Super 35 - Why just in last 20 or so years? (1 Viewer)

[Jack Walsh]

I was just wondering. So many movies filmed in this format have been coming out. I understand that this method has been around since the 50's and went under the name of Superscope 235 or something. I think what I'm wondering is, why have directors started using it recently and not as much as, say, before the 80's? I can't think of any movies filmed in this method prior to the 80's. Almost everything else in widescreen (2.35) was done using anamorphic lenses or filmed on 65mm stock.

The one thing I remember reading is that Robert Harris once said that Hitchcock used this method a number of times. Which films were they?

Perhaps the major reason is that nobody had the TV in mind when they were making it. It's a shame actually, that filmmakers don't use those nice wide compositions anymore. A few here and there but not much. I'm not knocking the method. It's just that the scope of films just isn't like they used to be. I understand why S35 is used. I'm just surprised its use has really taken off in recent years. Easier to film visual effects in it, maybe? I'm just curious if anyone knows anything about this trend, or has a historical perspective on it.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I think that the quality loss in doing the blowup was unacceptible to filmmakers until the 80s because of technological advances. And to some people such as myself, the loss is STILL unnacceptible

 

[CharlesD]

I'm no expert on these matters but I would guess that increase in use of this process in the last 20 years is primarily due to home video. It is a way to pander to those who don't like 'those durn black bars' with out having to Pan & Scan the movie as egregiously as without s35.

Prior to home video the only advantage was having a spherical lens rather than an anamorphic one.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Prior to home video the only advantage was having a spherical lens rather than an anamorphic one.

But that's a much more considerable advantage than might first appear, because it carries with it a whole list of other advantages: e.g., lower lighting requirements, wider available array of lenses, lighter and more portable camera rigs.

M.

 

[Seth_S]

The one thing I remember reading is that Robert Harris once said that Hitchcock used this method a number of times. Which films were they?

Hitchcock used a photographic process called VistaVision for most of mid to late 50s films. Instead of the film being strung through the camera vertically, it's done so horizontally. By doing this, the aspect ratio of the negative becomes 1.66:1. It's like Super 35 in the sense that minimal matting is needed to create the 1.85:1 ration, and the sides of the frame are only sightly cropped when creating a 1.33:1 version. However, this wasn't the reason behind why the format was invented. It was an attempt to create a high resolution widescreen process; a lot of cinematographers claimed the the cinemscope effect hurt resolution though it was concluded that the public didn't have the eyes to tell. Because the horizontal alignment required the use of more film, and the cameras were quite large and bulky, the format went out of style in the 60s. However, it is still used for special effects sequences because of its larger negative size.

I think that Super35 as we know it (removing the magnetic strip to create a larger negative) is only like 20 years old. The reason that it's become so popular in the last 10 years is probably both because there was less of a drop in quality during the blow-up stage and because of homevideo.

 

[Seth_S]

True, but as James Cameron even admitted, creating the wide and full screen version can be a major pain - no matter how hard you try, sometimes you can't avoid awkward framing.

What I never understood about directors who use the format, is that it's meant for the people who can't stand those black bars, yet these people could care less that that 40% of the picture is being chopped off with pan n' scan.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I’m just curious as to how we know that the reason ‘Super 35’ is chosen as a format is to pacify people who don’t like black bars.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I’m just curious as to how we know that the reason ‘Super 35’ is chosen as a format is to pacify people who don’t like black bars.

We don't. Filmmakers routinely focus on other reasons, but the membership of this forum routinely fixates on the widescreen issue.

M.

 

[Seth_S]

I would think that directors who want the flexibility that cinemscope doesn't offer wouldn't want to deal with having to worry about how shots will look unmatted and reframed (such as equipment like a boom-mic becoming visible). Why bother with a double edge sword when you could just hard matte to 1.85:1
Some history:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingss1.htm

 

[Leo Kerr]

Actually, mentioning Vistavision above, I thought the big advantages of it were....
1. large negative area (24mm high by 36mm wide) giving a native aspect ratio of 1.5:1, and could be cropped with acceptable quality anywhere from 1:1 (square) to 3:1
2. spherical optics (easier to design and build)
3. I think it used a different transport than the conventional 35mm claw-grip thingie that made it more stable in the gate.
Options 1 and 3 made this ideal for ILM when they were starting to shoot STAR WARS - especially #3, when a piece of film might get exposed dozens or even hundreds of times.
Option 4 for ILM was the fact that no one was using it anywhere, and they were able to buy up the equipment for incredibly low prices.
Leo Kerr
[email protected]

 

[Declan]

I’m just curious as to how we know that the reason ‘Super 35’ is chosen as a format is to pacify people who don’t like black bars.

When doing tests for Top Gun, Tony Scott found that his panavision cameras could not be put onto any of the jets that were going to be used in the movie, because of the size of the cameras and the shots that he wanted to get were not fesible. He used Super35 to get around this because of its smaller (lighter) sized camera rigs.

