Jonathan Benny

Your colleague's light meter is most certainly at least 1/10th of a stop off of what the kodak technicians' meters are and therefore I believe he is overstating the significance of the fact that they might be testing at 172.8 (170 degrees according to some of their data). 144 (not 172.8) degrees gives you 1/60th of a second at 24fps. JB

I think its about how one chooses to rate the stock and how that effects where the individual elements fall on the curve. How the individual elements within the scene fall in terms of chosen exposure is ultimately determined by how one rates the stock. So I believe that once you have placed all your elements in the scene at their particular values, it can be said, that the whole scene is then shifted in exposure depending on how you rate the stock. When I am rating '18 at 320, I am factoring in an overexposure of 2/3rds of a stop before I have even started lighting the scene or placing priority on anything. So if I'm placing a face at 2 under the stop, I am still overexposing it by 2/3rds of a stop over where it would have been had I rated the stock at 500. This to me, is equally important in achieving a certain a look as placing individual elements within the scene on the curve. Just one view, AJB

Super 35mm and 3-perf can be combined or dealt with seperately and so in effect you are correct only if both the 4-perf image and the 3-perf image have been photographed using the super 35mm format. A Super 35mm 4-perf 1.85 image has the same negative area extracted as a Super 35mm 3-perf image. Same with Super 35mm 2.35 4perf vs 3 perf. The difference in negative area comes when you are comparing a 4-perf regular 1.85 negative extraction area versus a 4-perf or 3 perf Super 35mm 1.85 negative extraction area. I believe that was the correct comparison Stephen was making. Regards, JB

In my opinion, such a rule (If I understand you correctly) would limit the language of cinema. I see the camera as a character independent of the other characters in the film. So, to me, the camera need not be pinned down to the characters' movements - only to the story. It is the story, and the moment that must demand the movement. The character that is the camera, must have its own motivation - and thats not always dictated by the other characters in the scene and how they physically move around. I'll bring up Hitchcock's "Rope" again. There are times when the camera is moving to keep people in frame, and then there are times when it breaks free to discover something on its own. The camera is clearly has a point of view. In fact, it seems to have something invested in the story above and beyond just keeping characters in frame. To me, thats what moving the camera is all about. And it is also what differentiates between camerawork that is strictly technical and that which is inspired. And clearly, the choice not to move the camera at a given moment can be just as strong a choice - but I don't believe such a choice should be made strictly based on whether or not characters' action can fit in a frame. The story itself and the mood of the moment should dictate it. Just one opinion, AJB

I'm sure they're not too impressed with you either. Brokeback Mountain should win. AJB

Uhm, no. Not at this point.... AJB

As long as you have the state of the art laser technology, a staff of qualified nurses and a sterile operating room, you basically rival all eye surgeons. Make sense to you? AJB

Rick, If you haven't seen Brokeback Mountain yet, check it out as it is a very nice example of how some shots can be given immense "scope" through the use of spherical lenses and even using the 1.85 aspect ratio (not 2.39). Regards, AJB

I think at this point we're off the point. In any case, the core issue has been dealt with. Regards, AJB

Bringing up the lens issue is totally valid. But your comment that "Because if you do compose your shots with a wider field of view available (using anamorphic), I imagine you would have more scope?" pressuposes that spherical lenses cannot offer the field of views available in anamorphic lenses (if I understood you correctly). Actually, spherical lenses can offer fields of view just as wide as anamorphic lenses. For example: A 50mm anamorphic lens has the field of view of a 25mm spherical 35mm flat. So you see, the two have the same field of view. So if you're talking about "scope" being field of view, then you can certainly achieve that goal through the use of spherical lenses: you just have to divide the anamorphic length by 2 and that gives you the spherical equivalent on 35mm flat (there are other factors that differentiate the look of anamorphic beyond the field of view - but I don't believe they relate or effect the sense of "Scope"). Now, creating an effective sense of "scope" through composition, angles and lens choice: that's where the art is - and I don't believe its biased to any particular format. Regards, AJB

