Super 35 and action movies. (1 Viewer)

[Jason Adams]

There may be a Super 35 thread here somewhere, but I was watching X2 on the big screen, and noticed that hideous extra grain, that is part of the cropping of a Super 35 movie. I know that filmmakers say that spherical lenses are easier to handle, and cheap, compared to anamorphic lenses. I mean, this is ok for a cheaply budgeted movie, but X2? Even X-Men was anamophic!

But there has been a series of movies, that have continusly shot anamophically...James Bond movies. From Thunderball to Diamonds Are Forever, and continuosly from The Spy Who Loved Me, they are all anamorphic. So if Bond can do it, why not others?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

There are many advantages to Super 35 over anamorphic, including:

• greater depth of field, to capture more picture in focus
• greater selection of lenses, allowing the D.P.'s to find exactly what they need for the job
• no distortion - no distortion to the image, particularly important for heavily simplifying F/X compositiing

That aside, the grain shouldn't be neccessarily hideously worse than an anamorphic picture. Sure, it's enlarged, but there are many factors including lighting, film stock, and lab processing which can lead to more significant grain issues.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I mean, this is ok for a cheaply budgeted movie

You mean, like Lord of the Rings? Titanic? Minority Report? Road to Perdition?

M.

 

[Kami]

I can't fathom why people say Super35 looks bad when I watch either of the Lord of the Rings. The DVD transfer on FOTR: Extended is absolutely stunning.

 

[Daniel J.S.]

Minority Report was shot Super 35? I didn't know that. Is there ways to tell visually that it was shot this way? Please enlighten me as I'm pretty ignorant about it. Last I checked the credits don't mention use of Super 35.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Super-35 films can be identified usually by it being 2.35:1 and having a credit for "Camera and Lenses by Panavision" instead of "Filmed In Panavision."

Some 1.85:1 films have been filmed in Super-35, though. Goodfellas is one of them.

 

[Daniel J.S.]

Minority Report is 2.4:1
Seriously, that makes sense. How do you tell if 1.85:1 films used Super 35?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Minority Report was shot Super 35? I didn't know that. Is there ways to tell visually that it was shot this way?

The distortion is the only visual way to tell. And even that is so subtle that it's very hard to tell unless you know film really well (I know that I can't tell, unless I'm looking for it)

As Patrick mentioned, the terminalogy is a good indicator, Panavision is an anamorphic process, so films shot with spherical lenses (which includes Super35, as has been mentioned) get the "Camera and Lenses by" moniker. I wouldn't trust this 100% because mistakes have been made.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Last I checked the credits don't mention use of Super 35.

You'll be hard-pressed to find credits for any film that mention use of Super35.

DJ

 

[Michael Reuben]

I never trust the end credits. There have been way too many errors.

Widescreen Review maintains a database of current films and films they've reviewed on DVD. You have to be a subscriber to access it. I've found them to be much more accurate and reliable than IMDb.

I can usually tell how a 2:35:1 film (or 2.40 for you purists ) has been shot by various tell-tale visual cues that are hard to describe. But I agree with Adam that the differences can be very subtle. Not always, though; anamorphic lens flares, once you know what they are, are pretty easy to spot.

M.

 

[Michael Reuben]

You'll be hard-pressed to find credits for any film that mention use of Super35.

There are a few, and it's always a custom credit created for the film. There was one at the end of Age of Innocence, and I believe there was one on Soderbergh's King of the Hill.

M.

 

[Jason Adams]

Well ok...my misconseptions of Super 35 have been proven wrong. I just dont like it...it make me feel like I've been cheated somehow...you're always losing part of the picture. I still like my movies to be animorphically shot.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I can usually tell how a 2:35:1 film (or 2.40 for you purists )

I'm a 2.3942857142857142857142857142857:1 (.838" x .700", fixed for anamorphic projection) purist, thankyouvery much.

DJ

 

[Damin J Toell]

Well ok...my misconseptions of Super 35 have been proven wrong. I just dont like it...it make me feel like I've been cheated somehow...you're always losing part of the picture.

How are you losing part of the picture? Because other parts of the negative are being exposed in the camera? So what? You're not missing anything that is meant to be seen, so therefore nothing is lost. The same is true of any process that involves exposing parts of the negative that are never meant to be seen; do you feel cheated by 1.85:1 on 4-perf 35 shot with spherical lenses? What does it matter what's exposed on the negative? The only pertinent picture is what is in the proper frame. Deciding what goes in the frame and what stays out of it happens with any filming process, whether it be anamorphic, Super35, or otherwise. That Super35 for ~2.4:1 acquisition happens to expose more of the negative on the space outside the frame is irrlevant.

DJ

 

[Holadem]

Where is Jeff?

The corners of the screen were quite noticeably distorted in FOTR (theater), I first saw it in the Bag End scenes with all those beams. I am not sure about the DVD, I would have to go check.

Is this a mark of Super-35?

--
Holadem

 

[Dan Rudolph]

That was the projector, most likely. FotR was shot spherical, so there wouldn't be any distortion. My understanding is that it would have been to hard to do the CGI and forced perspective otherwise.

 

[Brendan Brown]

Can you tell if something's been shot anamorphically if the out of focus areas in the background are distorted? I always find that the background stretches out somewhat when a camera rack focusses to the forground in an anamorphic film.

 

[Tim Raffey]

Holadem,
I don't know exactly what you're talking about, but it could've just been a wide lense.

 

[Lew Crippen]

The distortion is the only visual way to tell. And even that is so subtle that it's very hard to tell unless you know film really well (I know that I can't tell, unless I'm looking for it)

Something that has not been mentioned are the limitations that ‘Scope’ puts on DPs, restricting them from certain types of shots that include the horizon (especially an ocean/sky shot). Or they just accept (as does the audience) the unnatural curvature on display. You can often see curvature on vertical lines as well (such as door frames).

There is an interview with Raoul Coutard on the Criterion DVD of Contempt that contains some discussion on these effects.

It is my understanding (and I have no actual knowledge) that the use of anamorphic lenses makes CGI special effects significantly more difficult. Which, if true, would be a very big reason for shooting LOTRs in Super 35.

You often get some distortion even with spherical lenses when the shorter focal lengths (wide angle lenses) are used.

 

[Brendan Brown]

Shame, I like wide angle lenses. Maybe the visual effects houses should suck it up and ask the DP to make careful notes on the visual distortion settings to be mimicked with CGI.