Jump to content

Arriscope Lenses


Landon D. Parks

Recommended Posts

***I edited the origional post for length after I read more into the subject***

I understand the title of the post is " Arriscope", but I have already had that questions answered, so instead of starting over on a new post:

 

So, if you shoot Super 35mm, you shoot it Full ap, then you just frame for the aspect ratio you want. Then in post you have a 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 aspect ratio's to choose from (Granted you protect the full ap 4:3 frame to use from things like Mic poles, ect).

 

And usually when you frame for 2.39:1, you print the release prints in anamorphic. Am I correct?

 

I always thought a lot of films "Shot" with anamorphic lenses, but from what I can tell on IMDB, most shoot Super 35mm, then perform the Anamorphic step in post with the release prints?

 

I.E: Harry Potter, Spiderman 2, Titanic, 8 mile, ect...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
I think your right Daniel.

Well it would be a first.

 

I think it's the mount you have to watch out for, most use a PL mount. Trouble is with professional equipment like that is that there is never really an official page where it lists prices, info e.t.c.

 

Same with Arri cameras, they never list the price of how much they cost to buy. It would be interesting to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan, Arri has a price list for there camera's on there site. A new Arricam body will cost you $160,000.00.... 1,000' mags are around $12,000 each and Video assists is like $15,000.00 ect

 

here is the link to the price list in PDF:

http://www.arri.com/entry/products.htm

at the bottom, click on cameras, then at thge bottom of the next page there is the price list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Oh.. thanks, didn't notice it before.

 

Arriflex 235 for 30,000 euro's, that sounds reasonable, for a brand new 35mm camera.

 

I'm not 100% sure on the ratio question, but others will be on later (Phil Rhodes, David Mullen e.t.c.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Yeh, bear in mind thats body only. But, even so.

 

The complete set-up for 200 grand, yeh thats not bad. Still WELL out of my range though. I don't think I'l ever invest in a 35mm cinecamera, even though I'd like to, just gonna stick with digital. I'd only hire the 35mm cine cameras.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

So what are the advantages to using a modern Arri as opposed to a 1980 out dated 35mm cinecam?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Landon

 

I didn't know you were the copyrightholder for images from 'Aliens'...

 

On the other hand I must congratulate you, you seem to finally have figured out how Super35 works (well the general principle at least). As you could see all the information (plus loads more on that subject) is freely available on the internet, all one needs to do is look for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, lets say I shot the film Super 35mm 3 perf. I would expose 1.78:1 Full ap on the negative, while on the directors monitor, and the view finder it would be "Invisioned" as 2.39:1. then in post, you process the 1.78:1 negative, telecine it, edit it (Still at 1.78:1) generate an EDL, re-telecine at high quality (Still at 1.78:1) . Put the film together, color correct, ect. Then Blast it out to 35mm film stock in Anamorphic 2.39:1 from the HD- 35mm film printer?

 

did I get that pretty much right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

While you could transfer 3-perf Super-35 to 24P HD (1.78 : 1) and then pull 2.39 off of that for recording to 35mm anamorphic, you'd get less quality than if you scanned the 3-perf Super-35 footage as 2K or 4K data, rather record it to HD, which is a video format.

 

But assuming you did shoot in 3-perf Super-35, yes, for a DI, you'd scan the whole 1.78 : 1 frame into a data format, color-correct it, and the crop & stretch it to 2.39 anamorphic for recording out to a 35mm negative. So you'd have a digital master that contained the whole 1.78 : 1 image for making other versions, including one where you letterboxed the 1.78 frame to 2.39.

 

The only differences between doing this work in HD, all-2K, scan at 4K / down-rez to 2K, all-4K, etc. is quality and cost. With the advent of the HDCAM-SR tape format, 4:4:4 mildly compressed, the difference between using that for a DI versus an all-2K data process is probably pretty minimal (1920 pixels across versus 2048 pixels, for example.)

 

"Film recorder" is the proper term for a machine that transfers digital onto film. "Scanner" or "telecine" (or "datacine" like the Spirit, a telecine that can work in data mode rather than in the video realm) for transferring film to digital.

 

As for your original video transfer for dailies and NLE editing, you'd probably ask for them to be letterboxed to 2.39 if that's what you composed for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thank you david. When I refered to Telecine it to Hd, I didnt know there was a difference in Data and HD, but if there is, I dont see a reason why I would not scan it to data instead of HD.... Now that I know one is better than the other.

 

but anyway, that explains how it works. Thanks guys for your help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's a rather esoteric discussion, but yes, a machine like the Spirit can switch from "video mode" to "data mode", HD being a video format.

 

Traditionally, HD has been some sort of color subsampled, compressed recording format, like HD-D5 tape (1920 x 1080, 4:2:2, compressed, 10-bit) or HDCAM (1440 x 1080, 3:1:1, highly compressed, 8-bit). Data mode, 10-bit usually, basically treats each film frame as a data file, color is RGB (no video space system), and the data is uncompressed. Resolution is usually 2K or 4K or higher, although in practice the Spirit in data mode actually scans at HD horizontal resolution (1920 pixels across) and then immediately uprezzes this to 2K for storage. This is one reason why a true film scanner might be better.

