Jump to content

anamorphic or cropping


Deniz Zagra

Recommended Posts

Let's say you are working on a feature film, and the director wants the aspect ratio to be 2.39. Would you prefer to shoot with anamorphic lenses or shoot S35 or 2 perf and crop? What aspects of production would influence your decision (low light, speed, VFX)? Do you think the difference would matter much? Which lenses would you prefer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If you’re talking about shooting 35mm, it’s partly an issue of whether your producer will budget for 4-perf 35mm so you can shoot with 2X anamorphic lenses.

If the only issue / goal is getting a 2.40 aspect ratio then shooting 3-perf and cropping is the best route. 4-perf 35mm anamorphic would look finer-grained but no one seems to mind film grain anymore. Use anamorphic only if you want that anamorphic look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

2.40 from 3-perf is slightly larger negative area than from 2-perf (which is 2.66 : 1 full aperture so you crop the sides to get to 2.40) but also shooting 3-perf allows you to stabilize shots, not have to deal as often with hairs in the picture area or gate flare, and if you have to make a 16x9 non-letterboxed version, it is ideal.

Here is my framing chart from an ARRI Alexa movie I shot in 16x9 but framed for 2.40 with a 1/4 offset from top, but I've done the same thing for some 3-perf movies:

image.jpeg.7779df3367e5b987b7781e0fcc65ee40.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with David. His advice is what I tell everyone. Don't bother with 2 perf, work on 3 perf so you can change your framing in post and not have to deal with the limitations of the 2 perf format, which there are many. Yes you'll save money but at a cost of things potentially not coming out as well. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the replies.

 

I am shooting 80% of the film on S16 with an aspect ratio of 1.66:1 and the other 20% will probably be widescreen 2.39:1. 
Aren't the limitations of shooting 2-perf the same as shooting S16.

In both formats:

1) I wont have the hight or width to stabilise

2) More hairs and gate flares

What other limitations or headaches are there with 2-perf that I am not thinking of right now?

 

The cost between 2 and 3-perf is about a 1/3 more which is not that little and in 3perf crop to widescreen you only gain a tiny bit more of film negative as compared to 2-perf but of course you have the other advantages too.

 

Thanks!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2023 at 8:59 AM, Deniz Zagra said:

Let's say you are working on a feature film, and the director wants the aspect ratio to be 2.39. Would you prefer to shoot with anamorphic lenses or shoot S35 or 2 perf and crop? What aspects of production would influence your decision (low light, speed, VFX)? Do you think the difference would matter much? Which lenses would you prefer?

I really don't think that a budget of a movie should be a factor on my decision, if you have a small budget you may get an attachment that make an ordinary lens an anamorphic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
15 hours ago, Boris Kalaidjiev said:

I am shooting 80% of the film on S16 with an aspect ratio of 1.66:1 and the other 20% will probably be widescreen 2.39:1. 
Aren't the limitations of shooting 2-perf the same as shooting S16.

I've mixed S16 and 3 perf S35mm before and it's actually really nice. 1.66:1 with black bars on the side and then you switch to a wider format for certain scenes. I prefer 2:1 personally and unless you're going theatrical, it's a way better format for televisions. That's part of why I love 3 perf so much. As long as you keep 2.40:1 frame lines, you can always adjust the aspect ratio later if you don't want it as wide. 

So the benefits of 3 perf are: 
- Less hair possibility 
- Reframing 
- More of the fame is used (roughly 2mm worth) 
- Easier to stabilize in post if you need it
- Cameras are easier to get a hold of, both renting and buying 
- Arguably different field of view then 2 perf 

The ONLY benefit of 2 perf is lower cost film. 

The detractors are: 
- Hairs can ruin shots 
- Stuck to 2.40:1 aspect ratio 
- Cameras are generally more money to rent and nearly impossible to purchase. 
- Lesser quality image. 

When you do the math, 2 perf is only 2mm taller than super 16. That's really not a lot. When you're shooting 3 perf and even just matting to 1.85:1, you're roughly 5mm taller than 16mm. That's a HUGE amount. Using Anamorphic lenses on S16mm, is very common to get a 2.40:1 widescreen image and frankly, if money savings is your thing, I just don't know why you wouldn't do that? Shoot 50 ISO stock, low grain on those widescreen shots and differentiate them from the spherical 1.66:1 shots by the stock and lensing. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...