Super 35 may not be the cause of film grain! (1 Viewer)

[Joshua Clinard]

Back when Harry Potter was announced, I remember all the hoopla about it being filmed Super 35, and I remember people saying that it would have a lot of film grain present because it was shot that way.

Now after watching the DVD numourus times, I don't think that Super 35 is so bad after all, other than the fact that it let's "the people who transfer the film to DVD" compromise the director's vision and offer a full frame version withought cutting off too much of the sides. But I don't think that Super 35 is the cause of film grain.

Although some scenes in The Scorcer's Stone appear to have a significant amount of grain, it is not present in every scene. Grain appears mostly in the darker scenes. Scenes that are "lighter" are pretty much grain free. The outside scenes such as the quidditch match are crystal clear. Even scenes that are dark, but inside the castle, are pretty clear, at least on my display. I especially rember the scene at the end of the movie where Harry meets Voldermort being very clear. I also remember it being this way at the theaters. The only scenes that seem to be full of grain are the outside scenes that were shot at night, or dusk. If Super 35 was the cause of "grain," then wouldn't grain be present thoughout the picture?

This leads me to beleive that this look was intentional, and not caused by Super 35, but caused by filters, or some other method that the filmakers used to acheive this affect.

I welcome your comments into this discussion.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

All valid points... as I recall, the only person pushing the grainy Super 35 bit at the time (and now) is Jeff Kleist, noted antagonist of the format

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Could have been the film stock used for various lighting schemes throughout the movie. Plus, the Quiddich match was 100% digital so grain wouldn't be a problem.

The X-Files Movie was Super 35 and that didn't look very grainy because they supposidly used very high quality low light negatives.

However, I still like that "scope" lens photographed look.


Dan

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

The choice of film stock has much more influence on the amount of grain than whether it's shot Super35 or not.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

I am not familiar with film stocks. Is that the same thing as the type of film, such as 35mm, 70mm, etc.? I used to think that most movies were shot on 35mm film, but I have recently seen posts mentioning films that are shot on 70mm film and others as well. Are these used very often, or am I correct in saying that most movies are shot on 35mm? What are the advantages to each different type?

edited for additional information.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I thought most movies used 35mm film.

They do, they are types of different film. There are many film stocks for 35 mm and there are a variety for 65 mm as well. They use a different combination of the chemicals to get a different result when exposed.

 

[Andrew W]

I am not familiar with film stocks. Is that the same thing as the type of film, such as 35mm, 70mm, etc

No, those are only sizes. There are other aspects to consider just as with photo film. First would be speed such as ISO 100, 200, 400 etc.... In general, you can shoot with less light as the ISO increases, but the image will be grainer. But different film brands and different film chemistry from the same vendor all affect the final outcome.

 

[Patrick McCart]

It's possible to have films made in Super-35 AND Panavision to have heavy grain.

For a film made after 1980, grain really isn't much of a sign of the condition of a print. You have to take into consideration the budget, conditions, etc. Many have criticized Top Secret! for being overly grainy. Well, for a low-budget film with a ton of opticals, it's going to be grainy. On the other hand, a film like Titanic can look grain-free on DVD. It's just a matter of those variables.

Shadow Of The Vampire has plenty of grain in some scenes, but it's intentional. Does that mean the DVD is of poor quality? To those who are ignorant about film, yes. To those who know their stuff, no. (In fact, the DVD is beautiful!)

 

[Robert Dunnill]

Well, for a low-budget film with a ton of opticals,

Excuse my ignorance, but what are opticals?

Thanks, RD

 

[Joshua Clinard]

What I would like to know more about is what those varibles are that affect grain. A film primer is really what I need. Does anyone know of a site that covers all the basics. I have checked out widescreenmuseum in the past, and that seems to be too complicated.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

One problem with shooting outside at night is that you have far less control over light than you do inside. Inside, you have more flexibility to light the heck out of a scene and still make it appear "dark", because there are no surprise elements, you have access to lots and lots of electricity, and no sun will come up to spoil your hours of lighting, and no neighbors will complain about the gigantic crane pumping stray light in through their bedroom window. The problem is that real outside almost always looks more real than "outside" created on a set (though a really good director of photography can fake it really well, especially if the set is perfect).

The solution for shooting outside is to either use a film that is more sensitive to light (a faster film), or deliberately underexpose your film (i.e. not give it enough light) and then compensate in processing. Both options increase film grain, and when used together can make things even grainier.

