I want to discuss Super-35 on DVD. (1 Viewer)

[Artur Meinild]

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???

 

[CharlesD]

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.

 

[Artur Meinild]

hence the grain when this portion of the negative is blown up to make the print

But you don't have to "blow anything up" (pardon my french) to make a print when transferring to DVD, do you???

If I'm not mistaken Se7en and many other movies were transferred off the negative.

Notice my subject: Super-35 on DVD. I'm aware of the differences between filming in super-35 and anamorphic, but I'm here to discuss how they hold up against each other on DVD.

 

[Mitty]

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.

I think that's an oversimplification. I've also heard filmmakers extoll the virtues of the deep focus they can achieve using super 35. If I recall correctly, that's why Quentin Tarantino opted to use it on Reservoir Dogs.
Further, I think some overstate the resolution of DVD if they claim they can tell the difference between a film shot super 35 and one using anamorpic lenses. Yes, you can tell the difference, but not on the basis of film grain that shows up with the relatively limited 480 lines of resolution. There are, of course, a myriad of other differences, such as the shape of lense flares, etc. which give away the film process.

 

[Robert George]

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.

 

[CharlesD]

I've also heard filmmakers extoll the virtues of the deep focus they can achieve using super 35

Thats what I emant by the "limitaions" of anamorphic lenses.

Artur,

the 2.35 portion of a super 35 is smaller than the entire frame, so a smaller area of negative is exposed when compared to a movie shot with an anamorphic lens. On some DVDs, just as in some movies in the theater, I do notice more "grain" than in otheres, whether this is due to the super35 process I cannot tell.

 

[Artur Meinild]

On some DVDs, just as in some movies in the theater, I do notice more "grain" than in others.

It's more likely due to the actual film stock used, IMHO. As we all know, different stocks produce different amounts of grain.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

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.

 

[Robert George]

However, I still keep hearing the opposite here and there on this very forum.

Yes, I've seen some of those posts myself. All I can say is there is much misinformation posted all over the Internet. Such is the nature of the medium.

On the isssue of grain, indeed film stock has a great deal to do with the incidence of film grain, as does lighting and exposure setting. Don't forget the effect of optical printing for some visual effects. Any film can be made to look grainy if that is the desired efffect. Sometimes enhanced grain will be unavoidable due to the shoooting conditions of a particular shot.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

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.

 

[Scott H]

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???

You are correct... Sort of. Depending on the ground glass markings/framing placement within the 1.33:1 S35 aperture, a 2.35:1 frame exposed cam neg will typically be wider than a ~2.40:1 anamorphically exposed reg cam neg. It is a shorter exposed frame though. So, shooting ~2.35:1 on S35 you are exposing more film horizontally and less vertically than you are with anamorphic lenses and regular 35, as filming anamorphically exposes a full 1.37:1 negative aperture with 2:1 horizontal compression to achieve a ~2.40:1 frame.

But again, grain and resolution etc. are more dependent on film stocks and how they were exposed and processed, and what lenses were used, than whether it was shot on regular 35mm or via as S35 on optically realigned cameras.

 

[Scott H]

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.

There are benefits regarding cost, lenses, lighting, photographic effect... And that's just for ~2.40:1 films. There is far more 1.33:1 S35 production than wider ARs. Personally, I would prefer to shoot 1.85:1 projects on S35, which would print as a mild reduction.

Obviously there are many more factors than an intermediate anamorphic extraction step, or so many knowlegeable filmmakers wouldn't be selecting it as the ideal method for their projects.

 

[Scott H]

I think you are more likely to notice differences in film stock than anything else...

Exactly.
I assure you that film stock, exposure, and processing are far more pertinent in the discussion of grain than whether you shot anamorphically or via S35 to achieve a ~2.40:1 AR. If one shoots the same exact scene with the exact same stock simultaneously using both methods and one camera underexposes and has the lab push just one stop, and the other camera overexposes one stop and has the lab do nothing, no matter which camera did what, the underexposed footage will look like crap in comparison (unless that look was the intention.

 

[Artur Meinild]

S35 is incredibly misunderstood, and almost exclusively erroneously associated with 2.35:1 on this forum, and often negatively to boot.

And that's exactly why I wrote "(maybe framed for 2.35:1)", because you can of course shoot for any ratio. Isn't super-35 negatives in fact just 35mm silent aparture?
Anyway, thanks for the multiple responses everyone, it's nice that I can point people to this thread when they're making silly claims about super-35!

 

[Michael Reuben]

Anyway, thanks for the multiple responses everyone, it's nice that I can point people to this thread when they're making silly claims about super-35!

Best of luck! The explanations in this thread have been given many times, but the same people keep posting the same silly claims.

M.