Aaton Penelope-2

[Nathan Milford]

The format's previous death was due (among other things) to the generational loss to optically blow it up to a scope print. The stocks weren't as fine then, and then you're blowing it up to optically squeeze it onto a 4p frame.

 

The resurgence of interest in the format is due to the lowering costs and increasing availability of digital intermediate services.

 

I don't see 2p and S16 directly completing.

 

They're two different tools.

 

2p, I think, would be used more as a poor-mans scope format. Productions that want to shoot 1.66, 1.78 or 1.85 will either be on 3p, 4p or S16. The 'prestige' of shooting 35mm or reasonable cost of shooting 2p might lure some people shooting 1.78 S16 to Scope 2p, but I think it's mostly for people who would be shooting 3p for 2.35 extraction or people who can't reasonably afford to shoot anamorphic, either due to costs of the equipment, it's weight or the speed of the optics.

 

Just another tool in the box.

 

If anything, you ought to compare the format to Super35 2.35 and regular anamorphic cinematography.

[Mitch Gross]

The advantage of Techniscope was that Technicolor could go directly from the 2-perf to their 4-perf anamorphic 3-color dye IB interpositive, essentially cutting out a step and making for a very clean process. When they stopped making the dye prints Techniscope went away as well.

[James Steven Beverly]

Yeah they do. And quit your whinin', I own a new one. :P

Pretty good car and rather affordable to. Can't beat 1850 liters of cargo space and a length of 1.97m flat loading area when you fold the back seats down... :D

 

Ok, so now back to the topic. It will be interesting to see whether 2-perf can become serious competition for S16 in the amount of footage shot. Do you have any figures of how much 2-perf was shot in the last couple of years?

 

And why did Techniscope die in the late 70s in the first place?

 

Cheers, Dave

:lol: Hey man I'm not doggin' Opels, I STILL dig the Cadet. I had a buddy that used to run autocross in a full race one BADASSS little car, Used to smoke my RX-7 on regular basis and the RX-7 was FAST. Gotta love those little mini-vettes! :D

[David Auner aac]

Thanks Nathan and Mitch, that answers my question why it went away.

 

The 'prestige' of shooting 35mm or reasonable cost of shooting 2p might lure some people shooting 1.78 S16 to Scope 2p, but I think it's mostly for people who would be shooting 3p for 2.35 extraction or people who can't reasonably afford to shoot anamorphic, either due to costs of the equipment, it's weight or the speed of the optics.

 

That's what I was referring to, but after thinking about it, it don't really make sense either. Still it would be interesting to compare footage shot in 16 and 35mm respectively per year....

 

Cheers, Dave

[David Auner aac]

:lol: Hey man I'm not doggin' Opels, I STILL dig the Cadet. I had a buddy that used to run autocross in a full race one BADASSS little car, Used to smoke my RX-7 on regular basis and the RX-7 was FAST. Gotta love those little mini-vettes! :D

 

Well, well I sure ain't gonna use my car for any kind of autocross! Maybe I'd use it for transportation of a motocross bike, but normally it dutifully carries all my camera lighting and grip gear! :D

Cheers, Dave

[Leo Anthony Vale]

The format's previous death was due (among other things) to the generational loss to optically blow it up to a scope print. The stocks weren't as fine then, and then you're blowing it up to optically squeeze it onto a 4p frame.

 

The irony is that Technicolor discontinued Techniscope just before The ECNII process was introduced by Kodak.

ECNII's & 5/7247's finer grain and improved sharpness was a big boost for 16mm production.

 

2p, I think, would be used more as a poor-mans scope format.

 

Technicolor's literature tauted Techniscope as a way for producers who had to shoot B/W for budgetery reasons to be able to shoot color.

[James Steven Beverly]

Well, well I sure ain't gonna use my car for any kind of autocross! Maybe I'd use it for transportation of a motocross bike, but normally it dutifully carries all my camera lighting and grip gear! :D

Cheers, Dave

 

Dude, that is WAY too nice a car to use for a grip truck! :lol: You need to find one of those old VeeDub buses or that cool little pickup they made for a while, you know the one that's basically a bus with the rear top cut off. If someone slammed a light stand or a 2k against THAT car, I'd tend ta get upset. :D

Edited September 16, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

[James Steven Beverly]

Oh and I screwed up, I meant the Opel GT not the Cadet not that it really matters. :D

[David Auner aac]

Dude, that is WAY too nice a car to use for a grip truck! :lol: You need to find one of those old VeeDub buses or that cool little pickup they made for a while, you know the one that's basically a bus with the rear top cut off. If someone slammed a light stand or a 2k against THAT car, I'd tend ta get upset. :D

 

James, that's why I tend to do the loading myself. That way I know everything that went out comes back the car won't get scratched. I actually am thinking of getting some kind of van, but the added expense isn't worth it currently. And covering 1000km in a van ain't no fun either...

 

Cheers, Dave

[James Steven Beverly]

See, that's why my van has captain's chairs. B)