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

[Michael Reuben]

I didn't expect this thread to go on as long as it has.

Stick around for a few months, and there will be another one just as long.
M.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I thought this was a civil forum, but I guess not when I get responses like this. I should have known this would degenerate into a war like some others.

Please understand that I didn't intend the post as an attack against you personally, despite my perhaps (in retrospection) inflammatory choice of words. I am sorry if it was taken that way, and I want to be clear that nothing personal against you (or anyone else here for that matter). That said, my general point still stands. We should be happy, if anything, that people are getting a closer to accurate presentation of the film with Super35. As long as an OAR version exists, than it shouldn't matter what the ignorant are watching.

 

[Bill Street]

Let's see if we can summarize the civil parts of the arguments...

Advantages of Super35:

Lighter, smaller camera equipment

Less light necessary for exposure

Deeper focus allowed in shots

No scope "distortions" or "artifacts"

Cheaper & easier use for F/X shots

Easily converts to a variety of AR's (probably a disadvantage to many here...)*except* F/X shots that must be Panned and Scanned.

Disadvantages of Super 35:

Less resolution

Film grain is more of an issue due to increased size of blow up

Even with Super 35 accomodating a variety of A/R's, composition will still be different depending on which A/R it is viewed in.

Artistic Considerations- Is the choice to use Super 35 based on economics or artistic vision?

There are no conclusions I am attempting to draw from the above. I am merely trying to see if I have a good grasp of the arguments for and against Super 35.

If I have missed an argument or have mispresented view points I am sorry. I just wanted to put together a sort of summary.

Bill S.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Hi Bill,

I mentioned this in a previous post but didn't get a reply.

Don't the lower light requirements of Super-35 allow the cinematographer to shoot with a faster exposure, therefore reducing the amount of grain?

I understand that films shot on 2-perf 35mm and blown up to a scope-compatible print exhibit LESS grain than a film shot in scope, since the scope film requires more light and longer exposure, therefore increasing the grain.

Can someone please confirm or deny this?

 

[Michael Reuben]

Quote:

If I've understood Scott correctly, this is exactly his point.
M.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Don't the lower light requirements of Super-35 allow the cinematographer to shoot with a faster exposure, therefore reducing the amount of grain?

Yes and/or no. If you use a slower film, you will have a finer-grained image. If you use a film of the same speed and instead, say, get more depth of field, you'll have probably more grain, but also significantly more depth of field. This is a very important artistic consideration.

Still photography is what I do. Recently, I went to Prague, and instead of bringing a variety of film for various lighting conditions, I brought a gigantic pile of Fuji's new NPZ 800 film. It's very fast, but due to the tremendous recent improvements in colour negative film, it is also not particulalry grainy (I'm shooting medium format, 6x7).

While I did not always need the extra speed and depth of field this film offered me, having it on hand was astonishingly freeing when it came to creating an image. Numerous images that I am very happy with would not have been possible at all with a slower, finer-grained film, at least, not the way I wanted them.

Yes, there is more grain than if I had shot with a 160 or 400 speed film. Is it objectionable? I don't believe so. Would it have been better to make a sacrifice in terms of depth of field for the sake of finer grain? In most of the images, I would say absolutely not. Finer grain is not worth destroying the image.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Finer grain is not worth destroying the image.

Blasphemy! Don't you know it's impossible for there to be a valid artistic reason to introduce more grain into the image?
DJ

 

[Lew Crippen]

Finer grain is not worth destroying the image.

 

[George Phillips]

By the way, getting back to the S35 vs anamorphic trend, I found a post from someone else (Michael Coate) in another forum looking at the trend. Here are his numbers and the percentages you get from them.

This is the number of Super 35 films out of the total number of scope films where the shooting format was known. The number of unknowns tended to increase for more recent years, which is why the total keeps dropping.

1997: 58 out of 142 (41%)
1998: 53 out of 125 (42%)
1999: 65 out of 124 (52%)
2000: 54 out of 98 (55%)
2001: 55 out of 96 (57%)
2002 (partial): 17 out of 41 (41%)

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I suspect that as film stocks continue to improve that more and more films will be shot super 35. I forgot to mention that as a result of my Prague experience, where I only took fast film because I wanted to travel light and didn't know what kind of light to expect, that now I immediately reach for that NPZ as my go-to film for most situations where I'd want to shoot colour negative.
Once you've had that kind of freedom, it's hard to go back, and I imagine that the same is true for cinematographers.
On a side note, as another result of that experience, when I travelled to Quebec City in October for a friend's wedding, I decided to bring almost exclusively Ilford's Delta 3200 black & white film. Now, that is some very fast but also quite grainy film. I am happy with the results, but I suspect I could have achieved most if not all of the same images with a slower film, and in this case the grain ended up being slightly more intrusive than I would have liked.
So, a little balance -- it doesn't always work out perfectly.

