Anamorphic 16mm

[J. Anthony Gonzales]

Could somebody comment on Anamorphic Regular 16mm VS 2-Perf 35mm (Techniscope)? I know Techniscope pretty much died out with Technicolor, as they went hand in hand to reduce the grain on the half-height neg. But with the advent of finer grained stocks like the Vision2 stocks, would shooting Anamorphic 16mm for blow-up to 2.35 be close to the look of old Techniscope? I'm assuming that 16mm neg is roughly the same height at 2-perf 35mm?

 

Thanks,

 

John G.

[Mitch Gross]

I'm assuming that 16mm neg is roughly the same height at 2-perf 35mm?

Still a much smaller bit of negative and then you're talking about an anamorphic stretch. Check out the Multivision235 website for more info. Also, we've discussed this in detail last year and the year before that, so check the archives. David Mullen & I even shot some interesting tests back in 2002 that were detailed in our posts.

 

A constant mistake is equating grain size with resolution. They are separate factors. The newest Vision2 stocks are in fact the sharpest resolution color negatives ever made, but that is a separate measurement from grain.

 

To answer your question in broad terms, I was recently talking to a Kodak rep who said that modern 7218 Super-16 stock blown up to 35mm is both sharper and finer-grained than the old 35mm 5296 stock contact printed. And that's a comparison that only dates back about 12 years so the capabilities of filmstock technology have dramatically improved in a relatively short time.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I've shot Techniscope! It's not dead. But almost... Might get a bit of revival

in these DI days, though.......

[John Pytlak RIP]

Shooting Super-16 and extracting a 2.39:1 image would use a very small image area of film. Even the new VISION2 stocks would likely be too grainy with such a small image area filling a very large screen. Super-16 with an extracted 1.66:1, 1.79:1 or 1.85:1 image does look quite good with properly exposed VISION2 films.

 

For 2.39:1, 35mm is still the preferred format, whether it be 2X anamorphic, 2-Perf Techniscope, or Super-35 with a 2.39:1 extracted image area.

[J. Anthony Gonzales]

John P.:

 

In shooting S16 for widescreen, isn't this just around 5% more of a blow-up than going to 1:1.85? Is 5% that much more of difference in grain where it would be deemed unacceptable for blow-up to 35mm?

 

 

Thanks,

 

John G.

[David Mullen ASC]

The Super-16 frame is anywhere from 1.66 : 1 to 1.69 : 1 depending on who you ask, so very little is lost cropping to 1.85 versus to 2.39.

 

I don't have the specs before me, but if you use an anamorphic lens on a regular 16mm camera, you achieve a 2.66 : 1 to 2.74 : 1 aspect ratio when unsqueezed, so it has to be cropped on the sides to 2.39 : 1. Anyway, the 2-perf 35mm frame is bound to be much larger since it is essentially twice as wide a negative area.

[John Pytlak RIP]

But most theatres project 2.39:1 scope to a much larger image (assuming a common screen height with 1.85:1). So the grain will be magnified much more than 1.85:1. My personal opinion is that extracting a35mm 2.39:1 scope image from spherical Super-16 is less than ideal.

[DanStewart]

I heard Joe Dunton in london has developed brand new S16 anamorphics. If anyone's used them, I'd be interested in how they perform.

 

Cheers

Dan

[AmatEscalante]

In this month's issue of American Cinematographer there is a big article on "Never Die Alone" that was shot by Matthew Libatique on Super 16 framing for 2.40:1. He used many different stocks, including the Vision2 7218. I have not seen the movie yet, but am sure the image is acceptable enough for today's audiences.

Another recent movie shot like this is "Irreversible" by Gaspar Noe. Using 500asa film rated at 1000 and all in practical nigh time lighting. I think it looked very good.

 

And then there is this:

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...dragonfly.shtml

[John Pytlak RIP]

...am sure the image is acceptable enough for today's audiences.

 

But not "ideal". Super-16 is great for 1.85:1 or 16:9. But filling a 60 x 25 foot screen is best done with 35mm.

