Arri 2perf

[Stephen Williams]

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

 

Hi Keith,

 

S16 uses different optics so the chip is fully used, rather than a zoom in.

 

On the assumption you require 1:2.35 from your 2 perf image, the sides are cropped.

With 3 perf a 2.35 is extracted by cropping top & bottom.

 

On a Spirit the same gate is used for 2,3 or 4 perf. On a pin registered Scanner each format requires a new gate.

 

Stephen

[Keith Mottram]

Hi Keith,

 

S16 uses different optics so the chip is fully used, rather than a zoom in.

 

On the assumption you require 1:2.35 from your 2 perf image, the sides are cropped.

With 3 perf a 2.35 is extracted by cropping top & bottom.

 

On a Spirit the same gate is used for 2,3 or 4 perf. On a pin registered Scanner each format requires a new gate.

 

Stephen

hi stephen,

 

thanks for clearing it up- though i still cant work out why you crop the sides for 2 perf but not for 3. i assume they also use different optics for super35 as well on spirits? and do you know if thomson have ever tried using an 'inverted' anamorphic lens to retain a higher vertical pixel count?

 

thank you once again,

 

keith

[Dan Goulder]

hi stephen,

 

thanks for clearing it up- though i still cant work out why you crop the sides for 2 perf but not for 3.

The sides of 2-perf 2.35/1 are not cropped. The gate in a 2-perf camera is fixed to that aspect ratio, and the image is thus transferred in its entirety. You would only crop the sides if your target was for a 1.85/1 aspect ratio.

[Stephen Williams]

The sides of 2-perf 2.35/1 are not cropped. The gate in a 2-perf camera is fixed to that aspect ratio, and the image is thus transferred in its entirety. You would only crop the sides if your target was for a 1.85/1 aspect ratio.

 

Hi,

 

Well the gate might be accadamy 2 perf, or silent apeture. Edge to edge (silent) would be 2.66 so you cut off the soundtrack or both sides if your lens is centered for S35.

 

2 perf is 22mm x9.3mm (A Super 35 3 perf would be 24mm wide)

 

An example of 2 perf conversion (Ultracam) http://www.2perf.arandafilm.com.au/NewFile...nformation.html

 

Stephen

[Dan Goulder]

Well the gate might be accadamy 2 perf, or silent apeture. Edge to edge (silent) would be 2.66 so you cut off the soundtrack or both sides if your lens is centered for S35.

A standard 2-perf Techniscope gate is specifically in the 2.35/1 aspect ratio, does not involve recentering of the lens, and does not involve use of the soundtrack area. I own and use one of these cameras. It's a real, viable, working format. 2.66/1 2-perf is virtually non-existent, as it would be a post production nightmare, and thoroughly impractical for a 35mm anamorphic filmout.

[Stephen Williams]

A standard 2-perf Techniscope gate is specifically in the 2.35/1 aspect ratio, does not involve recentering of the lens, and does not involve use of the soundtrack area. I own and use one of these cameras. It's a real, viable, working format. 2.66/1 2-perf is virtually non-existent, as it would be a post production nightmare, and thoroughly impractical for a 35mm anamorphic filmout.

 

Hi,

 

That is correct a standard 2 perf Technicope gate...... which is 22mm wide which would be 1828 pixels (2k scan) wide V S35 3 perf 24mm wide & 2048 pixels which I hope answers Keith's question.

 

Stephen

[David Mullen ASC]

We're just arguing over semantics. If 2-perf had a full aperture gate (i.e. sprocket row to sprocket row) it would be 2.66; as Dan says, most if not all 2-perf cameras have a less-wide Academy-width gate.

 

But since the Aaton Penelope 2-perf camera is not out yet, we won't know how the lens will be centered and whether the gate will be 2.35 or 2.66, so I am hesitant to say that 2-perf cameras never have a 2.66 full aperture gate.

 

But 3-perf is almost always shot full aperture and thus is a wider gate than 2-perf shot with a 2.35 gate -- hence the term "cropped" even though you may say "matted" instead to account for the difference in width.

 

Either way, a "2K" file of a 2-perf frame would be 1828 pixels across, same as anamorphic or standard 1.85. I don't know why Keith has run into 2048 pixels across for 2K data files for 35mm anamorphic movies unless they scanned full aperture and plan on cropping out the left edge later to 1828 pixels for film-out.

