s16mm to blow up for 35mm

[Vincenzo Condorelli AIC]

im working on a project in india and the nature of production budget allows me to have a best light telecine to digibeta followed by a grading session on lustre (or iq) for the online. considering that the production could be be able to blow it up to 35mm in the next future, which aspect ratio should i go for? i was thinking for 1:66 throughout all the process, but i'd love to hear the opinion of more experienced cinematographer in this domain.

thank you.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I normally frame my S16mm for 1.78:1 but as you'll be recording the 1.66:1 anyway you have a bit of room in post for a reframe if you want to go 1.78 or 1.85. Always good to talk to the director, too, to see which ratio they want. I habe to do a 2.35:1 once off of a XL1. . . just because the director wanted it.

[David Mullen ASC]

Usually the 1.68 Super-16 negative is trimmed a little top & bottom for transfer to 16x9 (1.78) full-frame video.

 

I don't recommend a standard def video format like Digi-Beta as the digital intermediate source for getting Super-16 onto 35mm, but whether or not you use 16x9 SD or 16x9 HD, it would get transferred to 35mm as a 1.78 hard matted image.

 

The projector showing the print would trim this further with a 1.85 mask in the gate. It's actually better to have a 1.78 hard matted image than one hard-matted on film to 1.85. If the image has a 1.85 hard matte, then odds are high that some portion of the hard matte will be visible on the screen even with the slightest misframing by the projectionist, whereas 1.78 is really close to 1.85 but is a little oversized, so you get the benefit of having an image that has to be framed carefully by the projectionist while giving a little leeway.

[Vincenzo Condorelli AIC]

Usually the 1.68 Super-16 negative is trimmed a little top & bottom for transfer to 16x9 (1.78) full-frame video.

 

I don't recommend a standard def video format like Digi-Beta as the digital intermediate source for getting Super-16 onto 35mm, but whether or not you use 16x9 SD or 16x9 HD, it would get transferred to 35mm as a 1.78 hard matted image.

 

The projector showing the print would trim this further with a 1.85 mask in the gate. It's actually better to have a 1.78 hard matted image than one hard-matted on film to 1.85. If the image has a 1.85 hard matte, then odds are high that some portion of the hard matte will be visible on the screen even with the slightest misframing by the projectionist, whereas 1.78 is really close to 1.85 but is a little oversized, so you get the benefit of having an image that has to be framed carefully by the projectionist while giving a little leeway.

 

thanks a lot for your replies adrian and david. at this stage, because of budget constraints, i can't get from the production more than a best light telecine on sd (digibeta). indeed digibeta will be the final master. i guess it is an acceptable solution and a best light should give me more quality that a one light transfer. after this we'll have another grading session for the online (tape to tape). blow up for 35mm should happen at a later stage, in a couple of months, and for that case i'll keep in mind your precious advice david pushing for a real digi int or hd tapes.