Jump to content
Jesse Lee Cairnie

Anamorphic 2-perf...

Recommended Posts

I am interested about seeing if anyone else has had the genius idea of putting anamorphic glass infront of 2-perf 35 and would be willing to admit in public.. hahaa..

 

I emailed Bruce of indi35.com to which he had not seen, but did mention a super wide 4.7:1 aspect.

 

I am intrigued at the "functionality" of this aspect as a DI format for online or straight to DVD option.. I can't imagine trying to fit it back on to 35 "in aspect".. and doing a 70 optical print would look pretty horrible im sure..

 

Im speaking strictly on an experimental level.. though it would be interesting enough as a feature format if a high enough scan was possible.. maybe for the right story?

 

Ultra Techniscope on digital projection... maybe?

Edited by Jesse Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'm all for experimentation; I mean I don't really see how it could fit into a film, per say, but it would be interesting to see how a 4.7:1 ratio translates to the screen; not to mention other things.

I would assume you could just put it back onto normal cine-film, matted of course, and project it, but I'm not expert therein, but when doing a DI with all the money/time that goes into that I'm sure one could find a solution-- letterboxing the film down to 4.7:1 to fit onto your release film.

 

I'd say if you ever happen to have the chance to give it a try, go for it. I'd've never thought of it (and honestly I'd rather do other things if I "happened" upon some stock, a 2 perf camera, and the money for a DI suite...) but it'd be interesting to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you used the 2-perf 35mm Full Aperture, it would be even wider, 5.32 : 1. 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture is 1.33 : 1, half of that is 2.66 : 1, adding a 2X anamorphic lens would get you 5.32 : 1.

 

2-perf is only 2.35 because you can't use the Full Aperture anyway for theatrical release.

 

No need for super high scanning resolutions because it's still just a 35mm frame that you are scanning (24mm wide if scanning Full Aperture / 22mm wide if scanning Academy Aperture).

 

Question is what to output it to and what the purpose will be for such a wide image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I could really think of it would be as a special shot of a wide vista or say a city, Panoramic. Or, you could maybe play with aspect ratio to "mirror" comic book panes.. Just my quick thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha.. 5.32.. wow.. thats awesome.. I will surely ask Bruce about that..

 

Im definitely only seeing it as a digital distribution.. online, DVD, Digital projection, etc..

 

As for motivation for it.. I would say anything you would want to see in a completely different way than you are traditionally seeing it.. maybe the transition of a character to a new world in scifi/fantasy.. maybe for example in Being John Malkovich, when ever he goes into the tunnel and into Malkovich's mind emphasizing the DRASTIC change of the characters world.. maybe using it to further emphasize the reasons 2.35 was being used originally as we have all now "gotten used to" the idea of widescreen and its sub-conscious affect on us as a viewing culture isnt the same as when the 1.33:1 was the standard..

 

cause if my film history serves me right.. it was to give a different "view" from the 1.33:1 TV's that were becoming popular.. which now with HD as the standard 1.85 is in all of our homes.. then after some experimenting maybe desovering its emotional impact on the audience.. then using that as a new tool..

Edited by Jesse Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC one of the guys at Abel Cine saw some 1-perf anamorphic footage. The format does the stretch vertically so you can get a 2.39:1 de-squeeze from a 1-perf original exposure area. He admitted that it looked remarkably good given the limitations. I have continued to mull over the idea ever since. It's a weird quirk in the brain that with anamorphic images twice the resolution in one axis seems to imply the same in the other axis.

 

Now, if you squeezed 1-perf the other way, you could get a 10.6:1 aspect. Think of all the snakes, trains and funeral processions you could shoot in that format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you used the 2-perf 35mm Full Aperture, it would be even wider, 5.32 : 1. 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture is 1.33 : 1, half of that is 2.66 : 1, adding a 2X anamorphic lens would get you 5.32 : 1.

 

That would be true.

 

Most 2 perf cameras I know of are not full aperture width at the gate, though I would think any camera set up for S35 that was 2 perf capable could have a 2 perf gate made that way. The old Techniscope cameras and many of the more recent 2 perf modified cameras used the Academy aperture width. I think I recall that the new Aaton Penelope used a 2.35 or 2.4:1 width gate, but moved it slightly into the sound track area.

 

But perhaps Paul's 10.6:1 aspect ratio suggestion is even more intriguing.

 

Bruce Taylor

www.indi35.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IQuestion is what to output it to and what the purpose will be for such a wide image.

I AC'd a corporate video for Intel last year where we shot 4:1 - it was for their interactive website and they wanted specific places where the graphics and buttons would go. Of course, we shot HD with monitor overlays and used digiprimes, but it would have been sweet to shoot anamorphic! Not a lot of out of focus areas in the frame with a 7mm digiprime...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question is what to output it to and what the purpose will be for such a wide image.

 

A likely purpose could be part of a museum display.

 

Most likely outputing the 2.35 image to a letterboxed HD and projecting with a 2X anamorphot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a weird quirk in the brain that with anamorphic images twice the resolution in one axis seems to imply the same in the other axis.

 

Actually, it works the other way. It's one of those no-free-lunch type things. Given a resolution mismatch of 2:1 or less, the human visual system sees the picture as having the lower of the two resolutions.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once worked on a promo for GM (remember them?) where we were shooting 65mm for the Detroit auto convention. We weren't shooting anamorphic, but were doing some crazy aspect ratio, like 7 to 1 or something and went to 65mm for the extra resolution it afforded them, since they were going to lose the top and bottom of the image and digitally project the super-wide image at the show.

