35 3-perf vs. S16?

[J. Anthony Gonzales]

S16 and 35 3-perf are both formats that will need to be optically printed for a film print, correct? Taking out the cost of film stock and negative processing, what is the difference in cost in creating a screening print between the two?

 

From S16 neg A/B rolls to 35mm print vs. 35 3-perf neg A roll to 35mm print?

 

Thanks,

 

John G.

[David Mullen ASC]

First you'd have to find a lab willing to go directly from A-B roll neg to print through an optical printer. Only a few do and they usually require a zero cut negative (i.e. one with frame handles on every cut) and the costs are high per print.

 

I suspect the costs would be similar since the work is identical in terms of the optical printer, just you start with a S-16 neg in one case and a 3-perf 35mm neg in the other.

 

However, most labs will want to do it through an IP/IN step. In that case, it depends -- for example, a 3-perf 35mm IP will be shorter and therefore cheaper than a 4-perf 35mm IP, but a S16 IP will be cheaper than either.

 

Anyway, I suspect S16 will be cheaper in most scenarios you create, except maybe when using a D.I. (and even then it will be cheaper to shoot than 3-perf.)

[J. Anthony Gonzales]

So basically, the process is the same, the cost difference is just going to be based on actual footage of film to be printed, correct?

 

 

 

John G.

[David Mullen ASC]

Since you're talking about a rare, non-standard method, it's not like there are standard prices for the work. One lab may not do both and two labs may not charge them same for either, etc. So you can't really say if the costs of the blow-up would be similar, assuming you can skip the intermediate step. This is just something where you have to get actual quotes from labs for either process.

[Mitch Gross]

Vaguely generally speaking, they will likely be roughly the same cost, with Super-16 probably coming in a little cheaper. But as David says, you have to find facilities to do the work in order to get the prices.

[J. Anthony Gonzales]

Actually that's my question. In a "normal" process of blowing-up/transfering S16 and S35 3-perf, what is the comparative cost? Simply, if I have 1000' of S16 film and I have 1000' of S35 3-perf film, is the process from stock neg to a 35mm release print going to be the same in cost based on footage (ie. in the above example, is my 25min. S16 movie going to cost the same as my 14min. 35mm 3-perf movie in terms of getting a 35mm release print out of it?)

 

 

John G.

[David Mullen ASC]

The "normal" method is to blow-up from an IP to an IN, so if you made a S16 IP from a S-16 A-B neg roll, that's cheaper than making a 3-perf 35mm IP from a 3-perf 35mm A-B neg roll. But after that, I suspect the costs are similar, maybe slightly cheaper for S16 than 3-perf 35mm (assuming you find a place that can work with a 3-perf 35mm element in the optical printer.)

 

Plus before all of this, you have the costs of answer printing to determine the printer light corrections, and again, it will be cheaper to answer print S16 than 3-perf 35mm.

[Mitch Gross]

To expand on what David noted, the process would go something like this:

 

negative cut. similar costs, although a per foot charge for matchback alignment will be higher in 3/35 due to longer lengths for same running time.

 

silent answer print for color timing. costs much lower in s-16 due to footage count; don't know what the solution would be in 3/35 as I don't think a 3/35 projector exists. This is why 4/35 is the standard for film finish even when shooting S-35. A color-correction print with slugs of short shots that is then viewed on a slide projector is possible but hardly ideal. Some form of color correction needs to be done before making an expensive optical or IP for decent grading. Perhaps a lab might have an aswer for this but it is certainly not normal practice and will add something to your post costs.

 

IP it is generally considered best to handle the optical stage in this step so that you work in standard 4/35 for most of the steps, both for costs and quality. These costs will likely be comperable. For all steps after this they should pretty much be the same as they are all working off 4/35 elements from here on.

[Dominic Case]

Simply, if I have 1000' of S16 film and I have 1000' of S35 3-perf film,

It's misleading to compare 1,000ft of super 16 with 1,000ft of 35mm 3-perf. It's surely better to compare film lengths with the same running time. For simplicity, let's aim for 1,000ft of 4-perf 35mm release print. That is equivalent to 400 ft of 16mm, or 750 ft of 3-perf 35mm.

 

Assuming you choose the preferred option of blowing up to 35mm 4-perf in the IP in each case, the costs will be virtually identical for the blow-up.

 

But as David and Mitch have both pointed out, there is the cost of a mute trial print from the original neg, to approve the grading, before attempting the blow-up. That would clearly be cheaper for 400 ft of 16mm than for 750 ft of 35mm 3-perf. You can't run sound on either format, so they are basically throw-away prints once the colour is approved.

 

Mitch - labs that make a speciality of 3-perf probably would have an adapted projector to run 3-perf. With some machines it's a very simple conversion, just replacing the 16-tooth sprocket in the intermittent movement with a 12-perf one.

 

(In preview it looks as though the BB quote formatting has worked this time for this message B) - what did i do different? No idea :huh:

[J. Anthony Gonzales]

Thanks for all the great info.

 

Ok, here's a hypothetical. Let's say a two indentical 10 minute films are shot in Super35 format. One is shot 3-perf, the other 4-perf. The finished negs are roughly 750' and 1000' respectively, correct? Now, what is the difference budget wise in getting a release print for each from the neg (going the IP/IN route, not DI)? Is it safe to assume that the cost would be the same?