If you re-read my original statement about sharpness/spherical lenses you will see that I covered the issue of the end result cancelling out the benefits. The question, however, does have validity and importance on its own. In my opinion, composition, angle and lens choice are the critical factors in achieving the sense of "scope" etc. This can be achieved in both anamorphic photography and spherical photography. And I would even say that that feel can be achieved in 1.85 and 1.66 as well and certainly in IMAX. If what you are talking about is getting the exact look and characteristics that are discernable in anamorphic photography, then of course, no argument. But I don't think that achieving a sense of scope in cinema language is about making it look like it was shot with an anamorphic lens. Its about giving the audience a sense of scope in the picture - and that is something we as filmmakers must construct - the format itself does not do it - and I think thats whats at the core of the argument: How you create a sense of scope within any given frame. My belief is that the answer does not lie in format choice. AJB

The question was "which lenses are sharper", not which image in the final print is sharper. As I indicated, the answer is that spherical lenses are in general, sharper. Then after that, there are many variables that will determine how far that initial sharpness will go. And I also believe, in terms of the original question of whether or not Anamorphics give a more "scope"-ish look; that sharpness or grain are not always the primary factors in giving a "scope"-ish look. I see it as being more about lens choice, angle and composition within a chosen format. Achieving that 3-dimensional feel is very possible in super35 through the appropriate use of lenses, lighting, camera angles and composition. That first battle scene in "Gladiator" (s35) looked pretty good to me from a depth/scope-look standpoint. It had less to do with what format they chose - more about how they used it. AJB

Both formats are equal in width in terms of aspect ratio (2.35). However, an anamorphic lens of 50mm will have a wider field of view vs a spherical lens of the same length. Spherical lenses in general are sharper. However, how sharp the image is when it hits the negative is on one factor in a long list of elements that come together down the line to create the final image. Ultimately, the spherical lens' sharpness is in most cases cancelled out by the reduced neg size, DI/Optical blowup, etc. AJB

Rick, To me the "scope feel" comes more from choice of lens, angle and composition rather than a decision to shoot anamorphic or spherical. For example, if you look at some of Leone's films shot in Techniscope - using spherical lenses, he chose lenses, used angles and composed to give some of his shots incredible depth and scope. So to me, its more about those things than whether you chose anamorphic or sphereical. There are advantages to using anamorphic - you get more negative area exposed, so you're getting a higher fidelity picture. But I don't feel that necessarily adds scope - although it can sure help on wide, panoramic shots - particularly if the film hasn't been through a DI. There are some films that do not seem "scope" as you say. This could be either because the filmmakers meant it that way for the story - perhaps they used longer lenses throughout the film which can reduce that sense of scope and create more of a confined feel (applicable to both anamorphic and spherical shooting), or, perhaps they did not use the wide-screen frame to its fullest potential. You might also find that most films (especially the good ones), can be at times scope in their feel during some scenes, and then, very confined in their feel at others. Check out "Alien" for example. Its really about how the subjects appear within the frame and how much of the world is seen around them at any given point (which is applicable to any ratio actually, but with 2.39 the shape of the box allows for a greater manipulation of this idea). A recent film that I feel uses the wide-frame well both ways is Munich (sup35) There are scenes where you get a real sense of the world around the characters and the compositions are very "scope-ish" (family lunch scene with "Papa"). But then there are scenes which are intensely claustrophobic, where the world around the characters has dissappeared and its just about their inner fears of the moment (Israelis in Helicopter during shootout). AJB

Wondeful question. My belief is that the camera's point of view is ultimately a silent character that interacts in, or, simply observes the story that is unfolding. Take for example, perhaps a simple example, the film Rope (Hitchcock). We can study the way the camera moves throughout the film and find that there are times when it is simply observing - and that makes us feel something, and when it is interacting, which makes us feel something different. I believe audiences get a sense of their interraction in a scene but not necessarily thinking about the camera doing it - which I think is the goal with camera moves. On my own films, and when I shoot for others, I really get a sense when I'm operating the camera that the camera itself is a character in the scene - and this is transferred to the audience. As with everything else, it is up to us to make the character believable or not and that it not upstage the other characters in the story. Just one angle, AJB

