically? To buy or rent? For 1.85 or 2.35? If my movie shoot needed me to rent three or four cameras for an action scene, I'd have a much easier time renting 3-perf cameras than 2-perf cameras.

[Keith Mottram]

Hi Keith.

 

I would think the 3 perf would be 2048 v 2 perf 1828, as 2 perf retains space for the soundtack.

 

Stephen

 

hi stephen,

 

why would you think there would be more horizontal pixels scanned with 3 perf over 2 perf?

 

keith

[Stephen Williams]

hi stephen,

 

why would you think there would be more horizontal pixels scanned with 3 perf over 2 perf?

 

keith

 

Hi Keith,

 

3 perf would usually be Super 35 & 2 perf reg 35.

 

Stephen

[David Mullen ASC]

hi stephen,

 

why would you think there would be more horizontal pixels scanned with 3 perf over 2 perf?

 

keith

 

Well, you could scan a 2-perf frame if it was shot full aperture at 2048 across but you would only use 1828 horizontally anyway because 2048 would be a 2.66 image. Same goes for standard 1.85 and anamorphic photography -- you only use 1828 pixels across for "2K".

[Dan Goulder]

Well, you could scan a 2-perf frame if it was shot full aperture at 2048 across but you would only use 1828 horizontally anyway because 2048 would be a 2.66 image. Same goes for standard 1.85 and anamorphic photography -- you only use 1828 pixels across for "2K".

Thus the viability of HDCAM SR as a D.I. for 2-perf. The resolution is actually higher horizontally (1920) and also slightly higher vertically than that of a 2K scan of 2-perf material.

[Keith Mottram]

Well, you could scan a 2-perf frame if it was shot full aperture at 2048 across but you would only use 1828 horizontally anyway because 2048 would be a 2.66 image. Same goes for standard 1.85 and anamorphic photography -- you only use 1828 pixels across for "2K".

 

david,

 

not sure if we're crossing the beam here a bit and my brain might be playing tricks on me, but as far as i know your scanning resolution should not be effected by the neg size. you can scan a s16 neg and a 35mm neg on a Spirit HD and you'll end up with the same amount of pixels. now because you have used a larger neg on the 35mm it will be sharper, but you'll still have 1920 pixels scanned (or 1828 up ressed). t if your aspect ratio is the same from 3perf to 2 perf then although you might be scanning a different neg area (and thus have a fractionally softer image) you will infact record to file the same amount of pixels. as for anamorphic why would you not scan full aperture 2k? i'm sorry if i'm being thick about this but i'm kind of confused as i have worked with 2048 anamorphic (unsqueezed) frames and post software such as shake has a 2:1 unsqueeze feature for compositing on scanned anamorphic.

 

keith

[Dan Goulder]

as for anamorphic why would you not scan full aperture 2k?

Anamorphic doesn't use a full aperature, as it still maintains room for the soundtrack.

[Keith Mottram]

Anamorphic doesn't use a full aperature, as it still maintains room for the soundtrack.

 

okay once again i stand (somewhat pedantically) corrected , what i mean is with anamorphic you scan the neg as is- ie the squeezed image rather than the 800 (or whatever) vertical lines of super35 extraction. unless i'm being an idiot for the third time in this thread.

[Stephen Williams]

david,

 

not sure if we're crossing the beam here a bit and my brain might be playing tricks on me, but as far as i know your scanning resolution should not be effected by the neg size. you can scan a s16 neg and a 35mm neg on a Spirit HD and you'll end up with the same amount of pixels. now because you have used a larger neg on the 35mm it will be sharper, but you'll still have 1920 pixels scanned (or 1828 up ressed). t if your aspect ratio is the same from 3perf to 2 perf then although you might be scanning a different neg area (and thus have a fractionally softer image) you will infact record to file the same amount of pixels. as for anamorphic why would you not scan full aperture 2k? i'm sorry if i'm being thick about this but i'm kind of confused as i have worked with 2048 anamorphic (unsqueezed) frames and post software such as shake has a 2:1 unsqueeze feature for compositing on scanned anamorphic.

 

keith

 

Keith,

 

Unless you are using a 4k Spirit, & you zoom in the final output is uprezzed. You may have a file with the pixels but it's not actually that resoloution.

 

Stephen

[Keith Mottram]

Keith,

 

Unless you are using a 4k Spirit, & you zoom in the final output is uprezzed. You may have a file with the pixels but it's not actually that resoloution.

 

Stephen

 

stephen,

 

i get that, what i don't understand is why the spirit would scan a smaller horizontal area of neg on a 2perf as apposed to 3perf. 3 perf has the same horizontal area as 2 perf, so if a scanner is set for 3perf then surely the area scanned is the same. now if the scanner is set for super35 then it is 'overscanning' 2/3/4 perf horizontally. i always assumed that super35 scanning was just a different gate on the scanner and then the lens focused on this larger gate. are you saying that the chip is windowed for 2/3/4 perf in comparison to s35 scanning? in that case 16mm hd scans would use a fraction of the chip and in my experience '2k' spirit scans of s16 always look too sharp to use such a tiny fraction of the chip.

 

thanks for filling these knowledge gaps,

 

keith