What's new

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

Joined
Dec 7, 2002
Messages
16
Stop talking about LOTR in 70mm, you're making me get drool all over my keyboard...

I'm still upset about missing Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm a month or two ago. I found out about it the day after it ended...
 

MarcusUdeh

Supporting Actor
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Messages
785
Tarantino always visualized Kill Bill as a widescreen (2.4:1 aspect ratio) movie. Richardson prefers shooting in anamorphic format, because of the degradation of image quality inherent to the optical extraction required by the Super 35 format.
“Casino was the only film I’ve shot in Super 35 format,” he says, “and I was terribly disappointed with the release print quality. It was devastating to me. Quentin had a similar experience with Reservoir Dogs. Films stocks and lenses have improved, but there is still a chasm (separating the Super 35 and anamorphic formats).”
The problem was that Tarantino had written specific “zoom” lens shots into the script. Richardson felt that the anamorphic zoom lenses available from Panavision didn’t provide a fast enough T-stop to properly execute those shots. That drove the decision to use a digital intermediate process. That approach enabled Richardson to shoot with spherical lenses in Super 35 format and “squeeze” the images into a 2.4:1 aspect ratio during digital mastering. Basically, the edited cut of the negative is scanned and converted to digital files. The images are timed for shot-to-shot and scene-to-scene continuity in a digital suite, and then recorded out to an intermediate film used as a master for release printing. It’s a familiar tactic for Richardson, who has shot many commercials that have been converted to digital format and manipulated in telecine suites. However, this is his first experience with a “film-out” from a digital intermediate.
He suggested shooting Kill Bill in three-perforation 35mm format. That trimmed film and lab costs by 25 percent. Richardson explains that essentially covered costs for the digital intermediate process. There is no downside, since the digital files can be recorded out to a four-perf 35mm color intermediate film with no loss of picture quality.
Front-end processing and release printing were slated for Technicolor Labs, in Los Angeles. Tarantino agreed with Richardson’s suggestion about creating and timing a digital file at Technique, the lab’s subsidiary in the Los Angeles area.
Richardson prefers shooting in anamorphic format, because of the degradation of image quality inherent to the optical extraction required by the Super 35 format.
 

RodneyT

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
138
as long as the film in question is worth watching, they can film it on 8mm porn film stock for all i care. If a stupid film looks great, its still a stupid film.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Goodfellas is probably the most notable.
I realize that IMDb has Goodfellas listed as a Super35 film, but the Widescreen Review database lists principal photography as "academy standard flat". I generally trust WSR's information over IMDb's.

M.
 

WillG

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
7,563
I'm surprised in this thread that no one has mentioned that the use of Super 35 increases the odds of framing errors on DVD releases. I also don't like the fact the every so often a director uses Super 35 and then changes his mind on A.R. for home video. Roger Donaldson recenty did this for "The Recruit" because he thought that 2.35:1 wasn't proper for home viewing. Thanks for deciding this for me, but I still prefer the original 2.35:1 thank you very much! I'm not thrilled that Super35 can really blur the lines between WS and FS, but I know that is not the point of it's use (at least not the primary)
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
I also don't like the fact the every so often a director uses Super 35 and then changes his mind on A.R. for home video.
Again, this is nothing peculiar to Super35. How many debates on the AR of Apocalypse Now have we seen on this forum? How many threads about Kubrick's films that were projected in theaters at 1.85:1 and framed for home video at something else?

M.
 

WillG

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
7,563
Again, this is nothing peculiar to Super35. How many debates on the AR of Apocalypse Now have we seen on this forum? How many threads about Kubrick's films that were projected in theaters at 1.85:1 and framed for home video at something else?
Well, of course nothing is exclusive to Super35 but most of the examples you give are flat, soft-matted films. I guess my comments are more specific to matted films in general than Super35, I'll give you that. But, I still believe that my points are valid and are more related to matted processes than anamorphic. But I'm not going to denouce Super 35 either. It has its advantages.
 

Rob Tomlin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2000
Messages
4,506
Very interesting thread, I'm glad it was revived!

I admit that I don't have a great grasp on all the intracacies of the super35 format, but from what I do understand (or think I understand) it does seem to make sense that super35 would be more prone to framing mistakes than if shot anamorphically.

I also agree that most films shot in super35 don't appear to be quite as sharp, and are a bit "softer".
 

Dan Hitchman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 11, 1999
Messages
2,712
The Lord of the Rings films are not good examples of the pros or cons of Super 35 as the prints were scanned and manipulated digitally (at 2k, but why not 4k??) in order to soften the look of the films on an artistic level (I guess it made things look more "fantasy oriented" or something), and to lessen visible grain structure because of the use of Super 35. Unfortunately, by artificially softening the picture, they reduced the visible resolution/detail. Personally, I thought they went a bit too far...

I've been partial to 65/70mm and anamorphic 35mm for a long time, and I still stick by my views. Just ramping the speed of 35mm to at least 30 fps (as with early Todd-AO) would be fine by me. You would increase depth of field, lessen motion judder to almost nothing, and get snappier, more colorful frames. Heck, just by doing that simple, fairly cheap frame rate adjustment the gap between digital and film would greatly widen out yet again!

Dan
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
Just ramping the speed of 35mm to at least 30 fps (as with early Todd-AO) would be fine by me. You would increase depth of field, lessen motion judder to almost nothing, and get snappier, more colorful frames. Heck, just by doing that simple, fairly cheap frame rate adjustment the gap between digital and film would greatly widen out yet again!
There seems to be a lot of commercial HD video now being shot in 24 fps. If current trends hold, more HD video (for movie purposes) will be shot at 24 fps than either 30 or 60 fps.
 

TomTom

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 9, 2002
Messages
59
"The Lord of the Rings films are not good examples of the pros or cons of Super 35 as the prints were scanned and manipulated digitally (at 2k, but why not 4k??) in order to soften the look of the films on an artistic level ..."

I think the only reason these films were scanned at 2K res was because 2K is currently considered the minimum for SFX work and workflow throughout post production. Its easier to move 2K files (12MB) around a facility than 4K files (48MB).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,660
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top