S35 1.85

[J Costantini]

Hi.

I believe that people usually shoot S35 to have a final aspect ratio of 2.35:1. may be because of budget issues or to gain from super35's depth of field in constrast with anamorphic's etc.

 

When 1.85:1 aspect ratio is intended for print they usually shoot normal 35 full frame (gate) with 1.85 groundglass or straight with 1.85 gate.

 

my doubt is: why would someone want to shoot Super35 with 1.85 groundglass ?? I saw this on Arri's publication on 3-perf.

 

thanks

[Jon Kukla]

There's no good reason NOT to do it if you know you're going to a DI now. It was done sporadically in the past (mainly around the late 80's-early 90's), but the optical step generally was too high a price (both financially and quality-wise) to pay for the relatively small extra negative area. With digital intermediate workflows, though, the optical problems are avoided.

 

It's still cheaper to do an Academy 1.85 film in post, since everything can be done with contact printing.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, it all depends on if you are going to do a D.I. -- if yes, then why leave space for a soundtrack on the negative when you can use more of the negative for the scanning?

 

If you're not sure if you'll be doing a D.I., then it would be safer to shoot in standard 4-perf 35mm 1.85 rather than Super-35 1.85.

[J Costantini]

Yes, it all depends on if you are going to do a D.I. -- if yes, then why leave space for a soundtrack on the negative when you can use more of the negative for the scanning?

 

If you're not sure if you'll be doing a D.I., then it would be safer to shoot in standard 4-perf 35mm 1.85 rather than Super-35 1.85.

 

So

if a DI is guaranteed, I would get more information and possibly more resolution on telecine if I had shot S35 1.85 instead of 1.85 academy?

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

hi

in 1:85 aspect ration you'll have barely no gap between 2 frames as the size of your image is 11,90x21,95 on neg which isn't a pb

but i don't get why to be in super 35 as regular 35 is good enougth fot 1:85

[David Mullen ASC]

hi

in 1:85 aspect ration you'll have barely no gap between 2 frames as the size of your image is 11,90x21,95 on neg which isn't a pb

but i don't get why to be in super 35 as regular 35 is good enougth fot 1:85

 

You're going to have to write that question more clearly if you want an answer. Are you talking about 3-perf when you mention the two frames being too close together? What do you mean by "isn't a pb"? Isn't a problem?

 

In Super-35, whether 3-perf or 4-perf, a 1.85 image that uses the whole Full Aperture width is larger than the standard 1.85 image that only uses the Academy width. Larger negative area means less grain, more detail. But it's not a huge difference in size, so not a major improvement in quality. But every little bit helps.

 

The 3-perf Full Aperture frame is about 1.78 : 1, so 1.85 fits inside this.

[J Costantini]

You're going to have to write that question more clearly if you want an answer. Are you talking about 3-perf when you mention the two frames being too close together? What do you mean by "isn't a pb"? Isn't a problem?

 

In Super-35, whether 3-perf or 4-perf, a 1.85 image that uses the whole Full Aperture width is larger than the standard 1.85 image that only uses the Academy width. Larger negative area means less grain, more detail. But it's not a huge difference in size, so not a major improvement in quality. But every little bit helps.

 

The 3-perf Full Aperture frame is about 1.78 : 1, so 1.85 fits inside this.

 

Got it. Thanks.

[Christian Appelt]

David, would you say that the larger area of 3-perf 1.85 will make a notable difference compared to standard 1.85 area when the D.I. is done at 2K resolution only? I would imagine a slight improvement in grain (with high speed stocks), but is there an advantage in resolution after going through the 2K process?

[David Mullen ASC]

David, would you say that the larger area of 3-perf 1.85 will make a notable difference compared to standard 1.85 area when the D.I. is done at 2K resolution only? I would imagine a slight improvement in grain (with high speed stocks), but is there an advantage in resolution after going through the 2K process?

 

Well, I'm sure that it would be a pretty minimal improvement. Generally a full aperture scan in 2K mode would be 2048 pixels across, but standard 1.85 scanned at 2K would actually only be 1828 pixels across, so least by shooting in Super-35, at some point you'd be resizing the files from 2048 to 1828 for the film-out, which may cause some minor improvement in noise, sharpness, reducing aliasing artifacts, etc. since you are somewhat oversampling.

 

But considering 2K doesn't quite resolve all the grains in the original anyway, I'm not sure you'll notice an improvement in graininess -- it's already being slightly degrained by working in 2K instead of 4K. I think you'd see more improvement in noise and aliasing by scanning the slightly larger negative, again minor though, than you would in graininess.

[Scott Fritzshall]

As sort of a counter-point, consider visual effects. I'm working on a project right now that will be shot 4-perf, 1.85 extraction, that's going to have a bunch of greenscreen shots. If I know ahead of time that I'm able to get a full-frame 2k scan, I can place tracking markers outside of the extraction area and not have to worry about painting them out. This can potentially save me a lot of time, which is why I'm obviously pushing hard for a 2k scan of all effects shots.

[Max Jacoby]

Emanuel Lubezki regularly shoots Super 1.85: Children of Men, The Assassination of Richard Nixon, Lemony Snicket.