Thanks Chris, I am familiar with all the technical terms you speak of, however, I can't help but think you might be mistaking lens artifacts for digital artifacts/compression artifacts. Lenses don't cause or magnify compression artifacts. Nor do lenses directly cause noise in the digital sense. This is why I still don't quite understand your point that putting a lens at a particular fstop will affect the manifestation of the shortcomings of a highly compressed format. Again, it would be like saying a bad lens causes more grain on 35mm. The issues and terms you bring up are related to the OPTICAL effect a lens causes and the ccd size. Not compression. Compression to the image occurs AFTER the light hits the ccd and is processed. Therefore the lens cannot affect or magnify compression artifacts or cause. In any case, perhaps the horse is dead on this one... AJB

Chris, Your original statement was "f4.0 is a good looking stop on mini dv. Anything under that and your mid tones start getting quite noisy". I still don't see how going outside the sweet spot of a lens causes the mid tones to get "noisy". You are talking about an optical effect in your explanation below. Sure, using gain, bad exposure, harsh colors - these can cause noise - but setting the lens outside its sweet spot? Setting the lens outside the sweet spot can result in certain image characteristics that would be less than ideal - but I can't see how it can affect noisiness and compression artifacts. Isn't that like saying if I'm shooting on 35mm, and I set my prime outside the sweet range, the image will get grainy in the mid-tones? And what about opening up from f4? Besides possibly abberations - which again is an optical thing, how does opening up from f4 cause noisiness if everything is exposed properly? Clearly it is not diffraction, is it? The problem you stated about lenses on the xl1 for example, going fuzzy at small apertures is an optical effect - not a digital one. And it would be affecting not just the mid-tones. I don't believe it is causing noise - its causing apparent reduction in resolution in the final image. This is more a result of the ccd size, no? - not compression as you suggested when you stated "since mini DV is so compressed allready, we should strive for the optimal stop that will help us to not see that compression so obviously." I would also suggest that the higher the format's resolution, the more important hitting the sweet range on the lens is. I think that also works for formats that have low-compression. Just one view on the matter. Regards, AJB

Yes! I agree completely! When 2.39 is done well artistically, the actual screen size becomes secondary. I have much more of a problem with theaters projecting films in the wrong ratios or "almost" the right ratio. Or racked incorrectly etc. etc. That to me, is a far more serious problem. AJB

Which is why I feel the focus must be on the theater builders, not those who have already built the theaters with the "flaw" of doing it around a 1.85 screen - expecting them to reduce the size of their 1.85 projection. There's no point in reducing the size of a 1.85 screen so that a 2.39 film that will be presented another time would be bigger. It makes no sense once the theater is built. It does make sense however, to put pressure on companies BEFORE they build the theaters. It doesn't hurt them either way. Although an argument can be made that an HD or super35mm DI feature cropped to 2.39 could suffer from the larger projection much like the argument you made about 1.85 grain on larger projection. The primary issue I was responding to was related to whether a theater that has been built around a 1.85 screen should reduce that screen size so that the 2.39 image would be bigger. It doesn't. I never said that. What I said was that many films do not suffer from being projected 2.39 within a 1.85 sized screen. It depends on the film. "not true"? That's a bold statement - but okay. The people that I meet and work with particularly in Europe and here in Canada, don't see 2.39 or 1.85 or 1.37 as a size thing - we see it as a shape thing. So, the notion that some think that way is in fact, true. The important thing to realize is that not everyone, not every director or dp looks at the frame the same way. Clearly you see it as a size thing. Of course, many do. Many on the other hand, see it as a shape thing. Actually, some of these people who shoot 2.35 for TV come from and started in the theatrical world or have been influenced by theatrical directors and dps they have worked with. Some of them go back and forth from shooting features to shooting television - influencing both mediums. Some would even say that 16:9 televisions came into play because of influence from the theatrical world<g>. My point in bringing their work up was not about whether you feel their opinions about this are valid - rather to illustrate the point that in many cases, shape, not size is the main factor today with any aspect ratio. And that's why expecting a theater that has already been built around a 1.85 screen to reduce that format's size so that the scope image is bigger doesn't make sense to me. Just an opinion and a way of looking at it. AJB

Sorry if I'm missing your point - I want to understand this because it sounds interesting: How, as a rule, do compression artifacts manifest themselves when you are shooting wider than an f/4 on those cameras? what have you observed? That in any given situation, when you set the stop wider than f/4 you start getting artifacts in the mid-tones? Regards, AJB