 

 

Thanks,

 

John G.

[David Mullen ASC]

In theory, the 3-perf would be cheaper because the IP would be 750', not 1000'. But since you'll find few places that can handle 3-perf, you might have less flexibility in striking a deal, so it may end up costing you more. But assuming one place could do either, then it would be cheaper with 3-perf.

[Dominic Case]

In theory, the 3-perf would be cheaper because the IP would be 750', not 1000'.

But with 4-perf, both stages of duplication are conventional contact printing. Starting from 3-perf, one step has to be the 3-perf to 4-perf "blow-up", which is an optical printing stage. Most labs will impose a surcharge for this, which would wipe out the footage saving that David mentioned.

 

You would probably also find that neg cutting costs would be a little higher, as the business of matching your edl timecodes to negative keycode numbers is more complex and therefore time-consuming (3-perf has 21 1/3 frames per foot :huh: )

 

3-perf's advantages are greatest for a video finish (TV drama etc), when the inticacies of converting to 4-perf film don't arise.

[J. Anthony Gonzales]

I seem to be a bit confused. If I want to get a 35mm IN, then wouldn't there be an optical process involved whether it's 3 or 4 perf simply because it's in Super35?

 

Can somebody outline a simple step by step process in order to get to a standard 35mm IN for printing off of for both 3 and 4-perf Super35? Is there more than one optional process for each?

 

My understanding is:

 

S35 Neg -> 35 IP (via optical blow-up) -> 35 IN -> 35 Print

 

Can the optical process for 3-perf cover both 3-perf AND S35 conversion or does it require seperate steps?

 

Thanks,

 

John G.

[Mitch Gross]

Can the optical process for 3-perf cover both 3-perf AND S35 conversion or does it require seperate steps?

Yes. Dominic, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that with 4-perf S-35 "both stages of duplication are conventional contact printing." Perhaps you misread the question and compared to anamorphic 35 or spherical 35 inside academy.

 

Super-35 framing will have to go through an optical (or digital) step during post in order to arrive at a conventional 35mm projection print. The conversion from 3-perf to 4-perf can be handled within this step as well. The same goes for 2-perf (Multivision 235), Super-16 or any other shooting format that is not either anamorphic 2.39 4-perf 35mm or conventional 1.85/1.66 cutoff within Academy spherical 4-perf 35mm. All others are non-standard and must be optically converted.

[David Mullen ASC]

Since 4-perf Super-35 does not allow an optical track, it is not a projection format normally (except at labs) so yes, it has to be converted to a standard projection format. You never said if this was for a 1.85 movie or a 2.35 scope movie.

 

Certainly it's not worth all the trouble if this is simply to get a 1.85 print though, which can be done with simple contact-printing if you shot in normal 4-perf 35mm using a sound aperture.

 

Normally, the blow-up step when using an optical printer is done between the IP and IN since you can use a color-corrected single-strand IP in the projector side of the optical printer rather than an A-B roll uncorrected negative.

 

S35 neg --> S35 IP --> (optical printer) 35mm IN --> 35mm print

 

So you would first answer print and then create a contact-printed color-timed IP from the A-B roll neg. So if you shot in 3-perf, then the IP will also still be in 3-perf.

 

A very few places will blow-up directly from A-B roll neg to a positive (IP or print) in an optical printer, but it requires a zero cut negative and the costs are pretty high.

 

Note that when you make the IN using an optical printer off of the S35 IP, if you need more than one IN, you have to make them using an optical printer off of the S35 IP -- so every IN is more expensive to make (big release print orders need multiple IN's.)

[Dominic Case]

Perhaps you misread the question

I did indeed misread the question. Sorry! :( Thanks Mitch and David for setting it straight.

 

Of course, Super35 is, by definition, a full-width perf-to-perf frame, regardless of the pull-down, so of course it will need optical duplication. Normally, as David points out, it's a wetgate contact IP, then an optical DN, with the conversions at athat stage: full-width to 1.85 (rare); full-width to anamorphic (more usual) and/or 3-perf to 4-perf (also rare).

 

If the end-product is a squeezed IN & prints, then it's convenient to have the flat (contact printed) IP with extra image at the top and bottom. If you have protected at least some of this area, it cuts down on the need for pan-and-scan when the video master is made (normally from the IP).

[Christian Appelt]

For what reason is the enlargement and squeezing done at the second step?

Wouldn't the image gain quality if the S-35 neg was blown up from camera neg to anamorphic 4-perf IP, then contact printed to IN, thereby preserving resolution and keeping grain down because of the larger image area?

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, but the problems are many: you are blowing up from uncorrected negative (A-B roll cut in the case of Super-16) so have to both color-correct and enlarge in the same step, plus you're dealing with spliced material plus it's your original.

 

Plus for a home video transfer, you'd want to make a contact-printed IP so as to have more picture info for the pan & scan version, so that's two IP's to make.

 

One of the earliest Super-35 films, "Silverado", did blow-up from the Super-35 neg to an 35mm anamorphic IP and a 65mm IP (for 70mm prints), but this was also because dupe stocks weren't as good as they are now.