Arriscope Lenses

[David Mullen ASC]

There's no reason to actually spend the weeks and months of editing working at 4K; you normally just work at standard def video resolution.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Well, when I say edit I mean, visual effects, colour correction e.t.c.

 

Are there ever any mis-matches in the EDL between the low res working copy and the master?

 

Cutting 4k images can't be too hard, why bother with an EDL from a low res working copy.

 

(I know this sounds like an unbelievably dumb question but what does DI stand for?)

[Christian Appelt]

Landon,

 

with the unbelievable amount of information from David Mullen alone, have you finally decided on the format you're going to shoot in?

B)

[David Mullen ASC]

Movies have been conformed from EDL's for decades now; it's pretty straight-forward and reliable.

 

Especially if you are talking about a digital-only conforming job like with a DI (Digital Intermediate, where you shoot film, scan to digital, do digital post work including color-correction, and record the final results back to film). In that case, you aren't even physically cutting the film, so what's the worse thing that can happen if you have one cut that is a frame off after conforming? You go back and fix it. It would be a simple thing to play the low-rez and full-rez version in a split screen, or on two monitors, and see if all the cuts are occuring in the right places.

 

Honestly, there is NO reason to look at images in 4K resolution when working on a computer-based editing system, nor move around that much data. Besides, you seem to think it's no big deal when it is actually a HUGE deal. We're talking about hours and hours of footage that most films shoot. Go to the biggest efx company in Hollywood, with state of the art equipment, and ask them why they don't just work at 4K resolution all the time. Most systems are strained to work at 2K resolution in real time.

[Landon D. Parks]

Landon,

 

with the unbelievable amount of information from David Mullen alone, have you finally decided on the format you're going to shoot in?

Well yeah. I would more than likly shoot Super 35mm / 3 - Perf @ Full Aperature, Frame for 2.39:1 (for cinema release) AND 1.85:1 (for Video, Tv, Release). After all is edited, and I have the EDL. I'll probably scan the footage 4k Data then down-convert to 2k data to put together the film, color correct, ect. Then burn out on a film recorder.

 

Seems like the only way to go to me.

 

After what phil said about Northlights scanning the 2.39:1 area only of the 1.78:1 Negative, I kind of think thats an acceptable route also, if all you need is 2.39:1.... Which is acceptable in Cinema, Tv, DVD, VHS, ect.

 

I guess rather I scan the whole negative (And frame for 1.85:1 and 2.39:1) or scan just the 2.39:1 area (And fram only to have a 2.39:1 copy), I'll go the other way.

 

This process seems to me to be like shooting anamorphic in the first place, instead of doing the anamorphic step on just the release prints.

 

And there is nothing wrong with shooting with anamorphic lenses, accept that they are more dificult to work with (From what I hear). I have also heard focus is hard to pull in anamorphic?

 

 

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.

This is not digital intermediate, This is the optical process edited with a computer. In DI, You Don't usually cut the negative. Most of the process is done in the computer, just as David stated above. Does hollywood even use the optical process anymore? I know some indies do, but it seems so out dated now. And also a little more expensive than DI.

 

P.S)

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.

How is this any different from shooting in Anamorphic in the first place?

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, one of the advantages to shooting in Super-35 is having access to a taller frame for making various TV versions, so why eliminate that advantage by only scanning in the 2.39 area?

 

Anamorphic lenses are larger, heavier, slower, more prone to flare, more expensive to rent, and are harder to pull focus because of the breathing plus the lower depth of field because they are generally longer focal lengths. The advantage is that they use a larger negative area for the 2.39 image (so the image is finer-grained and more detailed, and holds up on larger screens better) and since anamorphic is also a projection format, one can make simple contact prints off of the negative, plus make any IP's or IN's using contact printing.

 

There's no reason to combine anamorphic lenses with 3-perf because they have a 2X squeeze factor, so the unsqueezed 3-perf image would be 3.56 : 1.

 

By the way, contact printing and optical printing are all cheaper than DI's, which is the most expensive way currently to post a theatrical movie. I have yet to afford it on any of my films. You can blow-up a Super-35 movie to a 35mm anamorphic IN using the old optical printer method for about $40,000 -- or you can use a DI and spend $100,000 to $200,000! What makes the two processes more compatible is that a DI also covers your costs in mastering for home video, often another $40,000 if an HD master is needed. So maybe you'd spend $80,000 to $90,000 to blow-up a Super-35 film to anamorphic optically plus make any HD masters for home video. That's STILL cheaper than a DI typically, but it comes close.

 

Shooting in 3-perf may save you $25,000 or so over 4-perf (depends on your shooting ratio), so those savings can be placed towards the cost of a DI, making it even more affordable. However, those savings would apply to a conventional optical post as well.

 

The main reason to use a DI is because it allows you to use digital color-correction tools, allows you to blend digital efx into the picture more smoothly, and it allows you to blow-up Super-35 to anamorphic with less graininess. Not because a DI is cheaper.

