Super or Am?

[Enrique Lombana]

Does anamorphic have better resolution than super 35 because it uses more of the frame, or all of it? And does it have to do with 2,3,4 perf because they're different size frames?

 

Thanks!

Enrique

[David Mullen ASC]

Anamorphic and 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture (Super-35) are about the same size except that anamorphic doesn't use the soundtrack area. But Super-35 is usually composed to be cropped to widescreen, so if you are framing for 2.35, then anamorphic ends up using a much bigger negative area for the actual image.

 

This mainly means less grain, but you also have some better detail, though it depends on the quality of the anamorphic lenses versus the spherical lenses, and what stop you shoot at.

[Enrique Lombana]

Thank you David.

[John Brawley]

Does anamorphic have better resolution than super 35 because it uses more of the frame, or all of it? And does it have to do with 2,3,4 perf because they're different size frames?

 

As David says, anamorphic certainly does have more negative real estate than super 35 in 2:35 mode. I recently shot my first project on anamorphic. We were shooting for a very slick, very high end and dare i say, Hollywood feel. I was also lucky enough to score a 4K DI finish so i figured it would be worth going anamorphic.

 

There are a lot of downsides as I discovered though. Firstly, it's hard to get anamorphic lenses and they are more expensive. I was lucky ( or maybe not) because I had the Panavision Primo's. BIG BIG lenses. I also had a 25-250 HR zoom, and lets just say that zoom was smaller, and lighter, than any of the prime lenses !!!

 

Then there's the shooting stop. If you want NO DOF, then go anamorphic. While it sounds like a good idea, the reality is, that it is very hard to work with that kind of narrow depth of field.

 

Then there's the weird things that happen with anamorphic lenses. Like the lens flares. They're much harder to cut. Great if you like flares. Harder to avoid if you don't. Plus they do tend to distort more or rather, differently when something os the edge of the frame compared to the middle of the frame.

 

So, yes bigger real estate, but at a cost. I seriously wonder if I'll shoot anamorphic again. To do it well you need a lot of support in terms of grips (heavy and large camera) and lighting firepower. I was shooting 5218 and trying to shoot at T5.6 or even T8. Pretty hard to do without major lighting bullets.

[Enrique Lombana]

Wow, very informative, thank you so much. This is something I will refer to in the future.

 

 

Best regards,

Enrique

[Christian Appelt]

It depends on the type of anamorphic lenses whether they will make work more difficult. A 25-250 Panavision zoom is quite an extreme example. Unless your director insists on having the variable focal length available all the time, you can use anamorphic prime lenses with reasonable weight and size. (Two days ago, I worked with a director who insisted on doing a handheld shot low level with a Russian anamorphic zoom at f=37mm - he didn't want to wait two minutes to get the 2nd camera with a small and lightweight 35mm lens. When he lay flat on his back, feeling the additional weight of camera + anamorphic zoom + massive support plate, he suddenly knew what I meant... :) )

 

I believe choice of format really depends on the type of film and visual style the filmmaker strives for. If they want it all handheld, zooming in and out a lot, Super 35 may be a better solution.

 

With filmmakers who like dramatic staging, especially if they plan their compositions well in advance, true anamorphic can be a tremendous tool especially for low budget films. I talked two directors into shooting anamorphic, one of them was convinced by the dynamic look of anamorphic wide angle shots (especially exteriors on 50D stock stopped down to 5.6-8), the other guy found it to be a perfect format for doing long shot coverage with small camera movements and actors moving in depth.

 

I was interesting to me that these guys - both with years of experience in broadcast and industrial films - NEVER changed the zoom lenses focal length during the shots although it was on camera for about 90% of shooting time.

 

Personally, I do not find anamorphics being slower such a problem, today's medium and high speed stocks can help with that. I dislike anything shot under 2.8-4 on a big theater screen because the constant focus pulling strains my eyes and seems unnecessary artificial to me. But that's only personal taste.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Christian Appelt

[Tim O'Connor]

It depends on the type of anamorphic lenses whether they will make work more difficult. A 25-250 Panavision zoom is quite an extreme example. Unless your director insists on having the variable focal length available all the time, you can use anamorphic prime lenses with reasonable weight and size. (Two days ago, I worked with a director who insisted on doing a handheld shot low level with a Russian anamorphic zoom at f=37mm - he didn't want to wait two minutes to get the 2nd camera with a small and lightweight 35mm lens. When he lay flat on his back, feeling the additional weight of camera + anamorphic zoom + massive support plate, he suddenly knew what I meant... :) )

 

I believe choice of format really depends on the type of film and visual style the filmmaker strives for. If they want it all handheld, zooming in and out a lot, Super 35 may be a better solution.

 

With filmmakers who like dramatic staging, especially if they plan their compositions well in advance, true anamorphic can be a tremendous tool especially for low budget films. I talked two directors into shooting anamorphic, one of them was convinced by the dynamic look of anamorphic wide angle shots (especially exteriors on 50D stock stopped down to 5.6-8), the other guy found it to be a perfect format for doing long shot coverage with small camera movements and actors moving in depth.

