I want to discuss Super-35 on DVD.

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Artur Meinild, Jan 5, 2002.

  1. Artur Meinild

    Artur Meinild Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This issue seems to pop up as a sub-discussion in various threads, but now I want a clear explanation. Some people seem to have a problem with super-35, and I understand the problems concerning theatrical showings.

    But can anyone please tell me if and why a DVD transferred from super-35 (maybe framed for 2.35:1) is better/worse than a flat 35mm transfer (maybe framed for 1.85:1).

    As far as I can see, the super-35 negative does actually have *more* resolution than a standard 35mm negative, so a DVD transferred from a super-35 negative should be better, or am I missing something???
     
  2. CharlesD

    CharlesD Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Artur,

    In the Super35 process only a portion of the frame is used for the 2.35 picture, not the entire frame, hence the grain when this portion of the negative is blown up to make the print. The rest of the frame is the "safe area". parts or all of which can be used in the pan/scan process for a 4:3 version fo the film.

    The only "benefits" of Super35 is that the p/s process is not limited to the 2.35 picture and that certain limitations of the anamorphic lens are not present, making it easier for cetain filma-makers to work.
     
  3. Artur Meinild

    Artur Meinild Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  4. Mitty

    Mitty Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 1999
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  5. Robert George

    Robert George Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    1,102
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    For a video transfer, there is no inherent disadvantage of for a film shot in Super 35 vs. a film shot in scope. Even a 2.35:1 image extracted from a flat 35mm frame has considerably more resolution than video. I doubt even true hi-def video could resolve any difference between Super 35 and scope, all factors being equal.
     
  6. CharlesD

    CharlesD Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  7. Artur Meinild

    Artur Meinild Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  8. Jeff Ulmer

    Jeff Ulmer Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 1998
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The grain issue comes from how much of the frame is being used. Obviously, the more you zoom into a frame, the larger the grain structure will appear, which is also dependent on the type of film stock being used. The major differences will depend on the aspect ratio. For 1.85:1 films, there will be no difference, since most of these are shot flat anyway and matted, ie they use the same amount of area on a film frame in either process. The only place a difference *could* be noticible is in scope, since an anamorphic process uses the entire frame, whereas Super 35 uses only half (roughly). Depending on how fine the grain is on the film stock in the first place, the anamorphic process, by covering more of the frame, will exhibit smaller grain structure than Super 35 - though the increase in density is only on one plane.

    I think you are more likely to notice differences in film stock than anything else, or the format, as obviously 70mm will appear smoother with less grain that any 35mm process.
     
  9. Robert George

    Robert George Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    1,102
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
     
  10. Jeff Ulmer

    Jeff Ulmer Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 1998
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To the point of the DVD transfer, the most important factor is in the source elements, and how far removed they are from the original camera negative. Each time a film is duped it will add grain, so if the transfer is being made from a fourth or fifth generation source, it will look much grainier than the original negative would have, regardless of the original shooting process.

    These days, any number of processes can and are applied to the image once it has been telecined, which affect the presence or lack thereof of grain and other inherent properties of film stock. Very rarely are we going to be seeing a raw film element exposed without some kind of cleanup or manipulation, which can add or detract from the "film" look.
     
  11. Scott H

    Scott H Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  12. Scott H

    Scott H Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  13. Scott H

    Scott H Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  14. Artur Meinild

    Artur Meinild Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  15. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    5,110
     

Share This Page