Negative film format & print

Joseph Dudek · December 19, 2012

So, 'The Thing' [1982], was filmed using 35mm East 100T 5247, they used anamorphic lenses as it was later blown up to 70mm for release. The printed film format was Eastman 5384. Question: How does the print film format affect the look of the film, i.e. can you categorize print film in the same way as negative (Tungsten & Daylight)?

Negative vs Intended/theatrical aspect ratio. If a movie was shot in 35mm & its negative aspect ratio was 1.37- how many perforations would it have, what type of films was that most likely, what is the reason for it? Considering that the film in question was released in 1.85.1 ... does this mean they blew it up? I associate 1.33 etc with 16mm.

What affect does running 35mm film through the camera horizontally produce?

thanks.

Joseph Dudek · December 19, 2012

Wouldn't let me edit:

Additionally, considering that if the negative ratio is 1.37, doesn't that mean a lot of ambiguity over framing, as most likely it will be released in 1.85, or something similar, and to achieve this I presume they mask over the bottoms of the negative to produce a narrower image?

Brian Drysdale · December 19, 2012

They masked it off in the projector, the camera can also have a gate with different aspect ratios fitted, although it mightn't always be 1.85. 4 perf 35mm is the standard for film projection, 3 perf and 2 perf need to go through a DI these days or in the past an optical printer.

Yes, you can have variations depending on how the projectionist sets the rack in the projector.

Joseph Dudek · December 19, 2012

So people still shoot with a negative of 1.37 to be released in 1.66-1.85? It just seems that I rarely encounter this combination past 1990 when researching, though it may just be coincidental.

Paul Bartok · December 20, 2012

I've seen other films shot in 1.37:1 in recent times, and yes they generally will crop of the unneeded area to make a 1.85 print. Its more uncommon but doable, It all depends. The way films are shot these days has changed if you your shooting for a DI or Print. If its a DI you could easily shoot 1.37 crop in DI then scanout a 4 perf flat print.

READ THESE:

http://motion.kodak....al_Workflow.pdf

http://motion.kodak....al_workflow.pdf

David Mullen ASC · December 20, 2012

35mm print projection is always 4-perf, which is 1.37 Full Aperture (silent). The anamorphic area is almost Full Aperture height but Academy Aperture width (because of the room for the optical sound track) -- the shape is roughly 1.20 : 1. The image has a 2X horizontal squeeze and is expanded horizontally by the 2X anamorphic projector lens to roughly 2.40 : 1.

The other common format is 1.85 : 1, which is achieved with a projector mask.

If you shoot 3-perf (1.78 : 1 native) you have to convert it to 4-perf in post (optically or now digitally) in order to make a 4-perf negative that can be printed for release prints.

4-perf 35mm runs vertically. VistaVision is 8-perf 35mm run horizontally and is 36mm x 24mm (1.50 : 1), just as with a full-frame 35mm still camera.

Brian Drysdale · December 20, 2012

A number of films are shot with a full aperture in the camera, but are framed for the projection format. One advantage being that gate hairs are much less of an issue, the downside being that there's always the risk that the full aperture will be used for projection or video. "Badlands" has a mic boom going across one shot when it's fully projected (they changed the aspect ratio for the next screenings) and one venue I attended didn't have masks for their projectors, so the odd mic drifted into view in the screening of some short films (they were framed for 1.85, but the mics were well out for even 1.66).

Joseph Dudek · December 20, 2012

Thanks for replies.

Looking through IMDB randomly and noticing that the use of a 1.37 negative, intended for release in Euro 1.66.1- US 1.85.1, is sparingly used in modern productions (though this could possibly just be IMDB). Like has been mentioned, shooting a full can lead to mics etc being in shot (though presumably this can be avoided by hard matting?). Despite this, which is the most common way to shoot nowaday, full Aperture 1.37 negative, or a 3-perf negative 1.78, assuming the release will be 1.66-1.85?

David Mullen ASC · December 20, 2012

3-perf took off for theatrical features when digital intermediates took off by the mid-to-late 2000's. Before that, 3-perf was mostly used in television.

Mark Dunn · December 20, 2012

Stanley Kubrick famously varied his practice. 'Barry Lyndon' was hard matted (using a camera gate mask) to 1.66 and SK sent a letter to every projectionist to ensure they got it right but 'The Shining', although composed for 1.85 and intended to be projected thus, was shot Academy, with no mask.

'Dr. Strangelove' was released on video with the AR varied according to the scene, having been shot in the same way as 'The Shining'.

Paul Bartok · December 20, 2012

There was some big blockbuster shot on 3-perf Super 35 like Flight scenes in Top gun, I think every film James Cameron has shot was Super 35 3-perf besides Avatar his last film on film was 1997 Titanic, T2, The abyss etc. but defiantly more popular in the digital realm.

I wonder how they allocated formats for Release Prints for films shot on 2.35/9:1, did they make prints 50% scope 50% flat?

John Holland · December 20, 2012

Camerons films not 3 perf , Super 35 with 2.35 extract , The Titanic wreck scenes were shot 2 perf for a longer mag running time .

Paul Bartok · December 20, 2012

Yeah your right Its late here atm must of been thinking of another film, 4 perf 2.35 and 2 perf for diving I think they used a hacked Arri 35b from Panavision for diving sequences.

Leo Anthony Vale · December 21, 2012

. "Badlands" has a mic boom going across one shot when it's fully projected (they changed the aspect ratio for the next screenings) and one venue I attended didn't have masks for their projectors, so the odd mic drifted into view in the screening of some short films (they were framed for 1.85, but the mics were well out for even 1.66).

Let's not forget misframing in projection. As long as there's picture on the screen, who cares if it's.

One of the less frequently mentioned advantages of 'Scope projection.

I once saw 'They only Kill Their Masters', totally misframed.

So, James Garner walks ito a vet's waiting room & asks the bartender... wait,wait!

All of the animals are barking. At the top of the frame, a group of people are leaning over the top of a wall, gestureing with their hands.. my immediate reaction is 'What the hell?' Then realize they are animal trainers giving hand signals to their animactors.

'Lord Love a Duck' and 'Sleeper' were notorious for mikes at the top of the frame, when shown on TV.