1:85, etc.

tanner wolfe · October 3, 2007

i recently shot a film in the 1:85 aspect ratio. i have shot several 35mm and 16mm pieces prior to this. however, i've spent the last year prior to this most recent film staring into video cameras. i found that my framing suffered because i was not paying close attention to the 1:85 cropping on the ground glass. i was allowing the academy image to distract me into giving people haircuts and so forth. can i easily mask the eyepiece so that i only see the 1:85, 2:35 that i'm shooting? if so, is it advisable to do this?

cordially,

tanner

Max Jacoby · October 3, 2007

You can ask for a groundglass where the safety area is darkened (but not to the point of being invisible). That way you are less distracted by what's outside the 1.85 frame but still notice a boom creeping in.

I always ask for the crosshair in the middle of the groundglass to be removed too, it prevents the temptation of shotgun-sighting framing.

John Sprung · October 3, 2007

I always ask for the crosshair in the middle of the groundglass to be removed too, ....

That was my preference, too -- one clean well defined rectangle, with the outside darkened. On most GG's, you can just shade the overview area with an ordinary pencil. You can wash it off when you're done.

-- J.S.

Michael Nash · October 4, 2007

I guess I'm the anomaly then. I love having the crosshair there as a reference for symmetrical framings, and for a little assistance in determining level/horizon. I don't really have a problem ignoring it the rest of the time. Some multiple aspect ratio markings can still give me trouble though; especially ignoring the 4:3 within 16:9.

Mike Williamson · October 4, 2007

I like the crosshairs too, especially shooting Academy where the frame is offset in the viewfiinder. Besides the crosshairs, I prefer having one box and that's it, simple makes happy. I haven't had the pleasure of protecting for multiple aspect ratios yet, sounds like a lot of fun...

Jon Petro · October 4, 2007

I have shot a bunch of film too, and I can never get used to the image outside the ground glass. The Only time I was able to somewhat frame with ease was when the area outside the 1.85 on a Super America was darkened slightly, and a helpful Arri Glow. And even on that ground glass there were a few set of lines very close together, so it took our first set of dailies to prove which was 1.85 and what wasn't.

I do believe the video influence a great deal too. I have shot thousands and thousands of hours of video for my business and find the viewing system so much more agreeable. I simply do not need to see outside my composition. I don't like the cross hairs either. I had Bernie O' redo my ground glass so it was 1.85 only and very dark green outside of the 1.85.

Even that was not satisfactory enough. I have since had the area outside of the ground glass painted black. To me this is how you can compose the best shots possible.

I also have taken about a million pictures in my life, yet another medium that does not require you to see outside of your final composition. I feel your pain. I don't understand all the extra veiwing in film cameras. I can't see the boom mic being that important a thing to worry about. I have shot plenty of films on video with a boom with no problem. And forget about the ground glasses with a million veiwing lines on it...Super 16, Regular 16, TV, 1.85, Cross Hairs...Those are completely ridiculous in my opinion. I have spoken to some other filmmakers, that although have not expressed the same dislike for complicated open ground glasses, have explained they messed up framing a few times on ground glasses like these.

Jon Kukla · October 4, 2007

It depends what you're doing - if an operator is doing handheld or improvised shots, then the need to see how much space you have before a boom, lamp, cable, or stand is VERY important.

Max Jacoby · October 4, 2007

I shot mostly anamorphic and there the area outside the groundglass is quite small and much less distracting.

Simon Miya · October 4, 2007

I haven't had the pleasure of protecting for multiple aspect ratios yet, sounds like a lot of fun...

That is interesting, I was thinking just yesterday about this subject. I can't think of a single project I've worked on in the past several years that wasn't protecting for multiple aspect ratios. Features frame for widescreen projection, but are cognizant of future fullscreen SD TV exhibition. TV projects are often still framed for SD fullscreen, yet protect for HD widescreen.

And even on that ground glass there were a few set of lines very close together, so it took our first set of dailies to prove which was 1.85 and what wasn't.

You should have shot a framing chart and made sure the lab/telecine used it - that way you are telling them what framing you are using, rather than let them tell you, like it sounds like you did.

tanner wolfe · October 4, 2007

framing chart was not the issue. i simply was distracted by all the negative space outside of 1.85. we moved the frame around in post because of some of the haircuts i gave people.

thanks all for your responses. very helpful.

tanner

Simon Miya · October 5, 2007

framing chart was not the issue.

I'm sorry if I was not clear. My comment on a framing chart was not directed toward you, it is not relevant to your problem. It was in response to another poster's comments in this thread.