Is this a proper Post Production step?

Landon D. Parks · October 20, 2004

Either can be framed to be cropped to 1.78 (16x9), 1.85, or 2.39.

Yes, but when you crop, lets say Full Ap 3 - perf (1:1.78) to 1:1.85, then you just "Cut"off some resolution that could be used to produce a better picture?

It seams easier to me to shoot 3 - perf 1:1.85 and release it as 1:1.85, instead of all this 1:2.39 stuff, which really does not seam to make anthing better?

I guess you could shoot it 1:2.39 and release it as that too, So really, it's an artist choice I guess.

David Mullen ASC · October 20, 2004

First of all, if the film (3-perf) is 1.78 : 1, then how can you use all of it to get a 1.85 image anyway? Shoot with some microscopically minor anamorphic lens to slightly squeeze a 1.85 image onto a 1.78 rectangle? The 35mm 4-perf print is naturally 1.33 : 1, so you're wasting 25% of it anyway when projecting 1.85 : 1.

Since all prints are 4-perf, and all need to have room for an optical soundtrack, the biggest problem with 3-perf is getting it converted (optically printed or digitally) from 3-perf to 4-perf. Whether to output the image for 1.85 spherical (flat) projection or 2.39 anamorphic (scope) projection is not really a problem, just a choice of one or the other depending on how you framed the image. So IF you shoot in 3-perf, or in 4-perf Super-35 (which also does not allow contact release prints because it uses the soundtrack area for picture info), whether you want a 1.85 print or a 2.39 scope print is merely an artistic decision.

The SIMPLEST (and therefore ultimately cheapest) way to shoot is 4-perf standard 35mm (Academy, not Super-35) composed for cropping to 1.85. Then you just make a straight contact print off of the cut negative for prints with soundtracks. Or if you want a 2.39 anamorphic print, shoot in 4-perf with anamorphic lenses and make a straight contact print. In this case, 1.85 is a little easier than 2.39 because spherical lenses are easier to work with than anamorphic lenses.

Super-35, whether 3-perf or 4-perf, requires a post step to convert the image to one of the two common 35mm 4-perf sound projection formats.

As for the artistic differences between 1.85 and 2.39 images, if you can't see or feel or sense the differences, and how they can be used as a storytelling device, well, I can't help you.

Landon D. Parks · October 20, 2004

you see that graphic I loaded above? In the camera negative side, what is the aspect ratio that they show there? It looks 1:1.85 to me? but then again, I can't really tell for sure.

David Mullen ASC · October 20, 2004

1.78 is so close to 1.85 as to be nearly the same.

The 3-perf full-frame negative on the left is 1.78. If you notice, the 1.78 image gets reduced with a black matte on three sides to fit within the sound projection area of a 4-perf 35mm frame. It would then get very slightly cropped top & bottom during projection to 1.85 by the 1.85 mask in the projector.

Landon D. Parks · October 20, 2004

So, in your opinion, if you shot 3 perf, what aspect would you shoot it in, and release it in?

David Mullen ASC · October 20, 2004

It depends on the story. If mainly for TV/cable/home video release, I'd compose for 1.85/1.78. If for theatrical, it depends on the story and style, but I'm fond of 2.39, especially since it is more common for big-budget films than small indie films, so therefore tends to take the curse off the low-budget look.

Max Jacoby · October 21, 2004

So, you can shoot 2.39 in 3 -perf? Is'nt that Anamorphic?

Why should I choose to shoot Anamorphic 2.39 over 1.85 in 3 - perf? Is 2.39 easier to shoot or somthing?

Landon

May I suggest that you get yourself a copy of the 'American Cinematographers Manual' which explains all these post production steps and has lots of other great articles on technical subjects also. It is obvious from your questions that you lack even basic technical knowledge which makes

trying to explain things to you very difficult, since one needs to pretty much start from scratch every time.

Landon D. Parks · October 21, 2004

Wow, $100 for a book!!!!! Hope the library has a copy (I doubt it)

Thanks for the explainations. I think after reading over what was said, I know more than before, but still. I good ol' book would not hurt! :rolleyes:

I do think I get the basic idea that 1:1.85 and 1:2.39 are an artist choice, but I had always thought that shooting 1:2.39 required more stock. Becuase shooting anamorphic streched the image higher and therefore took up more negative space.

But im sure this manual you are talking about will explain this too?