[Mitch Gross]

Having tested S-16 blown up to anamorphic 35 (cropping vertically) as well as ana. 16 blown up to ana. 35 (cropped horizontally), I can tell you that the image is surprisingly sharp and clean. We projected the S-16 to ana. 35 footage at a Kodak seminar where much of the other footage was S-16 to 1.85 35. Everything was projected to a common height so as John noted our footage was magnified somthing like 35% more to fill the larger screen area with a smaller negative area. But the difference in grain was barely noticeable, and this was to an audience full of DPs and lab techs who should know. This was done a few years ago with Vision 250D stock, and I imagine the result with something like Vision2 100T or 200T would be that much better.

 

But yes, of course 35mm would look much nicer.

[John Pytlak RIP]

When it comes to image structure, I tend to be a perfectionist. Certainly the recent significant improvements (like Kodak VISION2 stocks) make 2.39:1 extractions from Super-16 better than they ever have been. The Kodak VISION2 100T Color Negative Film 7212 is the sharpest motion picture color negative film. 7245 is still the lowest in grain.

[J. Anthony Gonzales]

SHARPNESS VS GRAIN?

 

I'm sure this has been touched on before, but since John P. brought it up in this thread...

 

When a) blowing up from 16 to 35 and B) projecting that image, which is most important, sharpness or grain? I'm sure both are important, but which is going to be more noticeable? John P., if you were going to shoot something in S16 for blow-up and could only choose the 7245 or the 7212 film, which would you choose?

 

John G.

[David Mullen ASC]

First of all, BOTH are fine-grained films - it's just that 7245 is a little more fine-grained.

 

You're picking nits at some point. For example, if you like color saturation, you may prefer the richer colors of 7245 outdoors rather than 7212 with an 85 filter. But if you have a lot of harsh sunlight to deal with, you may prefer the lower contrast of 7212.

 

Both will blow-up nicely to 35mm. I'd pick one or the other based on other reasons, like color saturation, contrast, or whether I needed a tungsten-balanced stock for some reason. The sharpness difference is not going to be radical, the grain will be similar, etc.

 

Also remember that the increased contrast of 7245 may create the perception of greater sharpness even though technically 7212 is sharper.

[J. Anthony Gonzales]

Let's move to black and white versus color in S16. I know that b/w and color are different animals, butas far as blowing up, grain, sharpness, if you could equate the 7231 PlusX neg stock to a color stock, what would it compare to in color stock?

 

John G.

[John Pytlak RIP]

For blow-up, my preference would be to go with the finest grain stock.

 

7231 is probably subjectively equivalent to 7248 for graininess. But the grain in a silver image B&W film is more "defined" or "gritty" than the grain in a color film, which is really "dye clouds". Transferring both to a monochrome DI would probably be the best way to compare the graininess.

[Dirk DeJonghe]

So far we have done about 8 feature films shot on S16 negative and blow-up via S35 IP to Ananmorphic 35DN.

 

The last major film was selected at the Berlin Film Festival recently and was the film on the closing night. It won the Award of the Public. The title was '25 degrees en Hiver" by Stéphane Vuillet and it was photographed by Walther Vanden Ende.

 

Picture quality is surprisingly good taking into account that only 66.6 square mm are used to blow up to a CScope DN of 367.42 sq.mm.

 

Christian Lurin of Kodak Chalon saw the results here and was very pleased. Absolute top notch blow-up techniques are essential.

 

On the other hand, a black and white S16 blow-up to CScope clearly showed the difference in sharpness between the current color intermediate stocks and the classic B&W intermediates. Sharpness on the screen was noticeably less with the B&W stocks even using the same printer, lenses, etc.

 

Does it replace 35mm? Certainly not. The difference in lab price for a 90 minute feature blow-up to 1.85 or to CScope is only about 6000EUR. The look on the screen of anamorphic is worth a lot more...

 

 

Dirk DeJonghe

www.color-by-dejonghe.com

[Mitch Gross]

So far we have done about 8 feature films shot on S16 negative and blow-up via S35 IP to Ananmorphic 35DN.

Dirk--

 

I know you discussed this with Jack at Metropolis when I did my initial tests, but why do you prefer the S-35 IP stage instead of incorporating the anamorphic squeeze into the blow-up IP? I would think a single optical step would be sharper, less grainy and less expensive than two optical stages.

