Super 35

[J Costantini]

Hi.

I have a general idea of what super 35mm is but still have lots of doubts.

Can you guys explain me how it works from the beginning till the end (including anamorphization, etc).

I know that when you shoot super 35 you have to shoot full frame...

are there any precations that should be taken because of this?

How do you know your safaty margin? Where will the frame be cropped?

Can i just mask the video assit monitor 2.40:1 ?

Will I have this frame on the viewfinder?

 

plus:

what are the advantages and disadvantages of shooting with super35 lenses instead of the anamorphic ones? Will I get the exact same picture quality in both formats?

 

Thanks a lot.

[David Mullen ASC]

Shooting Super-35 means exposing your image using the 35mm Full Aperture, with your camera lenses optically centered for Full Aperture, rather than exposing and composing for a Sound Aperture format (1.85 / Academy / Anamorphic), where the optical center is shifted over because one part of the frame will be used for a soundtrack stripe.

 

You can compose any aspect ratio image you want to inside the Super-35 frame. You can order a variety of groundglass markings for the viewfinder. Generally you would COMPOSE for cropping to the chosen theatrical aspect ratio but PROTECT as much of the full frame outside of theatrical for the 4x3 TV pan-n-scan version, knowing that you can always zoom in and crop out any unwanted junk when doing the 4x3 telecine.

 

Even with using the Full Aperture for exposure, if you frame for cropping to 2.39 : 1, you end up using only about 2 1/2 perfs worth of negative out of 4, compared to shooting with anamorphic lenses, which uses the full height of the 4-perf 35mm frame, just not the little soundtrack area. So Super-35 cropped for conversion to 2.39 uses almost half as much negative area as anamorphic.

 

Thus generally Super-35 gives you grainier results than shooting in anamorphic, all other things being equal. The larger negative area of anamorphic also gives you better detail.

 

However, the best spherical lenses are generally better than the best anamorphic lenses, which have certain optical difficiencies and oddities. Some people can't stand anamorphic lens distortions and restrictions.

 

So it all depends on the look you want as to which is better.

[J Costantini]

Thanks, David.

 

So I will never get the same quality shooting super35 that I would get shooting anamorphic, is that it?

 

Is there a process thru which I can increse the quality of my super35 material in order to get a 2.40:1 theatrical print?

 

People in Brazil are shooting tons of super35 now. It looks fine when projected and i´ve seen lots of stuff in 2.40:1 (filmed super35).

How do they do that?

Are they accepting this `grain´ quality you told me about or do they solve this somehow? what do you think?

 

Thanks again.

[David Mullen ASC]

No, I didn't say that exactly because it depends on how you define "quality".

 

Anamorphic photography has its own sets of optical artifacts that some people dislike more than the graininess issue of Super-35. Plus there is generally less depth of field with anamorphic because the focal lengths used are generally twice as long, so if you're doing a lot of low-light night photography and cannot light to a decent stop, you may prefer the look of Super-35 over anamorphic.

 

Shooting good Super-35 is similar to shooting good Super-16 for a blow-up: use slower ASA films in general, use sharp lenses in general with less diffusion (or none), and overexpose the negative for higher density. Light for a sharper, more contrasty image with some "snap." You do all of that and you should get a pretty good blow-up to 2.35 anamorphic from Super-35. The differences between Super-35 and anamorphic are more textural than a good vs. bad quality issue, although I think the larger negative area of anamorphic gives you more leeway. However, other people will say that the optical quality of good spherical lenses will outweigh any benefits to shooting in anamorphic.

[J Costantini]

ok, let me see.

 

slower ASA for less grain.

overexpose to get higher density and crush the blacks.

sharp lenses... would you recommend the zeiss series? Are they sharper than the cooke S4 series?

 

Will filters influence on the sharpness? Ever?

 

These are basic recommendations for when shooting super-16 too, right?

 

Now, David, what is your favourite? shooting anamorphic or super 35?

Or will it depend on the project requirements?

 

And last: do you know a book called CINEMATOGRAPHY by Kris Malkiewicz?

 

Thanks for sharing your experience,

your help is very appreciated for all of us in this forum.

[David Mullen ASC]

All the modern lenses are pretty sharp. I don't think it matters much between Primos, Cooke S4's, Zeiss Ultra Primes, etc.

 

Diffusion filters obviously affect sharpness. A filter like an 85 or ND, not really, unless you stack a bunch together.

 

I generally prefer the LOOK of anamorphic over Super-35 but it really depends on the production problems that need to be solved and the quality of post-production that I can hope for. Obviously it is easier to shoot in Super-35 than anamorphic.

 

You also have to consider the visual subject matter -- a mostly day exterior movie would benefit more from anamorphic, whereas a low-light nighttime movie may benefit from fast spherical lenses.

 

I just wrote a new edition of "Cinematography" with Kris Malkiewicz. Hopefully it will be published next year.

[J Costantini]

mine is the second edition

 

what are the advantages of the new edition? should i get the new one?

[Dominic Case]

what are the advantages of the new edition? should i get the new one?

I'd have thought (given the immense amount of knowledge that David draws from, and the clarity and thoroughness of his email answers) the advantages of the third edition (Malkiewicz & Mullen) over the second (Malkiewicz) would be obvious. (No reflection on Kris's excellent book, but two heads are better than one!)

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, the first edition was written in 1974 and the second in 1989, so the new one is updated to cover modern equipment and techniques. I'd say about 1/3 of it is updated info.

[J Costantini]

OK, David.

I knew you would understand what I meant by "advantages of the new edition". New info, new technologies covered, etc. No doubt about your great collaboration to this forum and to the book I´m sure. :)

 

looking forward to get the book!

 

Thanks