 

Coincidentally (and quite ironically), we were shooting footage of the very big gas-guzzlers (Hummers and the like, all in glorious settings) that are credited with ultimately helping to sink the company . . . I bet that crew is not getting a lot of those corporate gigs anymore _unless the federal bailout includes outrageous advert budget allocations. ;)

Edited by Saul Rodgar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I once worked on a promo for GM (remember them?) where we were shooting 65mm for the Detroit auto convention. We weren't shooting anamorphic, but were doing some crazy aspect ratio, like 7 to 1 or something and went to 65mm for the extra resolution it afforded them, since they were going to lose the top and bottom of the image and digitally project the super-wide image at the show.

 

Now, there's an idea. Shoot 1-perf 65mm and do the stretch horizontally. I'll have to Wikipedia the specs to figure out the ratio on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 perf 65..

 

52.48 by 23.01 mm = 2.28:1

 

23.01mm/5 = 4.602mm

 

52.48 by 4.602mm = 11.4:1

 

11.4:1 x 1.25 = 14.3:1

11.4:1 x 2 = 22.8:1

 

so depending on the squeeze! either way.. hahaa ULTRA SUPER TECHNIPANAVISION DELUXE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahaha.. agreed..

 

if anyone has actual footage of any of these ridiculously awesome ratios or tests or anything of the like.. please try to post some fun stuff..

 

IM looking to do some test coming up.. i'll surely post my results..

 

Im looking more at in camera film ratio's.. (my buddy did a spot for Walgreens online.. they shot every aspect ratio imaginable for online banners, but it was all masked monitor digital)

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_unless the federal bailout includes outrageous advert budget allocations. ;)

 

IIRC, in the case of Chrysler, the feds cut the ad budget in half for the BK period. Car ads are a big part of TV's revenue, so this hurts our part of the biz.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IIRC, in the case of Chrysler, the feds cut the ad budget in half for the BK period. Car ads are a big part of TV's revenue, so this hurts our part of the biz.

 

Don't I know it. It is killing me. Worst year I have had since I started in this industry. :(

 

But over the years, I have assisted on some commercials where the director reputedly gets paid as high as $30K a day, peddling Hummers and the like. I don't care who they are, $30K a day is outrageous for anyone to make, particularly when taxpayers foot the bill. But we digress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've occasionally thought about how one could shoot your standard 2.40:1 Anamorphic....except make it 1:2.40...or configure a way that it would be closer to 1:1.85 or something. Living in NYC I've often pondered shooting in a vertical format to really breath in the city, plus like in 35mm still photography, it'd be like a portrait mode cinema.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've occasionally thought about how one could shoot your standard 2.40:1 Anamorphic....except make it 1:2.40...or configure a way that it would be closer to 1:1.85 or something. Living in NYC I've often pondered shooting in a vertical format to really breath in the city, plus like in 35mm still photography, it'd be like a portrait mode cinema.

All 35mm anamorphic projector lenses (and lens and adapter combos) can be rotated 90 degrees in the projector. You could test your idea by shooting with an anamorphic lens mounted at 90 degrees in the camera (you might need a lens tech to fiddle with the lens). It wouldn't be 1:2.4 (by a 3:4 factor assuming academy projector aperture) but it certainly would be a cheap way of testing since it would all be standard gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All 35mm anamorphic projector lenses (and lens and adapter combos) can be rotated 90 degrees in the projector. You could test your idea by shooting with an anamorphic lens mounted at 90 degrees in the camera (you might need a lens tech to fiddle with the lens). It wouldn't be 1:2.4 (by a 3:4 factor assuming academy projector aperture) but it certainly would be a cheap way of testing since it would all be standard gear.

 

I didn't even think of projector fiddling. What if prints were 1-perf and did the de-squeeze vertically as you've implied? A 2 hour feature could fit on one and a half reels. That could cut the costs of print production to one fourth as well as the costs of shipping. The sound is all going DTS anyway. 2-perf would de-squeeze to Academy frame and wouldn't be of much use. A lot of these newer projectors like the Christies are toothed belt driven. It would be an easy change over to new toothed pulleys. I guess the geneva mechanism would be the biggest change over issue. That and the lens lengths would have to be changed out to make the image fit into the existing screen distances. Asking theaters to move the projectors closer might be too much to ask.

 

Well... then there's that sucky picture quality issue. Dang. Ideas always start out good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the geneva mechanism would be the biggest change over issue. That and the lens lengths would have to be changed out to make the image fit into the existing screen distances. Asking theaters to move the projectors closer might be too much to ask.

 

The Geneva would be the Achilles Heel of any such project, a custom Geneva would probably cost the kind of money that NASA spends on manned spaceflight rated components where a $10.00 part rapidly becomes a $1,000.00 item (That's due to all the extreme quality control and record keeping requirements of manned spaceflight component manufacture).

 

The only practical way to create a one or two perf projector would be to install a 2:1 or 4:1 gear box between a standard Geneva and the film drive spocket. It would have to be a precision item since any backlash in the gears would show up as vertical jitter in the screened image. If anyone's crazy enough to try I've got a refurbished Simplex XL Geneva languishing in a box out in the shop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got me thinking again, Hal. The image compromise could be overcome by eliminating generations. If each print were struck directly from digital then the image might be passable. Certainly, the grain structure of premium print stock could handle the vertical desqueeze and still look passable. So, every print a first gen from high res digital could probably look okay. The DTS code could be jammed easily into the 1 perf frame since the optical track will be chucked anyway. This is looking a little closer to viable the more we play tennis with it! Theaters might consider a $1,000 per projector cost over a $100,000 per digital projector changeover. Certainly, Kodak would love us, though, they just wouldn't show it. That's not how they relate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • CineLab



    Glidecam



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Tai Audio



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Ritter Battery



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Abel Cine



    Serious Gear



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Visual Products



    Metropolis Post



    Wooden Camera



    Paralinx LLC


×
×
  • Create New...