Pan n Scan THIS! 'THE SCORE'. (1 Viewer)

[Scott H]

I have a question, why was S35 created anyway? What was the driving force behind the idea to create it? I'm just curious.

Because conventional 35mm does not expose the area historically used for the optical soundtrack. Since sound is not recorded to film during production this negative area is, in a sense, being wasted during photography. By optically realigning a camera to fully expose the negative filmmakers end up with a larger exposable area, and in theory a superior image due to using more negative.
Of course, as our discussion indicates, S35 is utilized diversely.
Some very popular uses are shooting for telecine, such as TV shows and commercials and for HD programming, because you can compose either 1.33:1 or 1.78:1 with the largest exposure possible with conventional 35mm movie cameras, and superior to any video acquisition format. For such applications, with spherical lenses, fine grain stocks, and achieving a dense negative, you can produce the sharpest images possible with 35mm movie cameras if that is your intent.
Regarding ~2.40:1 for theatrical presentation, it affords some benefits over shooting anamorphically. A major one is cost. Anamorphic lenses cost more to rent. They are also slower than spherical lenses, which means that you may have to spend more on lighting equipment. They are also heavier than spherical lenses. So, anamorphic lenses means more equipment and more weight and more money. The photographic attributes are very different between anamorphic and spherical lenses. Spherical lenses are (quoting Panavision here) "superior in definition, contrast, freedom from distortion...", and the fields of view are quite different (50mm for 2.35:1 anamorphic is equivelant to under 25mm for spherical 2.35:1). Anamorphic lenses can't achieve the same depth of field as spherical lenses at comparable fields of view. As someone else noted, you could never have achieved the remarkable cinematography of Citizen Kane with anamorphic lenses. Also, shooting ~2.40:1 on 3-perf S35 will use 75% of the raw film stock that shooting anamorphically would, a remarkable conservation. As I noted previously, it would also be impossible to reveal a 1.33:1 open-matte transfer from such a camera negative. For some filmmakers, the cost savings alone fascilitate their making the film at that AR. There, now I answered my earlier query to Jeff about why filmmakers may choose this method
Incidentally, the method, while not always called Super35, has been in use for a long time. Hitchcock used it, as Robert Harris once informed me.

 

[Scott H]

Okay Jeff, from this point forward I will excuse your calling S35 a film stock. Well, I may still correct it, but will do so with the understanding that your brain's messed up Mine is too, but let's not go there.

Yes, I realize the reasons why some directors choose Super35. The camera is smaller, and anamorphic requires more light. SO RENT MORE LIGHTS.

So, addressing just this one aspect, this one comment, in it's own context... MORE LIGHTS IS A REALLY BIG DEAL! More trucks, more lights, more generators, more people to manage them, more setup time, all equals much more money. It is also not conducive to certain directors and styles and the environment that they wish to create for their actors and stories. There is nothing fast and spontaneous about bigger and more. And never mind the camera package costs.
Also, the same cameras are used for both anamorphic and spherical, regualar and S35. So the camera bodies aren't necessarily larger or smalle. Just the camera setup and lenses change.

 

[cafink]

Since many directors shoot for the theater first, the quality of image should be their priority.

Sadly, no film has an infinite budget. Directors, like everyone else, have no choice but to make due with what they're given to work with.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Plus, more lights still isn't necessarily the answer. The speed of the lenses doesn't just mean "well, get more light then".
Think about a still camera. Different film speeds can mean different light requirements, but that doesn't mean that you just add more light with the slower exposure film. What about movement during that time frame?
What about losing or adding shadows do the higher lighting?
If you are doing a film noir and using mostly backlighting, do you just put 2 lights in back for every 1? Or do you have to add some front lighting instead? Now you have 3-point lighting going on?
Does the change in lighting or exposure times affect the COLOR detail as well?
Some processes require Day for Night shooting due to the drawbacks of the process.
Besides lighting there are other questions too -
Do you want the curved distoration of an anamorphic lens?
What depth of field do you want?
How much can you afford? Are you editing on sight or do you want to shoot lots of extra footage for coverage/editing options?
How many different lenses are available for use with each process? Which of those lenses will you be needing?
What about camera rigs? Can you get all the different booms, steady-cams, etc for your process?
There are just so many questions that have nothing to do with home video that it becomes ridiculous to think that the CINEMATOGRAPHER/director is thinking of that. Maybe, maybe a producer or the studio brings that thought to the table, but a filmmaker is thinking about making a film, not a home video (at least most of the time).
John, as has been noted I think, a big gripe was that you said every filmmakers wanted that 2nd 1.33 frame. My point before was that the 1.33 is a by-product of the process, which does not mean a goal by any means. Even if you DIDN'T WANT the 1.33 by-product it would still be there if other reasons dictated that you use an open-matte process.