 

Now wth the new HDCAM-SR tape format, capable of recording 4:4:4 color, 1920 x 1080 pixels, very mild compression, 10-bit, the quality differences compared to 2K data is probably pretty subtle.

 

In reality, digital video like HD is "data" just like 2K data is data, which is why it gets confusing. Industry practice is to try and differentiate between working in the video realm versus in data mode. For example, in data mode, frame rate is not a factor since all you are doing is storing the moving image as a bunch of files, one for each frame. In video systems, the frame rate is a factor since the display system will have a specified framerate. I'm sure Phil can explain this more accurately than I can with my layman's knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

The one problem with super-35 DI at 2K is that assuming the 2.39 image is 2048 pixels across, that makes it only 853 pixels high, which isn't really enough. For this reason, some scanners (Northlight I particularly know about) are capable of actually scanning the 2.39 area of the super35 neg to an anamorphic 2048 by 1556 pixel image, simply by moving the scan head more slowly, for much better results. There is no particular downside to this either, since most of the associated equipment is built to handle full 2K frames.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

However, the reason they DON'T do this (I know, I've talked to some DI folks) is that they only want to have to do one scan for the feature and be able to pull the scope version, plus all the less widescreen video versions off of that digital master. So they want to scan the whole vertical Super-35 frame, not just the 2.39 area double-scanned. So if you doubled the vertical data for an entire 3-perf or 4-perf frame, it can become something like a 2048 x 3112 (?) frame, just so that you have twice as many scan lines when it comes time to extract the scope frame.

 

They do, however, when cropping 2048 x 1556 to scope, do record it out to 35mm anamorphic by doubling the scan lines, so those 853 lines are sort of uprezzed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just scan it @ 4k then? 2k is a little low resolution for 35mm film anyway Is'nt it? 4k can't be an extreme amount of money more to do than 2k.

 

Let me ask you this. what where films like Harry Potter 3, Spider man 2, ect scanned at? Both of those films where acceptable. I thought harry potter looked great on the big screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

There have only been a few films scanned at 4K and then kept at 4K throughout the process to create a 4K master. "Spiderman 2" and "Stuart Little 2", plus the restoration of "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" several years ago are all that come to mind (and titles and efx for "Spiderman 2" were all done at 2K.)

 

Many films recently have been scanned at 4K and immediately downrezzed to 2K for the rest of the post work. Tests have shown this to be better, detail-wise, than scanning at 2K.

 

Note that 4K is four-times the data of 2K, not twice, so it's a big leap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Kodak image scientist Dr. Roger Morton and his team have published several papers on scanning resolution, especially as it affects aliasing. The advantage of using 4K or greater scanning resolution for 35mm film is not only sharpness, but also a significant reduction of aliasing artifacts. Check out the May and July 2003 SMPTE Journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
There have only been a few films scanned at 4K and then kept at 4K throughout the process to create a 4K master. "Spiderman 2" and "Stuart Little 2", plus the restoration of "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" several years ago are all that come to mind (and titles and efx for "Spiderman 2" were all done at 2K.)

 

Many films recently have been scanned at 4K and immediately downrezzed to 2K for the rest of the post work.  Tests have shown this to be better, detail-wise, than scanning at 2K.

 

Note that 4K is four-times the data of 2K, not twice, so it's a big leap.

Thing is, if your going to pay to shoot 35mm and telecine it at 4k, you may aswell pay the extra money to edit it at 4k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Of course. But when your as rich as some of the production companies, you can afford to do it.

 

If your going to telecine it to 2k, you may aswell shoot HD. 4k is pretty much equal to 35mm, obviously it depends on certain aspects of the film, but I'm just saying roughly.

 

You being a digital image technician would find it difficult, the rest of us just sign a cheque. (Which, can be equally as difficult for some of us)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

There are budget restrictions even on the biggest budgeted films, especially at the tail end of post when most of the money has already been spent. There are not that many facilities in the world that can do a 4K digital intermediate at present, and those that can, can only do one at a time probably. It's the same reason why most special effects for 35mm movies are done at 2K, not 4K. Most efx facilities can't handle four-times the data and processing time and get the same amount of work done.

 

As data gets cheaper to handle, 4K will become the norm for 35mm DI post, not 2K. Just takes time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

You may be able to afford it, but that doesn't make it the best choice. Best for convienece or for business.

 

Editing in a lower resolution does not affect the final image quality. It's akin to scanning your neg in at DigiBeta for an edit, then pumping the EDL out to a neg cutter. The negative is conformed and you have your IP/IN stages. The end product is film.

 

Having a 4K master and a lower resolution 'work print' means you don't need an insane kit to just slop your film together. Your editor simply doesn't get as pretty a picture to work with. Conform your 4K master to the low res EDL and you've lost nothing but editing hardware fat. Sure, visual effects and grading should be done at max resolution, but otherwise why would you want to edit in 4K. What would you have to gain from a 4K edit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...