[David Mullen ASC]

In terms of grain and sharpness, I think the modern Vision-2 stocks duped to fine-grain b&w duplicating stocks would beat even Plus-X negative (although not the slowest b&w reversal stocks.) But color copied to b&w can sometimes lack that "classic" b&w look; silver grains just have a different feel to them than dye clouds, as John said.

 

Certainly the graininess (and some of the halation problems) was the reason that Roger Deakins shot "The Man Who Wasn't There" on Vision 320T instead of b&w negative (he probably was planning on using Double-X though for the night work, which he thought looked too grainy.)

 

But whether b&w looks better with the grain texture or not is a matter of taste and design -- I can see going for a grainless Ansel Adams look for a b&w landscape movie, for example.

[Dirk DeJonghe]

Mitch,

 

Either way works, but I feel additional sharpness is gained by not having the second step on the contact printer. I think this has to do with the edge effect of the intermediate stock that seems more prononced on optical printing.

 

Even when doing 1.85 blow-blow up we now do the second 1:1 step on an opitcal printer and there is a measurable gain in sharpness.

 

Dirk

[Dirk DeJonghe]

David,

 

A couple years ago we did 'The red dwarf', shot on color 7393 S16 and intended to be released as sepia B&W on color print stock.

 

It finally ended up as color IP/DN printed onto optical sound recording film (very high sharpness, high contrast). This film then won the 'European Cinematography award' and was released in many countries including the US.

 

The US distributor ordered an DN from us but were unable to match the look of the print so we ended up making the prints for US release as well (about 10).

 

We tried both Kodak and Orwo intermediate stocks and there is no way to get anywhere near the sharpness of the modern color intermediates.

 

Dirk

www.color-by-dejonghe.com

[J. Anthony Gonzales]

I didn't see "The Man Who Wasn't There" in the theaters, but I have seen in on DVD. It just wasn't quite the same as real B/W stock. To me, it just didn't look "real", or maybe it looked "too real". On a T.V. screen, it looked very much like hi def black and white video. It was just a little too clean for my taste. A better term may be too "modern". Especially as a period picture, I just could not believe I was looking at something taking place 60 or so years ago, regardless of the wonderful production design.

 

Another issue I have is in combination with the too clean/modern look, was the sound design. Again, it was just too good. It didn't bother me as much in exterior scenes, though.

 

I can sit and watch a classic B/W picture shot on wonderful PlusX/DoubleX type stock, with a good old analog/mono soundtrack and you can take me anywhere, from 1890's France, to the Moon, and anywhere between, and I am there.

 

Maybe this is just me. I don't know.

 

I do agree that an Ansel Adams photograph can literally take your breath away. But once you put these photographs in motion, the ethereal and transcendatory images become too much here and now.

 

 

John G.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see why a period film can't be sharp and fine-grained -- by being in b&w, it's already one step removed from reality anyway. If you can't believe the period feeling of "The Man Who Wasn't There" what about all the other period movies shot by Deakins in a sharp fine-grained style? These include: Secret Garden, Shawshank Redemption, The Hurricane, O Brother Where Art Thou?, Mountains of the Moon, A Beautiful Mind, Barton Fink... They are all shot on sharp prime lenses without diffusion with minimal graininess.

 

"The Man Who Wasn't There" wasn't attempting to look like it was a movie MADE in the 1940's movie in terms of film stocks, mono sound, hard lighting, etc. It only attempts to have echoes of that archaic style without outright mimicking them.

 

I think any approach to representing the past can be justified if the execution is well-done and effective, and certainly "The Man Who Wasn't There" qualifies -- one of the best photographed films of the past ten years.

 

A certain immediacy and "you are there" immersive quality can be justified for period stories -- for example, the battle scenes in "Gladiator". Or the super-clean widescreen look of "The Thin Red Line". The 65mm photography of "Lawrence of Arabia" was very clean and sharp, yet that is a period movie. At other times, a distancing effect from using diffusion, grain, etc. and be justified as suggesting memory, a time past, etc.