35mm 3perf impact on super 16?

[Stephen Williams]

Most people would shoot 3-perf in Full Aperture / Super-35 mode; there's no reason to shoot it optically offset for sound aperture projection since it is not a projection format. Now within the Full Aperture frame, you can compose a variety of aspect ratios.

 

I haven't really heard of 3-perf projects NOT shooting optically centered for Full Aperture / Super-35.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

If you can afford the latest model 35mm cameras that were designed with Super 35 in mind that's correct.

However older cameras including the not that old Arri 3, and older BL's have issues with the shutter hitting wide angle Zeiss lenses with standard Arri PL mounts, when centered for S35. Arri make the N35 3 perf ground glasses so I assume there is a market.

 

Stephen

[Dimitrios Koukas]

See, at least from what David knows ( which is a LOT), even he dont recall productions using the offcenter method of 3perf...

 

And I cant see why someone would use it? Once you shoot 3 perf, your gonna do a Optical step or a DI, bottom line, so why waist the rest of the "Free" Real-estate on the stock?

 

PS) Almost all standard moderm lenses cover the super-35 frame. At least most all Zeiss's I know if do, and Im sure Panavisions do too...

 

To shoot in Regulare 35mm 3 perf is like buying a lot for your house... the real-estate agent says "I will also throw in an extra acer for free, and you say NO".

 

and of  course, super 35mm and full Aperture are pretty close to being the same thing...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I usually shoot tv commercials in 35 fully aperture gate,that gives me the oportunity to scan it in the telecine and crop where I want, as long as the most of the works I ve done for TV adverts companies prefer full screen TV 4:3.

 

Or sometimes that they want WS television 1:1:78,

I am just changing my ground glass using the same gate.

U go for the telecine and just tell the technician what format u want it on tape.

 

3-perf, is really good for HD tv series or anything that goes for wide screen.For television.

 

In the case of 3-perfs for cinema we only save some money when shooting for 1:1:85, that we re loosing after in the indermediates.

Pleas correct me if I am wrong.

Regards

DImitrios koukas

[David Mullen ASC]

Compared to 4-perf Standard 1.85 or 4-perf Super-35 composed for either 1.85 or 2.39, there is no quality loss or disadvantage, image-wise, to 3-perf since those 4-perf formats don't use all four perfs vertically anyway.

 

The only disadvantage is the lack of ability to make contact prints compared to standard 1.85 (4-perf Super-35 needs a conversion step anyway to a projection format.) Plus the inconveniences of 3-perf (lack of projection equipment at labs to look at printed tests, lack of some camera models in 3-perf like Eyemos, etc.)

 

The only real quality loss is compared to 4-perf 35mm 2.39 anamorphic photography, which does use all four perfs for picture information, plus can be contact-printed.

[Dimitrios Koukas]

Compared to 4-perf Standard 1.85 or 4-perf Super-35 composed for either 1.85 or 2.39, there is no quality loss or disadvantage, image-wise, to 3-perf since those 4-perf formats don't use all four perfs vertically anyway.

 

The only disadvantage is the lack of ability to make contact prints compared to standard 1.85 (4-perf Super-35 needs a conversion step anyway to a projection format.) Plus the inconveniences of 3-perf (lack of projection equipment at labs to look at printed tests, lack of some camera models in 3-perf like Eyemos, etc.)

 

The only real quality loss is compared to 4-perf 35mm 2.39 anamorphic photography, which does use all four perfs for picture information, plus can be contact-printed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yep.

Dimitrios

[Landon D. Parks]

Unless your some really low budget flick, and you can only afford an older camera with no 3 perf technology, chances are you should just shoot Regulare 35, since chances are your not gonna be able to afford a DI or Optical step if you choose Super 35. most productions that can afford to do a DI or Conversion print on Super 35 can afford to have a modern enough camera with 3perf technology....

 

In the case of 3-perfs for cinema we only save some money when shooting for 1:1:85, that we re loosing after in the indermediates.