Also, many chemical processes that are used to change the contrast and saturation characteristics of a film will increase film grain. Bleach skip a.k.a. bleach bypass is one popular one.

Yes, I am one of those chemical freaks. I turned my mania for this kind of stuff into a small business, and now I do this kind of thing day-in and day-out (for still photographic applications, not motion picture, but the priciples are the same).

 

[Patrick McCart]

Excuse my ignorance, but what are opticals?

Titles superimposed, transitions, effects on top of live-action, etc...

 

[Jeff Kleist]

However, optical effects are basically dead now due to computer compositing. It USED to be that opticals caused excessive grain

The opening of Harry Potter was as much the fault of bad lighting as the Super-35 process

 

[Chad R]

With Super 35 the 'graininess' that's complained about isn't the presence of more grain, but that the grain is blown up to make release prints. Since only a small portion of the actual negative frame is used, and then blown up to fill the frame of standard 35mm, the size of the grain is increased. That's what most people complain about with regard to Super 35 and grain. The release prints of Harry Potter had that problem in theaters (especially the opening), but it's reduced on the DVD.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

So this could almost be compared to how non-animorphic widescreen works, when displayed on a 16x9 set, couldn't it. I understand that only the middle portion of the negative is used for the picture that will be shown in the theater. That middle portion is blown up, instead of using the whole negative for the image. Are some of the other negative sizes actually in the same ratio as the film? If, so, which size equals which ratio? This salmost reminds me of how non-animorphic widescreen works in that scan lines are used for black bars and the picture...in other words, the negative, or "scan lines" are used for the black bars, er I mean mattes the theater uses. I may not be explaining this so that anyone can understand it, but I think I understand it, so if you don't, I am sorry. Does anyone see what I am getting at? I think I'm definately beginning to grasp it though.

Thanks for the help guys!

 

[Damin J Toell]

Since only a small portion of the actual negative frame is used

Super35 for 2.4:1 acquisition uses a larger area of the negative than spherical 35mm for 1.85:1 acquisition. Exposing 2.4:1 straight across a Super35 frame would yield a negative image that is .960"x.400" (.384 square inches), while the exposed area for 1.85:1 is .825"x.446" (.368 square inches).

DJ

 

[Jeff Kleist]

OK, from the top
If you look at a film print, you'll see 1 area for the image and several lines running down the sides. Those lines are the audio track
http://members.shaw.ca/quadibloc/other/aspint.htm
Scroll down till you see the diagram of film strips numbered 1-5, that's a good visual example and explanation. Read that section and you should be clearer
Super35 is basically like #1 in that diagram. The film leaves no room for an optical soundtrack yielding a larger negative area. However when shooting for a 2.35:1 extract, you still end up with an picture inferior to that of a film shot anamorphicly (assuming all things being equal) due to the fact that it's blown up.
Of couse, the whole answer to the Super35 vs anamorphic debate is to just shoot 70mm All the benefits of less light and no distortion combined with far superior resolution, grain structure and native wideness that 70 offers

 

[Scott H]

A problem is that people mistakenly attribute S35 to anamorphic extractions. S35 pertains to the optical realignment of a camera, not any particular AR (well, it has a typical full aperture of 1.33:1, but most 1.85:1 is acquired on 1.37:1, as is anamoprhic 2.39:1). In many cases S35 1.78:1 will result in a reduction. As will S35 1.85:1. And much of the 4:3 TV you watch is S35.

In most cases, the use of S35 results in finer film grain. And in all instances shooting S35 has far less influence on grain than exposure and processing variables.

Blanket correlations between S35 and high grain is due to ignorance.

A cinematographer selecting 35mm negative motion picture stock from Kodak has many options. The stock selected and the manner in which it is exposed is far more relevant to grain than method or AR of 35mm composition.

And comparision between DVD quality and your theatrical experience may indicate the influence of grain on the release print/stock, with no association to the method of acquisition.

 

[Scott H]

Incidentally, grain is part of filmed cinema. Grain is inherent to the look of film. Grain is not bad. Instances of it being intrusive in theatrical film is uncommon, and likely not associated with S35.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Of couse, the whole answer to the Super35 vs anamorphic debate is to just shoot 70mm

Yeah... that'll happen. It's practically an economic impossibility. Recent films that have filmed 65mm have had to severely limit the cost of their takes because of the cost of the film. And by recent, I talking a few years old.