[Stephen Williams]

We're just arguing over semantics. If 2-perf had a full aperture gate (i.e. sprocket row to sprocket row) it would be 2.66; as Dan says, most if not all 2-perf cameras have a less-wide Academy-width gate.

 

But since the Aaton Penelope 2-perf camera is not out yet, we won't know how the lens will be centered and whether the gate will be 2.35 or 2.66, so I am hesitant to say that 2-perf cameras never have a 2.66 full aperture gate.

 

But 3-perf is almost always shot full aperture and thus is a wider gate than 2-perf shot with a 2.35 gate -- hence the term "cropped" even though you may say "matted" instead to account for the difference in width.

 

Either way, a "2K" file of a 2-perf frame would be 1828 pixels across, same as anamorphic or standard 1.85. I don't know why Keith has run into 2048 pixels across for 2K data files for 35mm anamorphic movies unless they scanned full aperture and plan on cropping out the left edge later to 1828 pixels for film-out.

 

Hi David,

 

I was going to mention Penelope, but as most modern Arri PL mounts can be quickly changed between N35 / S35, Penelope will probably do both.

 

Stephen

[Keith Mottram]

We're just arguing over semantics. If 2-perf had a full aperture gate (i.e. sprocket row to sprocket row) it would be 2.66; as Dan says, most if not all 2-perf cameras have a less-wide Academy-width gate.

 

But since the Aaton Penelope 2-perf camera is not out yet, we won't know how the lens will be centered and whether the gate will be 2.35 or 2.66, so I am hesitant to say that 2-perf cameras never have a 2.66 full aperture gate.

 

But 3-perf is almost always shot full aperture and thus is a wider gate than 2-perf shot with a 2.35 gate -- hence the term "cropped" even though you may say "matted" instead to account for the difference in width.

 

Either way, a "2K" file of a 2-perf frame would be 1828 pixels across, same as anamorphic or standard 1.85. I don't know why Keith has run into 2048 pixels across for 2K data files for 35mm anamorphic movies unless they scanned full aperture and plan on cropping out the left edge later to 1828 pixels for film-out.

 

David,

 

I may be confused I have only worked with anamorphic scans a few years ago when i was teaching myself shake (a file came with a tutorial) apart from that the last time i worked with scanned film was on mirrormask which were definately 2048 scans (this was regular 35mm and is supose it is possible that they were upressed at time of scanning). so this maybe a confusion. though on another point has there ever been a lens as i proposed before to anamorphasise the extracted area thus using a greater portion of the chip when scanning/ transferring?

 

thank you all for your help,

 

keith

[Stephen Williams]

David,

 

I may be confused I have only worked with anamorphic scans a few years ago when i was teaching myself shake (a file came with a tutorial) apart from that the last time i worked with scanned film was on mirrormask which were definately 2048 scans (this was regular 35mm and is supose it is possible that they were upressed at time of scanning). so this maybe a confusion. though on another point has there ever been a lens as i proposed before to anamorphasise the extracted area thus using a greater portion of the chip when scanning/ transferring?

 

thank you all for your help,

 

keith

 

Hi Keith,

 

I think the scans may have come from a Spirit, I have had some very odd dimmensions before now!

 

I don't think so.

 

Stephen

[David Giancola]

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.

 

Well, yes but they were ultimately a profitable investment for me. Also at the time I owned them there were many owners who worked together to re-do the electronics and such and a tech who dedicated himself to the cameras. I still think they are a good one-owner camera, but they have made me a big fan of SIMPLICITY in electronics in cameras. Funny story; I had a gig for hire where they wouldn't let us use the Ultracams as they got blamed for EVERYTHING that went wrong in the camera department even if it wasn't their fault. (Labs and humans NEVER make mistakes-right?) So here I am working with an Arri 35BL3 Rental from a very reliable rental house - and it has a major breakdown with it's shutter and we lose half a days work! I had to pull out the Ultracams to save the rest of the day.... All equipment breaks down sometimes - except it seems, my Arri 2C, which is a very simple camera. I really would of like to have seen what would have happened if the Loenetti's got to another generation with those cameras.