How do we loose it again after intermediates? :huh:

 

If you do a DI, you capture the whole negative area 1.78:1 that you shoot with and use the whole thing (which can then be cropped if you wish to 1.85:1 or 2.39:1) and if your doing an optical step, same thing pretty much... If you frame for 1.85:1 in Super 35 3-perf, you should get a better result than just shooting Regulare 35mm 1.85:1 flat, as you will be exposing more neagive when shooting super 35 3-perf, because your using the soundtrack area of the stock that would normally be spared if you shot Regulare 35mm 1.85:1.... Correct me if I'm wrong..

Edited September 23, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Dimitrios Koukas]

How do we loose it again after intermediates?  :huh:

 

If you do a DI, you capture the whole negative area 1.78:1 that you shoot with and use the whole thing (which can then be cropped if you wish to 1.85:1 or 2.39:1) and if your doing an optical step, same thing pretty much... If you frame for 1.85:1 in Super 35 3-perf, you should get a better result than just shooting Regulare 35mm 1.85:1 flat, as you will be exposing more neagive when shooting super 35 3-perf, because your using the soundtrack area of the stock that would normally be spared if you shot Regulare 35mm 1.85:1.... Correct me if I'm wrong..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Landon,

In 3 perf, you have to do an intermediate positive 4 perf by optical printing and then a contact print intermediate negative, before u actually do a contact print for theatrical release.(I've found this at ARRI's site,3-perfs technical specs brochure.)

With 4 perfs in a low budget story, u can go directly for theatrical print after the negative editing.(and after the colour timing)

Dimitrios Koukas

Edited September 23, 2005 by Dimitrios Koukas

[Stephen Williams]

If you frame for 1.85:1 in Super 35 3-perf, you should get a better result than just shooting Regulare 35mm 1.85:1 flat, as you will be exposing more neagive when shooting super 35 3-perf, because your using the soundtrack area of the stock that would normally be spared if you shot Regulare 35mm 1.85:1.... Correct me if I'm wrong..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Landon,

 

Any 2k DI or optical step will loose quality. Shooting Acadamy 1:185 and contact printing from the original neg could well look better than a 2K DI from a S35 negative.

 

Stephen

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, a 2K D.I. would lose RESOLUTION compared to a contact print, but lose "quality" is more debatable, if the D.I. allowed you to maintain or enhance certain other areas of image quality (like matching shots better or integrating visual efx better or editorial tricks, or produce better I.N.'s for mass release printing) which could make up for the loss of resolution.

[Stephen Williams]

Well, a 2K D.I. would lose RESOLUTION compared to a contact print, but lose "quality" is more debatable, if the D.I. allowed you to maintain or enhance certain other areas of image quality (like matching shots better or integrating visual efx better or editorial tricks, or produce better I.N.'s for mass release printing) which could make up for the loss of resolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

David,

 

I was just pointing out to Landon that you don't gain quality by going the D.I. route. Clearly any film that needs visually enhancing will benefit.

 

If budget is no object 4K or greater scans are almost invisible and multi film-outs will avoid the loss of resoloution from I.N.'s.

 

Stephen

[Dimitrios Koukas]

Honestly I wouldn't have any problem going on 3 perf system for theatrical as long as I knew that all the labs and the theatre would have 3-perfs equipment.That means the optical(sound) too.

Dimitrios Koukas

[Stephen Williams]

Honestly I wouldn't have any problem going on 3 perf system for theatrical as long as I knew that all the labs and the theatre would have 3-perfs equipment.That means the optical(sound) too.

Dimitrios Koukas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

I did not know there are any projectors that play 3 perf with optical sound. Do you have any further information?

 

Stephen

[Dimitrios Koukas]

Hi,

 

I did not know there are any projectors that play 3 perf with optical sound. Do you have any further information?

 

Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was my point Steven, there aren't unfortunately.

Dimitrios

[Stephen Williams]

That was my point Steven, there aren't unfortunately.

Dimitrios

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi,

 

So it's the same as shooting S16 then!

 

Stephen

[Dimitrios Koukas]

Hi,

 

So it's the same as shooting S16 then!

 

Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes,

But with a bigger frame for your original.

And sorry I called u steven, it's Stephen Just noticed.

