What are the differences between Super 35 and 35mm

[Bob Hayes]

I plan to shoot my next feature in super 35. I?ve never shot super 35 before. What are the differences between uper 35 and 35.

Edited March 8, 2005 by bob1dp

[Patrick Neary]

bigger neg! I switched over to "Super TV" for tv spots and haven't looked back. In addition to all the post ramifications for a feature (which others will undoubtedly share) I found you have to be careful in lens selection, not all 35 optics cover the extra negative area.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Super-35 is a good option for 2.39:1 if you don't want to use anamorphic camera lenses, but the image area (0.825 x 0.690 inches) of anamorphic "scope" is still greater and usually results in less graininess. Super-35 is a great option for 1.85:1 or 16:9 if you are going directly to video or Digital Intermediate. When it comes to image quality, "Size DOES Matter".

[Thomas Worth]

If you do shoot Super 35 for theatrical release and DON'T do a digital intermediate, you will have to go through an optical printing stage, since Super 35 uses up the negative area normally reserved for the soundtrack. This, of course, makes contact printing impossible since you would be printing picture into the soundtrack area.

 

Also, as John said, it seems that shooting Super 35 is becoming the new "scope." Basically, you compose for 2.4:1 in the finder, then "extract" that area of the frame for optical printing. This is cool because you can shed the more complex anamorphic lenses and use your favorite spherical glass. I like the idea, and so does Jim Cameron and David Fincher (the latter pointing out that shooting anamorphic is "wildly stupid").

 

Personally, I would stick with academy and 1.85:1. It's simpler and will probably look better after contact printing. And, as John points out, scope prints from Super 35 could look more grainy. But, if you've gotta have that "scope" look, then go S35.

[David Mullen ASC]

Shooting with anamorphic lenses uses more negative area than extracting a 2.39 image from Super-35. You get a more detailed image with finer grain generally that holds up better for large screen projection.

 

The disadvantages are the artifacts of anamorphic lenses, the lower depth of field, the fewer choices in optics, the size and weight of the lenses, and many other things to take into account.

[Chris Burke]

Is shooting Super 35 the same as shooting 3 perf? If so, doesn't 3 perf save you money all around? I am considering this format for two upcoming projects.

 

:D

[Patrick Neary]

If you are shooting 2.39 (which I obviously didn't account for in my first post) you also have a couple options for groundglass/framing- either pulling from the center or using a common top. The last S-35 package I used (a G-II, although we were shooting just 4:3) had the standard TV markings but with a little tick mark off to the side for 1.78 (with a common top frame.)

[John Pytlak RIP]

Is shooting Super 35 the same as shooting 3 perf? If so, doesn't 3 perf save you money all around? I am considering this format for two upcoming projects.

 

:D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

3-Perf can offer savings in stock and negative processing cost. But remember the height of each 3-perf frame is 3 x 0.1866 = 0.5598 inches. The camera aperture image area for 3-perf Super-35 is normally 0.980 x 0.546 inches. So if you are shooting for a 1.85:1 aspect ratio (0.945 x 0.511 image area), you have very thin framelines, so you need to be more vigilant about "hairs in the gate" and negative splices intruding into the picture area.

 

Also, remember that 3-perf will require the use of optical printing or digital intermediate if standard 4-perf pulldown prints are required, so that cost will mitigate any savings.

[Thomas Worth]

If you are shooting 2.39 (which I obviously didn't account for in my first post) you also have a couple options for groundglass/framing- either pulling from the center or using a common top. The last S-35 package I used (a G-II, although we were shooting just 4:3) had the standard TV markings but with a little tick mark off to the side for 1.78 (with a common top frame.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wouldn't composing with a common top ground glass screw up the centering of zoom lenses? If so, don't zoom during a shot (or stick with primes).

[John Sprung]

I plan to shoot my next feature in super 35.  I?ve never shot super 35 before.  What are the differences between uper 35 and 35.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Super 35 gives you a bigger area on the negative, but costs you an optical on the entire movie, or a DI. You can pull down either three or four perfs in super 35.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

If you are shooting 2.39 (which I obviously didn't account for in my first post) you also have a couple options for groundglass/framing- either pulling from the center or using a common top. The last S-35 package I used (a G-II, although we were shooting just 4:3) had the standard TV markings but with a little tick mark off to the side for 1.78 (with a common top frame.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can also split the difference and make a compromise somewhere between common center and common top. Your camera vendor can make up a glass for the relationship you want. Be sure to shoot a good reference chart so the lab can set up correctly for the blowup.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Edited March 11, 2005 by John Sprung

[David Mullen ASC]

Super-35 is more or less the same thing as Full Aperture photography, extending the image into the soundtrack area. It can be either 3 or 4-perf.

 

4-perf Full Aperture is 1.33 : 1 and 3-perf Full Aperture is about 1.78 : 1, so if you are composing for cropping to 2.39 : 1, there's no quality difference between 3-perf and 4-perf since you are only using about 2 1/2 perfs of negative for the 2.39 image.

[Landon D. Parks]

there's no quality difference between 3-perf and 4-perf since you are only using about 2 1/2 perfs of negative for the 2.39 image.

In which case you might as well shoot in 3 perf and save your money... Although the cost to either do a D.I or do an extra optical step might make it just as much as shooting 4-perf in the first place?

 

If however you where planning a DI or if you where planning an optical step (required for 3 and 4 perfs in S35) then why shoot 4 perf S35 when you can shoot 3 perf S35 and save some money? Since your only going to use the 2.39 area of the negative anyway.

 

Unless you need the full 1.33:1 negative area (for video transfers). But 3 perf has a 1.78:1 ratio, meaning that you can get a 16x9 aspect, 1.85 aspect and a 2.39 aspect out of the negative. If however you want a 4x3 copy, you either shoot in 4 perf or Pan and Scan the 1.78:1 area to get the 1.33:1 image.

 

I hope I got that right?

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, that's about right -- i.e. these are the questions that always get asked about 3-perf, one of those formats that seem better on paper than the reality. Most of the problems can be solved though, but basically you run into certain issues, like:

 

3-perf is mostly used for TV, so during the TV shooting season, many rental houses are nearly out of 3-perf cameras.

 

There are some issues with matching the EDL to the keycode that have to be thought out carefully.

 

It's hard to find older, cheaper, smaller cameras in 3-perf so you may end up mixing in some 4-perf shots (let's say, an Eyemo in a crash housing for a stunt.) Then you're really forced into the D.I. route.

 

Lack of lab projectors that can do 3-perf means that it's hard to screen any test prints off of the negative before the D.I. is done. Bigger-budgeted 3-perf films sort of get around this by doing their dailies with HD transfers.