Super 16 2:35 ratio

raph-gardet · September 12, 2008

HI ALL

I'll be shooting a short in Super 16 and the director wants to shoot in the 2:35 ratio.What are my best options ? Framing 2:35 and extracting 2:35 digitally or optically OR using the french system called TRONCHET which is basically putting an anamorphoser in front of your lenses.I've seen films shot with it and it works really well.( just a bit more difficult for the assistant....). If i go with the first options, what should i do to have the maximum definition?

THank you for your help

Robert Hughes · September 13, 2008

If you shoot straight 2.35 you're going to lose a significant portion of your film area to the mask unless you make use of an anamorphic adapter. But shooting anamorphic reduces your lens options.

Do you really need to shoot S16 on a 2.35 format project? If you're doing a short, you might be better off shooting in 35mm and being disciplined in your shooting.

Chris Burke · September 13, 2008

HI ALL
I'll be shooting a short in Super 16 and the director wants to shoot in the 2:35 ratio.What are my best options ? Framing 2:35 and extracting 2:35 digitally or optically OR using the french system called TRONCHET which is basically putting an anamorphoser in front of your lenses.I've seen films shot with it and it works really well.( just a bit more difficult for the assistant....). If i go with the first options, what should i do to have the maximum definition?

THank you for your help

I have never heard of the Tronchet, but theoretically it would give you the best image because it uses the entire negative area. But a quick question. How is the film going to be finished, print or video? IF video, have your film scanned as HD or depending on the scanner, they can extract the 2.35:1 image area from the negative. But if you the 1.78 scan, you can matte that in post. Use sharp, fine grained film and compose your shots in mind with that aspect ratio. What camera are you using? Can you get ground glass that has a common topline for both formats? I know that some Aatons have this feature. Either way, it is a cool frame to compose in and I see the allure, but you are wasting some of the negative. This isn't such a big deal for some, a really big deal for others. It all depends on your budget. Shooting this with this framing will not by any means break the bank, in fact you will use the exact same amount of film.

Delorme Jean-Marie · September 30, 2008

lets say if you look for technical difficulties go for the tronchet system his zoom has a diferent spot per focal length ....

theoricaly it works but you need a good suport from your rental house and lab to achieve your goals.

if you want to shoot film and in the 2/40 aspec ration i'll strongly recomend you to film strait in scope.

if you have a low budget production that can't afford 35 2/40 you wont afford S16 scope either so why not thinking of filming 2/40 in HD and in post if you raise money go for an anomorphical scan en 35 print.

and if you'r attached to film just film in 1,66 in S16

sometime simplifiing the chain isn't bad on short budgets think about it

Dirk DeJonghe · September 30, 2008

The negative area on Tronchet standard 16 or on 2.35 cropped Super 16 is essentially the same. My lab has worked on about 10 feature films so far using optical blow up from S16 (cropped 2.35) to anamorphic 35 including one where both Tronchet and cropped S16 were used. In this case the director wanted the anamorphic 'defects' to be visible in order to make a visual difference with the rest of the film in Super 16/2.35.

Thierry Tronchet himself was here to view the comparison tests. Tronchet would be the best choice if you do a direct optical blow up to positive as you would for festival only short film. For films to be released you need an optical or digital intermediate negative in order to make release prints.

Mike Simpson · September 30, 2008

I actually spent some time searching for a 2.35 groundglass for an SR2 a few months ago and had a really hard time with it. Ended up just having to measure and tape off the tap.

It was pretty low tech, but actually worked just fine, and Ive done the same thing on some HD stuff since then. It is a bummer losing so much of the image though, but I would rather shoot nice lenses and crop them then mess around with the anamorphic 16 options.

Leo Anthony Vale · September 30, 2008

I actually spent some time searching for a 2.35 groundglass for an SR2 a few months ago and had a really hard time with it. Ended up just having to measure and tape off the tap.

For 16mm anamorphic, the sides of the TV safe area are the same as the sqeezed 2.35:1.

8.4mm X 2.5= 21mm

There once was a site on the web which described the Tronchet system & had a drawing of it.

It was obviously just an old 35mm camera attachment.

Keith Mottram · October 11, 2008

you could use 1.33x hawks on a super 16mm as well i assume?

Andrew Koch · October 11, 2008

Have you considered 2 perf techniscope? It is 35mm, but you would be shooting and processing 50% less film than standard 4 perf 35mm and your aspect ratio is already 2:40 without the need for any anamorphic lenses. Since you are using half as much film, you are not spending much more than 16. And since you wouldn't need to rent any special lenses, it could very well be close to the same cost as 16. Of course, this is only viable if you can get a 2 perf camera and have a posthouse that can handle it.