[Landon D. Parks]

By the way, contact printing and optical printing are all cheaper than DI's, which is the most expensive way currently to post a theatrical movie.

 

Ahhh, I did'nt know that. Well anyway, I think I'll pay a lil more for DI and get better quality than Optical. After all, indies being low budget should try to acheave the best look possible.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Isn't the ratio for Super-35 2.35?

 

And if my workings out are correct, 35mm has a ratio of 1.5?

[Landon D. Parks]

Isn't the ratio for Super-35 2.35?

Depends. Super 35 only means your using the full area available on the negative, which is called "Full Aperature". On 4-perf that is 1.33:1 and on 3-perf it's 1.78:1. you shoot full aperature, then you just "Frame" to crop the full aperature to what ever you framed for. Make since?

 

2.35 (or 2.39 or what ever you want to call it) is Scope. to get a 2.39:1 ratio, you have to crope (Or matt) the 1.33:1 or 1.78:1 aspect to 2.39:1, then it is recorded anamorphic to the release print.

 

And if my workings out are correct, 35mm has a ratio of 1.5?

1.5? if you mean 35mm, it has variable aspect ratios also.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Oh, http://www.filmunit.com/HTML/con_lab_a_05.html says the ratio of Super-35 is 2.35, I know you can pull that ratio out of the 1.78 (or 1.33) scanned footage, but the original neg isn't actually that size.

 

There something I'm missing, missreading?

 

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

 

QUOTE

And if my workings out are correct, 35mm has a ratio of 1.5?

 

1.5? if you mean 35mm, it has variable aspect ratios also.

 

A 35mm neg area is 24 mm in height and 35 and width, cancelled down it makes a 1.5 ratio, but there are other aspects to it, like soundtrack area and stuff, so I'm not entirely sure.

[Landon D. Parks]

Oh, http://www.filmunit.com/HTML/con_lab_a_05.html says the ratio of Super-35 is 2.35, I know you can pull that ratio out of the 1.78 (or 1.33) scanned footage, but the original neg isn't actually that size.

Well, I know for a fact that 2.30 is scope (Arriscope, Cinemascope, ect).... when you shoot Super 35mm, you shoot fill aperature. which is what I said above.

 

Look @ this graphic:

 

[Landon D. Parks]

A 35mm neg area is 24 mm in height and 35 and width, cancelled down it makes a 1.5 ratio, but there are other aspects to it, like soundtrack area and stuff, so I'm not entirely sure.

 

I Dont know about 1.5 Ratio. I have never heard of it before.

 

In regulare 35mm (not super), you can have an aspect ratio of 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, and Anamorphic 2.39:1 Scope. Id you shoot the Full aperature, which is From Sprocked hole to sprocked hole from frame to frame is 1.33:1 in 4 perf and 1.78:1 in 3 perf... which means your shooting Super 35mm.

 

Hold on a second and ill make a drawing for you.... hold.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Umm, when people say a 35mm neg area is 24x35mm, are they including the sprocket hole area or something? If so, that would make sense, it guess it would make the 1.5 ratio into a 1.33, if you were then just talking about the area covered in halide.

 

-----------

 

Hold on a second and ill make a drawing for you.... hold.

No no it's ok, I get the theory behind it, it's just that web site completely threw me. And also when I worked out the 24x35 thingy, made a 1.5 ratio, which neither of us have even heard of.

Thanks anyway.

[Landon D. Parks]

 

I already made it. Not very good, but it gets the point across. to get a scopr print from super 35mm, you have to follow the steps shown on the right.

 

Wait now, you MAY be able to get a Scope print from Super 35mm in 4perf. Of course you would need anamorphic lenses... David probably knows.

 

That site does say the aspect for super 35 is 1:2.39... Well thats scope, super 35 is full aperature.

 

Does anyone know why they say the aspect is 2.39:1?

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I already made it. Not very good, but it gets the point across. to get a scopr print from super 35mm, you have to follow the steps shown on the right.

Oh.. Thanks anyway, it's handy for reference. I made something similar but mine consists of a plain white picture, which kinda sucks.

 

Wait now, you MAY be able to get a Scope print from Super 35mm in 4perf. Of course you would need anamorphic lenses... David probably knows.

Just cut it in telecine I'd imagine. Thing is, you might aswell use 3 perf if your intension is to ONLY make a scope print. If you shoot 4 perf with a scope lens then your basically dumping the advantages of Super-35, you only have the option to make a scope print.

 

That site does say the aspect for super 35 is 1:2.39... Well thats scope, super 35 is full aperature.

Exactly. although I had anotehr look and it does say "Super 35 squeeze to Cinemascope", but they didn't exactly make it very clear.

[Landon D. Parks]

Just cut it in telecine I'd imagine. Thing is, you might aswell use 3 perf if your intension is to make a scope print. If you shoot 4 perf with a scope lens then your basically dumping the advantages of Super-35, you only have the option to make a scope print.

 

Exactly. Shooting 4-perf Super 35 has no use if you plan to do DI. Or unless you need a 4:3 end result.