Alos certain effects heavy movies such as LOTR, Frighteners and T2 used super35 also so they would not have to render the whole negative and the less resolution would also mean less rendering time.

If you look at the complete neg of True Lies for example the harrier jet would only be rendered out to the 2.00:1 ratio.

(hope i got that last bit right)

 

[Michael Reuben]

It's a shame actually, that filmmakers don't use those nice wide compositions anymore. A few here and there but not much.

I disagree with this assessment of current moviemaking. But even if I agreed, the issue has nothing to do with Super35.
For examples of films that make full use of the wider frame, take a look at this recent thread.
M.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Alos certain effects heavy movies such as LOTR, Frighteners and T2 used super35 also so they would not have to render the whole negative and the less resolution would also mean less rendering time.

But the primary reason is that Super 35 doesn't have the distortion of anamoprphic lenses, which is a nightmare to account for when compositing CG effects into a live action plate.

 

[Declan]

yep that as well.




(hangs head in shame for forgetting that bit of info:b )

 

[Seth_S]

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but I don't think this is true. Unless you're going to hard-matte all the shots with sfx to 2.35:1, you would have to render the whole negative because the matte bars will be partially lifted for the fullscreen version.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

PJ mentions his use of Super-35 on the FOTR commentary.

As mentioned above, Super-35 uses spherical lenses rather than anamorphic ones.

Some of the 'shortening' effects in the film were implemented with a technique called 'forced perspective'. For example, Ian McKellen and Ian Holm would be oriented in such a way that they appeared to be equal distances from the camera. In fact, Mr. Holm was 6 feet further from the camera than Mr. McKellen. This gives the illusion that Holm is smaller than he really is.

To film this properly requires lenses with great 'depth of field' i.e. they can keep the foreground, middleground, and background all in focus simultaneously. Anamorphic lenses are not capable of filming under these conditions.

I welcome anyone to clarify (or correct) the above.


Jeff,

Do you find modern Super-35 presentations to be unacceptable? I ask because I saw FOTR many times at the magnificent Seattle Cinerama and was perfectly satisfied with the quality. Then again, I understand that the single room theaters offer far greater quality presentation than the megaplexes (megaplexi?) in the suburbs.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Jeff,
Do you find modern Super-35 presentations to be unacceptable? I ask because I saw FOTR many times at the magnificent Seattle Cinerama and was perfectly satisfied with the quality. Then again, I understand that the single room theaters offer far greater quality presentation than the megaplexes (megaplexi?) in the suburbs.

Yes he does, and the issue has led to a number of heated discussions and closed threads.
Let's not go there again.
If you want to see an example of the prior discussions, you can read this thread:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...threadid=32988
M.

 

[Jack Walsh]

I disagree with this assessment of current moviemaking. But even if I agreed, the issue has nothing to do with Super35.

I'm not sure about that. It seems SOMETHING is missing when filming this way.I didn't want to turn this into a debate but merely to find out what the trend in this method is recently. I think the digital effects angle is a good example of its use. The examples given in that other thread has a lot of examples of anamorphic films, which wasn't what I was trying to get at. However, most of those examples have some years on them and are truly nice to look at (especially Royal Tenenbaums).

I think what most people feel is shortchanged. When you watch a film that you know is filmed anamorphically, you know you cannot watch it any other way than letterboxing. So they buy the big HT systems to watch it on, knowing the poor souls who watch the P/S versions will only be seeing 1/2 the picture. But when you watch the P/S version of a S35 film, most of the time, the general composition is stll there. And that's where I think people have a problem. We always complain about not even seeing the other person in a 2-shot in a Panavision P/S film. But this doesn't happen as much with a S35 P/S film. Although a bit cramped, most of the time you can see people in a conversation. I know there are exceptions. I remembered seeing Black Rain thinking it would look awful but then was surprised to see how it showed on VHS later. Wasn't all that bad.

I hope I'm making sense. I'm not the best at explaining things. But I do believe the sense of scope is missing, knowing there may be an acceptable P/S version of the S35 film. I can think of one off the top of my head that's not a Cameron film and it's Ronin. So there are advatages and disadvantages to the format. I was just trying to get a sense of the trend to its use recently if the technology had always been there.

 

[Michael Reuben]

When you watch a film that you know is filmed anamorphically, you know you cannot watch it any other way than letterboxing. So they buy the big HT systems to watch it on, knowing the poor souls who watch the P/S versions will only be seeing 1/2 the picture.

So, in other words, filmmakers who use Super35 are depriving HT snobs of some of their snob appeal? You may be onto something . . .
M.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I’ve followed this (and other) discussions about Super-35 with interest. What always seems to be missing, is an appreciation that the director and DP, may have chosen that format for the vision that they had in mind, not for technical purity.

It is very hard for me to follow the arguments as to how Super-35 translates to DVD as having any relevance at all in the filmmakers’ decision making process.

Or is this too simplistic.

I take the previous advice of the administrators and refrain from further comment on the technical merits of Super 35.