Dimitrios Koukas

[Landon D. Parks]

In 3 perf, you have to do an intermediate positive 4 perf by optical printing and then a contact print intermediate negative,

No, you don't. You can also do a Digital Intermediate with the 3 perf Negative. and to say that a DI will lose "Quality" is a matter of opinion. Maybe in your opinon it loses quality, But In mine it dont. Most cinema release print end up @ less than 2k resolution anyway, no matter if they where opticly printed ot a DI done.

 

PS) the only projector I know of that will do a non-sounf 3 perf is the Arri projector. I dont know of any that have sound.

 

Personally, I Think films with DI's look just as good as films without DI's. It could be that I'm not a cinematographer, so I dont sit at every movie looking for digital artifacts, like "washed out faces" and such. I look at movies from a Directors point of view, on the story and the acting... Not that I dont like the cinematography of films, It's just that someone's face looking a little pale does not bother me near as much as a bad actor.

 

Most big-budget flicks use DI's now-a-days anyway, its generally only the lower budgeted ones (under 40,000,000US) that go the optical route. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Lemony Snicket, The Cave, etc. All Great looking movies in my opinion, all have been done with DI's....

 

So in the end, dont say that "It loses quality", because "quality" is an opinion, not a fact. My "Opinion" of quality is CLEARLY different than yours.

[Max Jacoby]

Maybe in your opinon it loses quality, But In mine it dont.

Personally, I Think films with DI's look just as good as films without DI's. It could be that I'm not a cinematographer

Thank you for just undermining your own argument here Landon. Since by your own admission you are not a cinematographer and neither can you spot the difference between a photochemical and a digital finish, has it occured to you that you might not be qualified to make any comparisons between the two?

 

So in the end, dont say that "It loses quality", because "quality" is an opinion, not a fact. My "Opinion" of quality is CLEARLY different than yours.

It CLEARLY is.

[Stephen Williams]

So in the end, dont say that "It loses quality", because "quality" is an opinion, not a fact. My "Opinion" of quality is CLEARLY different than yours.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Landon,

 

Have you ever compared a test ?

 

The loss in quality of a 2K DI can be measured. It's not opinion its FACT.

I can see the difference between 2K and 4K. I think it is vairly obvious.

 

Stephen

[Dimitrios Koukas]

3perforation_public.pdf

PS) the only projector I know of that will do a non-sounf 3 perf is the Arri projector. I dont know of any that have sound.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Landon,

What I am saying is that, (IF) there were projectors in the Theaters and (IF) all the developing system and printing have changed to 35-3perf, I would considering going on 3-perf.

As for the simillarity to S16, I believe it would be close enough but not the same frame as S16 0.493'' x0.292 while 35-3perfs: 0.825'' x 0.446''

[Dimitrios Koukas]

So in the end, dont say that "It loses quality", because "quality" is an opinion, not a fact. My "Opinion" of quality is CLEARLY different than yours.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And I would make a suggestion to you personally, and please accepted as a friendly one,

Try to quit your stuborn alltitude, (friendly advice even that we are not friends) cause I have the feelling that all your collaborations will suffer in the end.

And I repeat, that I have no attention to offend you, just advising you.

I know that it will upset you though, as I ve seen from your altitude on the previous posts.

Dimitrios Koukas

[David Mullen ASC]

I (sort of) agree with Landon here -- the problem is the word "quality"... which is vague.

 

A 2K D.I. definitely loses resolution, but "quality" depends on what you consider to be a value about the image. Besides, other methods of producing release prints also reduce technical "qualities" of the original. Making release prints using an IP/IN method, for example. Optical printing for another. So just to simply say that a 2K D.I. always "loses quality" is not particularly helpful in a discussion and strikes me as being prejudiced against D.I.'s. If the D.I. is the only way of achieving the look you want, it may be adding "quality" from the filmmaker's standpoint.

 

I've seen many tests of 2K D.I.'s which are near indistinquishable from the original contact printed OTHER than the slight softening the happens. And like I said, you have to compare this to other methods which may also impact the image.

 

Also, if a 2K D.I. allows to you make multiple I.N.'s for release printing from one digital master, it may not look worse than the IP/IN method, especially if one of those steps is an optical. So in that case, you might not be losing "quality".

[Stephen Williams]

I (sort of) agree with Landon here -- the problem is the word "quality"... which is vague. 