 

If you plan to use DI, and all you want is 1.78:1, 1.85:1 or 2.39:1, then 3-perf is the best way.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Yeh definatelly.

 

So, what are the requirements of shooting 4-perf? Is it just down to the camera? I suppose shooting 4 perf requires a larger area on the film so you would use up film quicker. I don't know... I'd of thought it's just the choice, do you NEED a 4:3 image.

[Landon D. Parks]

Yeh definatelly.

 

So, what are the requirements of shooting 4-perf? Is it just down to the camera? I suppose shooting 4 perf requires a larger area on the film so you would use up film quicker. I don't know...

 

actually, cameras come standard with 4perf movement. its 3 perf movement you have to request when renting.

 

and yes, shooting 3 perf saves 25% in Film. Allows for mags to run 25% longer, you save 25% on processing, dailies, teleicne, ect.

 

thats why I say, I have no use for 4 perf.

 

do you NEED a 4:3 image.

I have no use for a 4:3 image. I hate 4:3.... The minimum I would use, even for DVD/ VHS would be 1.78:1 (Full ap 3-perf). anything taller than 16:9 (1.78:1) has no use with me.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Oh right I see. Yeh, I find 4:3 looks too amateurish, with the letterboxing it just looks so much more professional and smart. But then again I guess that's my opinion, other people might completely disagree with me on that one.

 

Oh well, thanks Landon. Always a pleasure speaking to someone of my own age that actually knows what they are talking about. (I do a-level film, well, half the time I'm not sure even the teachers know what they are going on about)

[Landon D. Parks]

Anytime Daniel. I also enjoy speaking to someone my own age also.

[David Mullen ASC]

Trouble with 3-perf is that it is less common, 4-perf being the standard since 35mm was invented over 100 years ago. So it gets harder to find certain specialty cameras like Arri-2C's and Eyemos in 3-perf for, let's say, a crash camera.

 

1.50 : 1 is the ratio of the full 35mm still camera frame, which is 8-perfs horizontal rather than 4-perfs tall. In filmmaking, this is the VistaVision format. Remember that 35mm film is 35mm wide, but the picture is smaller, fitting inside the sprocket rows. So a still camera frame runs horizontally and is 37mm x 25mm. A 4-perf Sound Aperture is about 22mm x 16mm. Full Aperture is .980" x .735".

 

"Full Aperture" means the maximum-sized picture you can physically fit on the film, between the two rows of sprockets and each frame touching the next one. In 4-perf 35mm, Full Aperture is 1.33 : 1 and was used by Silent Era films. Super-35 is basically the same thing as Full Aperture, except that it is used to get the extra width compared to a Sound Aperture (where the left edge has been taken up for the soundtrack); the extra height is not really used that much even if you expose it. So 4-perf Super-35 is 1.33 : 1 unless you stick a hard matte in the gate to expose less height (as did early Super-35 films like "Greystoke" and "Terminator 2".) But usually you frame Super-35 for some widescreen ratio (16x9 or 2.39, etc.)

[Landon D. Parks]

Trouble with 3-perf is that it is less common, 4-perf being the standard since 35mm was invented over 100 years ago. So it gets harder to find certain specialty cameras like Arri-2C's and Eyemos in 3-perf for, let's say, a crash camera.

That has truth to it. However, most modern day camera do have 3 perf. Panavision, Arricam's, Arri 235's, Arri 435's, Arri 535's (I think), Aaton 35-III. And out of these cameras, you can do pretty much anything with them.

 

If an arricam is to big, use a 235. If a 235 is not fast enough, use a 435, and if thats to big, use an Aaton 35-III.

[David Mullen ASC]

235 is a brand-new camera.

 

I don't know about you, but I have yet to shoot a feature -- 29 to date -- with all brand-new camera equipment! I haven't even used a 435 yet, only Arri-III's and 2c's.

[Landon D. Parks]

Really? I have never shot 35mm before, so I've never used any of them.

 

But I was only saying that most newer camera have a 3 perf option. now if you cant afford a new camera, then yeah that poses a problem.

 

When I get the funding up for my film, I'll have to offer to bring you on as DP david. I loved your work on "Northfork". I just seen it yeasterday, I kept watching the trailer wanting to get it, but never got around to it. Great work!!!! What camer's did you use on that film?

 

P.S) I don't see using anything other than new or like-new equipment on my film set. as they say, you get what you pay for. and I'm one who likes to get the most out of everything.

 

the one time I directed a 16mm short for my local access TV, I had nothing but trouble with the used camera they had. I cant remember what camera it was, but I know it ran like hell, so loud you could not get sync'ed sound. End'ed up they did not use my program. so It's probably still setting on there shelf collecting dust :-(

[Fulgencio Martinez]

The thing about a crash camera is that it can be crashed.

I wouldn´t use a panavision or a 235 for this job, unless i don´t want to work anymore, so i agree it is hard to find a crash camera for 3perf