super 35 1.85 to 35mm 1.85

[erolroniberaha]

there is a dp I know that shot 2 feautures in which he soht super 35mm 1.85 and the film was then blown down to regular 35mm 1.85. when I ask why doesnt he just shoot regular 35 and save bunch of dollars, the answer is the quality is much better. Ok there is more image area. but you are spending another 50 grand and you are going though an optical process. Do you think guys it is worth it?

 

Regards

 

Erol Roni Beraha

[John Pytlak RIP]

Size does matter! If you are planning on doing a Digital Intermediate anyway, Super-35 1.85:1 and its larger image area is an easy way to get extra quality, because you are already using DI for other reasons (like image manipulation or "look"). Even better if you can afford to write out the DI directly onto the printing negatives, as you've now eliminated an additional generation of duplication (no master positive).

 

"Regular" 1.85:1 image area = 0.825 x 0.446 inches (0.368 sq in)

 

Super-35 1.85:1 image area = 0.945 x 0.511 inches (0.483 sq in)

 

As higher resolution scanning and recording becomes faster and more affordable, I predict that this practice will be more widely used.

[Wendell_Greene]

And if you shoot 3 perf the money you save on film can help offset the cost of the DI.

[David Mullen ASC]

There's no reason to shoot Super 1.85 though if you are doing the reduction to regular 1.85 using an optical printer. That idea came and went in the early 1990's with Super 1.85 films like "Godfather III", "Malcolm X", "Bonfire of the Vanities", "Two Jakes", and "The Fisher King".

 

They found that the optical printer reductions, while sharper, were also enhancing the grain, edge-sharpening the grain particles, negating any graininess advantage there was in using the slightly larger negative. Plus you're stuck using an optical printer -- or a DI -- instead of being able to simply contact print.

 

They did find that Super 1.85 made better blow-ups to 70mm (and I saw some great 70mm prints of some of those movies) but 70mm releases died off soon after the early 1990's.

 

Therefore there is no reason to use Super 1.85 unless there is (1) no chance of a print needed; or (2) there will definitiely be a large release print order from a dupe negative and a DI process is an option.

 

For the average smaller movie that only needs a few prints, shoot standard 1.85. For your average movie that might not get to use a DI, there is little advantage to Super 1.85 if you end up using an optical printer.

[Matt Pacini]

Are 3 perf cameras more expensive to rent?

 

Matt Pacini

[Landon D. Parks]

Are 3 perf cameras more expensive to rent?

Dont think so.

 

As for 3-perf information, Read this .PDF deal:

 

http://www.arri.com/infodown/cam/broch/3pe...tion-public.pdf

 

It also has some info Super 35 in 3-perf, ect... You may find it helpfull!

[Landon D. Parks]

Also... I thought Super-35 1:1.85 just used the soundtrack area of film. I did not think it added to the amount needed. Sort of like 16mm v. Super 16mm...

 

check out this link:

http://www.aaton.com/products/film/35/3perf.php

 

This explains 3-perf and Super 35mm.

[David Mullen ASC]

Some rental houses charge a minor set-up fee for Super-35 (Full Aperture). But otherwise, there really isn't a cost difference in the shooting end, unless you shoot in 3-perf and save money on stock and processing costs.

 

However, as the camera format gets less common OR more in demand and availability is reduced, it's hard to negotiate a good rental price.

 

Again, the main problem with Super 1.85 is the inability to make a contact print with a soundtrack off of the negative; thus post costs are higher if you need to show a print with sound. Either a digital or optical step is required which may reduce quality or at least, show no net gain in quality over standard 1.85 contact-printed.