 

A 2K D.I. definitely loses resolution, but "quality" depends on what you consider to be a value about the image. Besides, other methods of producing release prints also reduce technical "qualities" of the original.  Making release prints using an IP/IN method, for example. Optical printing for another.  So just to simply say that a 2K D.I. always "loses quality" is not particularly helpful in a discussion and strikes me as being prejudiced against D.I.'s. If the D.I. is the only way of achieving the look you want, it may be adding "quality" from the filmmaker's standpoint.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

David,

 

Are you saying a 2K is good enough?

 

Stephen

[Dimitrios Koukas]

I (sort of) agree with Landon here -- the problem is the word "quality"... which is vague. 

 

A 2K D.I. definitely loses resolution, but "quality" depends on what you consider to be a value about the image. Besides, other methods of producing release prints also reduce technical "qualities" of the original.  Making release prints using an IP/IN method, for example. Optical printing for another.  So just to simply say that a 2K D.I. always "loses quality" is not particularly helpful in a discussion and strikes me as being prejudiced against D.I.'s. If the D.I. is the only way of achieving the look you want, it may be adding "quality" from the filmmaker's standpoint.

 

I've seen many tests of 2K D.I.'s which are near indistinquishable from the original contact printed OTHER than the slight softening the happens. And like I said, you have to compare this to other methods which may also impact the image.

 

Also, if a 2K D.I. allows to you make multiple I.N.'s for release printing from one digital master, it may not look worse than the IP/IN method, especially if one of those steps is an optical. So in that case, you might not be losing "quality".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

David,

what is an IP/IN method?

Inter-possitive inter-negative?

 

Also I am curius to know if C.R.I. is still in use.

Regards

Dimitrios Koukas

[David Mullen ASC]

David,

 

Are you saying a 2K is good enough?

 

Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Good enough" is another subjective concept, just like "quality". "Good enough" compared to what? What if your feature had 40 minutes of optical printer effects like freeze frames, speed ramps, subtitles over picture, etc. and it happened to be on scenes you had shot on high-speed stock, maybe even push-processed? A 2K D.I. may very well give you "better" results that mixing all this duped footage of high-speed shots back into the film and causing a mismatch. "Better" in the sense that everything would look of one generation.

 

In an ideal world where you shot in a format that allowed contact printing, and there were no opticals in the movie, and the release prints came off of the original negative, sure, a 2K D.I. would probably produce less satisfactory results due to the softening (assuming no other artifacts also resulted.)

 

But in a movie shot in a format like Super-16 or Super-35 that requires a conversion step, plus a movie with a lot of optical editing effects planned, and the final prints made from a dupe negative on top of the dupes in the movie, a 2K D.I. -- if it allowed you to make all your release prints from a first generation "digital" internegative -- may produce a more satisfactory final product with greater consistency from shot to shot.

 

Personally, I hate dupes SO much that if the movie is going to have more than a half-hour's worth in the final cut I'd rather do a 2K D.I. than have all these opticals in the movie, particularly I hate optical printer dissolves because of how they affect color timing of the A and B side of the dissolve.

 

So it's a case of one compromise being less obnoxious than the alternatives.

 

Now if I were directing as well as shooting and had some control over the editing process, I could avoid using dupes and do more printer effects using A-B roll printing, in which case I'd probably prefer to just contact print. But I don't live in a world where I have much say over the final editing.

[Stephen Williams]

In an ideal world where you shot in a format that allowed contact printing, and there were no opticals in the movie, and the release prints came off of the original negative, sure, a 2K D.I. would probably produce less satisfactory results due to the softening (assuming no other artifacts also resulted.) 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

David,

 

I think we (sort of) agree!

 

Stephen

[John Pytlak RIP]

Kodak image scientist Dr. Roger Morton and his team recently published several technical papers that evaluate the parameters for DI, including choice of scanning resolution and its effect on sharpness and aliasing artifacts:

 

http://www.electronicipc.com/journalez/det...&cfid=&cftoken= May 2003 SMPTE Journal

 

http://www.electronicipc.com/journalez/det...&cfid=&cftoken= July/August 2003 SMPTE Journal