 

I was interesting to me that these guys - both with years of experience in broadcast and industrial films - NEVER changed the zoom lenses focal length during the shots although it was on camera for about 90% of shooting time.

 

Personally, I do not find anamorphics being slower such a problem, today's medium and high speed stocks can help with that. I dislike anything shot under 2.8-4 on a big theater screen because the constant focus pulling strains my eyes and seems unnecessary artificial to me. But that's only personal taste.

 

 

How do you feel that anamorporphic format would be for a courtroom drama in which a good portion

of the film is planned as long (45 to 90 second) shots in which the actors move around and the camera

actually does move a good bit, although mostly simply dollying laterally as one or the other lawyers

crosses while talking ?

[Max Jacoby]

Independently of anamorphic, the most important factor will be to have a good sized courtroom that allows you to move the camera around and design interesting shots. If you don't have any handheld or steadicam shots, shooting anamorphic is less of an issue. Just make sure that you check beforehand what your wide anamorphic lenses look like in that space, since they have more distortion that spherical lenses.

 

Personally I love shooting anamorphic and my staging takes its characteristics into account. I like to play with the shallow depth of field. It's just important to keep in mind that if say there is a second person in shot which the focus is not on, make sure that that person is soft enough. There is nothing more distracting than a person which is only slightly soft because it makes your eyes strain.

 

In general I think the challenges of anamorphic are worth it, because the look is much more three-dimensional than spherical. To be honest, Super35 is for whimps ;)

[John Brawley]

It depends on the type of anamorphic lenses whether they will make work more difficult. A 25-250 Panavision zoom is quite an extreme example. Unless your director insists on having the variable focal length available all the time, you can use anamorphic prime lenses with reasonable weight and size.

 

 

Hi Chistian.

 

Just to re-iterate. I had an anamorph-izized 25-250 Angenieux HR from panavision. it was SMALLER than the Primo's and weighed less. It depends which primes you're shooting.

[Max Jacoby]

Just to re-iterate. I had an anamorph-izized 25-250 Angenieux HR from panavision. it was SMALLER than the Primo's and weighed less. It depends which primes you're shooting.

C and E series lenses are much smaller than the Primos. On the other hand I like to avoid anamorphic zooms as much as possible because the anamorphot is at the back, so the quality isn't as good as the primes even stopped down. Also you don't get that typical anamorphic look with these zooms. The one exception being Panavision's 40-80mm T2.8 zoom which has a front anamorphot.

[John Holland]

i just dont understand this , look at the movies shot anamorphic in the 70's 100 asa stock maybe pushed a stop , now we have better lenses ,500 asa stock and lamps that push out so much light its amazing so no reason what so ever not to shoot scope actors may have to get used to have more than 50 fc. shining at them poor loves .

[Hal Smith]

.............actors may have to get used to have more than 50 fc. shining at them poor loves .

They do exist, I blasted 400FC into one actress' face last year and she didn't even squint. Of course she also has worked on Broadway in Disney musicals and has been around world class followspots blasting a hole in the back walls of the set.

[John Brawley]

It is pretty amazing. In my recent shoot I had up to 800fc on some of my setups. I wanted to overexposed shafts f sunlight and here I was shooting base T5.6. I have NEVER worked at these kind of light levels in a studio before and it really took me a while to accommodate and re-calibrate myself. Trying to do a night interior becomes a lot more interesting as well. On my last shoot I was lighting with xmas lights. But here I am still at 4 or 5.6 and big fixtures.

 

I have never seen an arc in operation. I wonder if the output is comparable or even greater to the larger HMI's. By all accounts they are and the light has a better and flatter spectral response. I rang around to see if there were any arc's about and got laughed at. So instead I had 24K dino's and 12K spacelights.....

 

My actors never complained once. I was worried when the door from the set started smoking at 4 meters from a Dino though...I had an additional electric on standby with fire extinguishers and started dimming the lights up and down in-between takes...

[Christian Appelt]

How do you feel that anamorporphic format would be for a courtroom drama in which a good portion

of the film is planned as long (45 to 90 second) shots in which the actors move around and the camera

actually does move a good bit, although mostly simply dollying laterally as one or the other lawyers

crosses while talking ?

 

I think it would be a very good choice. I especially like the look of indoor sets shot with a 50mm scope lens, 40mm may be quite extreme because it will bend the lines as you dolly sideways. I'd love to see a courtroom drama done with deep focus like in INHERIT THE WIND (1960) but shot anamorphic, it would keep the characters connected and create a special tension. Look at (my favourite b&w anamorphic movie ;) ) THE HUSTLER (1961), the players at the billiard tables and the audience around are quite similiar to a courtroom setting. Stopping down to 5.6 would be helpful, personally I do not like to look too much at the focus puller's work (good or bad) on a huge screen.

 

Shooting anamorphic mixes goes well with long shots and moving actors, unless you like to have a shallow DOF like Max described it. If you prefer shallow DOF with lots of focus pulling, I would rather go for spherical, but that's just my personal taste, snails and oyster, you know... ;)

Edited July 27, 2007 by Christian Appelt