I care as well - to a reasonable point. As you probably know, there are films that shoot 2.39 not to add scope, but a sense of confinement. So my point was only that its not only about the size, but about the shape as well - particularly in the low-budget indie world, I'm suggesting that it is more about the shape. When we shoot music videos 2.35 letterboxed its because of the shape, not the size. When an ultra-low budget film director shoots his hd film 2.35, he's probably first looking at the shape, and then perhaps hoping about the size<g>. I'm currently editing my latest film shot 2.35 on 24p. I'm not really thinking about it being bigger than 1.85 in the theater - I was thinking about how the story would be better told within the shape of that frame. For this particular story, cropping within a 1.85 projection area in a theater would not negatively impact the story. My feeling is that the focus should be put on pushing theater designers to designi theaters around the 2.39 screen rather than pushing theaters that have already been designed around a 1.85 screen to make that image smaller just so that the 2.39 would be bigger. Of course, everyone has a different way of looking at it.... I don't believe there is a "right" answer on this. AJB Your statement presupposes the idea that shooting in 2.39 should always be done to enhance the scope of the image. There are films that have used 2.39 to create a sense of confinement, not scope. I feel the art is not in how to make 2.39 have scope. The art is in how you use 2.39 to enhance the story you are telling - be that a western in the desert, or a film taking place in one, dark room. AJB

Chris, Could you explain what you mean by this? There are so many cameras and lenses that shoot minidv, it seems like a rather broad statement to say that shooting under f4 is going to cause problems. Are you talking about a specific camera or lens? Minidv is a tape format, so it is not itself predisposed to a certain look at a certain fstop. Particular cameras, ccds or lenses on the other hand, are. AJB

Nice article, John. In my opinion, its more a question of how theaters are designed rather than how films are projected. Its true that scope was originally designed to be wider and bigger and more impressive to wow viewers. But now, I think, many filmmakers (including myself) see the 2.39 as a different shaped box rather than a bigger box. Its not about the size, its about the shape. About the story and composition. A super35mm character driven film taking place in a prison would not necessarily suffer from being cropped in a 1.85 built theater. Of course, a panoramic western would benefit from the extra width in a theater that is built around a 2.39 screen. But I don't think that the shape of the 2.39 frame is about size and impressing theater goers anymore. I believe that in independent filmmaking, the art of the 2.39 frame and how subjects are composed within it is more about the shape. The size and grain have become secondary - not irrelavent, but secondary in importance. Thats why I'm not to distressed about seeing a film in a cropped 1.85 theater. This is of course assuming that the projectionist knows what he or she is doing... Just one opinion, AJB

I believe it is the opposite. Our eyes and our bodies make up the ultimate moving shot constantly (unless we are standing still and looking at a painting, for example). If I'm walking down the street and I watch someone pass me, my eyes are moving in coordination with my body to create the ultimate moving shot - even though my eyes are fixated perhaps on one point - it is not a still picture - it is most certainly a moving picture, where the perspective of the subject is constantly changing - and that my eyes (the camera) are following perfectly. It depends on the moving shot. A steadycam shot that smoothly passes another person can actually be very close to the example I stated above - and can be very natural and close to how we perceive things as we walk past things and people. On the other hand, a running steadycam or dolly shot that thrusts forward towards a screaming pedestrian and stops right in front of his face would convey something different and perhaps unnatural. So, moving shots, in my opinion, do not by definition convey unnatural impressions (if I understood you correctly). Whats important in a story/chacter driven film is that the decision to use moving shots be based on story and character, not the desire to increase production value. Just one opinion, AJB

I guess my point is that theaters should be designed so that the screen is floor to ceiling and the variable is horizontal. Rather than wall to wall with the variable being vertical. Its just a certain way of looking at it. 16x9 televisions are better than 4:3 televisions because you can now watch 1.85 films without letterboxing, AND you can watch 1.37 film the same way you did before, just pillarboxed. They should have actually made the television standard 2.39 so that ALL formats could be seen with the variable being on the horizontal. The same should apply to movie theaters. The variable should be on the horizontal, not the vertical. I agree with you that in a theater that has been designed otherwise, the 1.85 should be projected to its maximum regardless if the 2.39 must be cropped. In such a case there's no point in projecting 1.85 smaller just so that the 2.39 can look bigger. AJB