 

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

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

 

Stephen,

The gates for all our cameras were "Optimized" for FUJI stock, I think you can adjust the gate to tighter tolerances for Kodak. We were having the Fuji stock shaved off at the sides as the tolerances were not as fine as Kodak (hence the rubies in the gate) and Dennis Steinhaier, our tech said the cameras had to be adjusted for each stock - not sure how to do that though. Good Luck. -Dave

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen,

The gates for all our cameras were "Optimized" for FUJI stock, I think you can adjust the gate to tighter tolerances for Kodak. We were having the Fuji stock shaved off at the sides as the tolerances were not as fine as Kodak (hence the rubies in the gate) and Dennis Steinhaier, our tech said the cameras had to be adjusted for each stock - not sure how to do that though. Good Luck. -Dave

 

Hi David,

 

I have played with the rubies in the past when the camera was noisier than it should have been. Can't remember which stock I was using at the time.

 

Thanks for the tip.

 

Stephen

[Mark Henderson]

I've always heard that "THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY" was shot 2-perf, Techniscope.

That true?

 

Mark

[David Mullen ASC]

I've always heard that "THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY" was shot 2-perf, Techniscope.

That true?

 

Mark

 

Yes, the whole dollar trilogy and some others too like "Once Upon a Time in the West."

 

Also, "THX-1138" and "American Graffiti".

[Zachary Vex]

My Cameflex does 2-perf Techniscope and also has a "scope" position on the turret for re-centering lenses to expose into the soundtrack area. I handn't thought of this before, but theoretically, I could set it on "scope" position and use Techniscope at the same time, and shoot 2.66 if I had a special aperture plate machined for full-aperture 2-perf. Which would be pretty simple... I'd just copy the one I have for Techniscope and have it widened to the perfs on the audio side.

[Mark Henderson]

My Cameflex does 2-perf Techniscope and also has a "scope" position on the turret for re-centering lenses to expose into the soundtrack area. I handn't thought of this before, but theoretically, I could set it on "scope" position and use Techniscope at the same time, and shoot 2.66 if I had a special aperture plate machined for full-aperture 2-perf. Which would be pretty simple... I'd just copy the one I have for Techniscope and have it widened to the perfs on the audio side.

 

Are you happy with the Cameflex? Do you have and use a blimp for it? Is it the 16/35 type?

 

Mark

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Yes, the whole dollar trilogy and some others too like "Once Upon a Time in the West."

 

Also, "THX-1138" and "American Graffiti".

 

& 'El Topo' and 'The Holy Mountain'. Which are currently being rereleased, probably in connection with a pending DVD release.

 

http://www.abkcofilms.com/

 

 

 

 

My Cameflex does 2-perf Techniscope and also has a "scope" position on the turret for re-centering lenses to expose into the soundtrack area. I handn't thought of this before, but theoretically, I could set it on "scope" position and use Techniscope at the same time, and shoot 2.66 if I had a special aperture plate machined for full-aperture 2-perf. Which would be pretty simple... I'd just copy the one I have for Techniscope and have it widened to the perfs on the audio side.

 

The Scope aperture is 2.55:1. There is room for the magnetic surround track, track 4 of 4.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

The Scope aperture is 2.55:1. There is room for the magnetic surround track, track 4 of 4.

 

Here are the dimensions for the original 2.55:1 Cinemascope aperture, which is theCameflex scope aperture.

 

This is the print with four mag tracks and the CS perfs AKA Fox holes.

[Zachary Vex]

Are you happy with the Cameflex? Do you have and use a blimp for it? Is it the 16/35 type?

 

Mark

 

I received it a few weeks ago and have been out of town on business until this week. I'll be shooting a test with it soon. I don't presently have a blimp but I'm negotiating on one. I've found someone who is willing to make a barney for me (Lee Gaither, Custom Upholstery Products) for shooting on location. Things seem to be moving smoothly towards my having a permanent soundstage so the blimp is probably doable even though it's ridiculously heavy.

 

My Cameflex is a CM3 with Techniscope 2-perf pulldown which also operates at standard 16mm and 'Scope 35mm using the recentered position on the turret.

 

 

24.89mm X 9.47mm high (full aperture, re-centered on 'Scope turret position) would deliver a natural aspect ratio of about 2.63, easily cropped to 2.66.