 

[Chad R]

Bill,

Also add to your list of advantages of S35 is the availablity at the time of shooting. There are a finite number of camera packages with anamorphic lenses available and if it's a busy season they might all be rented. Also some DPs only consider a few anamorphic lenses acceptable, and many times depending on if it's a multi-camera, multi unit shoot only so many that are compatible with eachother.

Budget plays into it oftentimes, with producers having to get camera packages from companies other than Panavision and they might only have Super35 available.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Well I just got back from watching THE TWO TOWERS in 35mm (there were reel changing marks) at the Seattle Cinerama from the center of the 5th row. I had an easier time counting the individual whiskers on Aragorn's perpetual five-o'clock shadow than I did distinguishing any excessive grain.
To Jeff Kleist:
When I read your sig I thought it simply meant that you were a fan of LOTR and X-Files. If you plan to see TTT in theaters, I would be curious to know what objections you have to the use of Super-35 on this film. Do any particular scenes appear grainy to you? Perhaps the theaters in your area do not have properly trained projectionists. I understand that not every theater can provide Cinerama-quality results. In any case, I am eager to hear your constructive criticism.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

So in short, if Super35 films were hard matted, I wouldn't care. But by soft matting a film, directors are acting like less of artists then ever before.

I don't agree with that statement at all. Also some directors prefer the open matte because the extra filmed image gives them more flexibility to fine tune the framing in post production.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

We have properly trained projectionists, and I saw it in a THX Certified theater

The landscape shots, as before showed great loss of detail and excessive grain. While the rest of the film has been cleaned up considerably, the detail and overall clarity that comes with anamorphic is still lacking

I hold fast. If you don't want to shoot anamorphic, shoot 70mm. LOTR SCREAMS to have been shot in 70, unfortunately given that there's about 30 places (if that) left in the US equipped to play it in all it's splendor, I seriously doubt that any non-IMAX feature will ever use the format again.

If you plan to see TTT in theaters, I would be curious to know what objections you have to the use of Super-35 on this film. Do any particular scenes appear grainy to you? Perhaps the theaters in your area do not have properly trained projectionists. I understand that not every theater can provide Cinerama-quality results. In any case, I am eager to hear your constructive criticism.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

If you don't want to shoot anamorphic, shoot 70mm.

While I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment that anamorphic is always better than super 35, I gotta offer a big hell yes to the above. Boy, how I miss The York, the last non-IMAX theatre in Toronto that was equipped to properly present 70mm. Yeah, the Uptown had 70mm gear, but last I heard it was in mothballs, and they're closing in the new year too.
I saw Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet in 70mm at the York, and it was like seeing God. Seriously. Everything was so razor sharp and clean that you could tell what the extras were thinking about by the expressions on their faces.
There's something to be said, too, for films shot in 35mm and presented in 70mm -- the normal 35mm to 35mm duping process adds grain. I saw a 70mm print of Apocalypse Now at Cinesphere, and it was gorgeous, probably the most impactful movie going experience of my life.

 

[Lew Crippen]

quote:
If you don't want to shoot anamorphic, shoot 70mm.


While I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment that anamorphic is always better than super 35, I gotta offer a big hell yes to the above.

That’s pretty easy for us to say as we don’t have to make any budget decisions. Especially as the return on shooting in 70mm has to be pretty low, given (as has been pointed out in several posts) the number of theaters equipped to handle 70mm.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

That’s pretty easy for us to say as we don’t have to make any budget decisions.

Oh, I know...it's more expensive to shoot, to process, to edit, to print, to distribute, to transfer to video and heck, it weighs more, so it probably costs extra just to get it to the theatre in a truck. And yes, there are few good 70mm-equipped theatres these days.
None of this makes it an inferior format, however, just an impractical one.
I would have liked to have seen Moulin Rouge in 70mm. The return of the filmed musical, the way they used to be made!

 

[Joel Fontenot]

Oh, I know...it's more expensive to shoot, to process, to edit, to print, to distribute, to transfer to video and heck, it weighs more, so it probably costs extra just to get it to the theatre in a truck. And yes, there are few good 70mm-equipped theatres these days.

However, wouldn't a 70mm (or is it still 65mm shooting stock) IP that is reduction printed to standard 35mm anamorphic theatrical prints still look sharper than S35 filmed stock that is matted and blown-up to 35mm anamorphic theatrical prints?

Joel

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Sure, it'll look sharper, but you'll have to deal with less depth of field, higher costs and significantly decreased mobility.

But it would be cool.

 

[Damin J Toell]

LOTR SCREAMS to have been shot in 70

And if you had donated the necessary funds, they could've done it, too. While LOTR might scream for 70mm, reality screams right back.
DJ