Anamorphic S8

[mattias]

is he really assuming that? both mr obvious and i clearly stated that *if* you're after 16:9, most anamorphic lenses (most of them are 1.5x, 1.75x or 2x) will give you a too wide image.

16:9 is a standard video format, and most of us actually edit and screen using video--that's why i mentioned it. i don't think anybody ever uses it for projecting film either.

/matt

------------------

[MrObvious]

No, Matt, I am not assuming that at all. Why would I be the first one to bring up "2x" if I didn't know there were other options?

I brought it up because mattias mentioned the fact that for a 16x9 aspect ratio you would have to cut as much off the sides of an anamorphic image as you would the top and bottom of a non-anamorphic image, which I believe is TRUE for a 2x anamorphic.

In fact, a 2x anamorphic gives you 24x9, which would require a serious crop for 16x9. You would lose 33% of your image area to cropping. On a standard 1.33 frame you lose 25% to cropping top and bottom, which is less than using a 2x anamorphic!

Now it's true that a 1.5x anamorphic will be much better, I was just using the 2x as an example of what you SHOULDN'T use if you want 16x9.

A 1.5x would indeed be much better for your purposes. A 1.5x gives you 18x9, which only requires cropping 11% of your image.

As far as projecting goes, I'm not sure we're on the same track. I'm simply talking about using a film projector with the anamorphic lens in front of the projector lens. I suppose you could use a 1.5x anamorphic and mask it with cardboard if you REALLY wanted to see exactly 16x9 on your living room wall.

MadFor3D>

The bracket is for the Beaulieu R16. It is an accessory for the flat base (invaluable) that was designed to hold some sort of lens. It basically is a set of rods that extend from the base and hold a circular bracket of about 2" in diameter. I bought it thinking it was a lens support, but it's too small for heavy telephoto lenses (which it would obviously be designed for if it were a support). So I figure it's designed to hold an anamorphic (even better!) because the 16-D lenses are approximately 2" in diameter by the rear element and it should fit perfectly (haven't received the lens yet). The parts are manufactured by Beaulieu but I believe they are fairly rare. It's great because it's designed to be perfectly centered with the lens mount. No fussing around trying to center it all the time. I'll let you know how/if it works.

Marc S.

[MadFor3D]

MrObvious,

What does your "bracket" look like for your Beaulieu camera? I keep reading about a bracket to hold these anamorphic lens's and I haven't seen one. Is it a home made thing? Could you take a picture of it and load it up to the net?

Thanks,

Madrone http://www.MadFor3D.com


------------------

[Nigel]

Or, you can shoot the film for the aspect ratio in which it was designed. When you compress an image you are doing just that compressing the image. I have no real problems with widescreen images--I think that they were and still are intended as a way to make Film seperate from TV. When you shoot full aperature 35mm with an Academy gate you are shoot a 1.37:1 ratio this is the "standard" for 35mm that dates back to the 1920's. When you shoot 1.85--in most cameras you change the ground glass and not the gate--thus you are simply reframing the image. When you shoot a 3perf 35mm you are only using 3perfs per fram but most of the 4th perf is wasted in a standard 35mm gate.

Part of what makes S8 great is its look and that look comes from all of its little quirks and one of those is its aspect ratio. Good Luck

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

One thing I should add to this is:

Big budget films shot either in Anamorphic or spherical formats (like Super 35, etc.) are obviously planning on screening in a theater, widescreen, then cropping for most video showings if shot in Anamorphic (since most people don't yet have widescreen TV's)... OR if shot in a spherical format like Super 35, cropping for widescreen. So either way, most films are cropped one way or the other.

When shooting 35mm, it's not as much as a concern, but in Super 8, you want to crop (and lose resolution) in the screening format that will show the loss less dramatically, that is, the video image.
Because if you crop Super 8 for widescreen, and project that lower resolution print, it will look MUCH worse than if you projected an anamorphically shot Super 8 film.

Matt Pacini


------------------

[crimsonson]

Matt:

I do not understand your comments. Please clarify. I have always thought that when shown in theaters, anamorphic or spherical, no cropping occurs since the projector lens and the screen accomodates the format. If shown in video Pan Scan (I guess we can consider cropping) or letterbox (no cropping) is applied.

Second if you go anamorphic - I thought that YOU DO LOSE RESOLUTION - actaully percieved resolution - since the grain size is increased horizontally. Grain will be more visible.

That is why in video true 16:9 (16:9 CCD) is higher in resoltion than a 4:3 with 16:9 lens.

To preserve the resoltion the film stock size must change (equivalent to CCD in video for this purpose). In 35mm land this is almost moot since the resolution of a 35mm image is above and beyond video and lower film formats. But in S8 land, if projected or blown up does this result in considrable lower res?

Please clarify.

------------------

[cameraguy]

crimsonson, if you think there is no cropping in letterbox movies you may want to take a closer look. Check out this site. http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/lbx.htm

------------------

[crimsonson]

Hmmm...
Then I should have said a potential for no cropping....
I like the example they used. Unfortunately, the aspect ratio is 70mm Cinemascope. A format that is almost dead in the water. Second, I think its reasonable to expect cropping with Cinemascope because you if ever tried watching one on your 24 inch TV you know squinting skills is a prerequisite.

------------------


[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited August 27, 2001).]

[Matt Pacini]

I think you are getting confused by your assumptions.
First of all, almost all movies "eventually" (key word) experience cropping, BECAUSE they are seen BOTH in the theaters as widescreen films, AND on a 4:3 TV screen, one of which will be accomplished by cropping.
You have to remember a couple things:
1. Yes, they are cropping widescreen movies in the theater, IF they are not using an Anamorphic adapter to unsqueeze an anamorphic print.
ALL other widescreen formats in 35mm are cropped to get that way.

2. If a movie is widescreen, (any widescreen format or technique) then is to be screened on TV, then the sides are cropped off to get the 4:3 aspect ratio.
The only exception to this is Super 35, which actually shoots the full aperture, near square aspect ratio, then the release prints are cropped on the top & bottom for theatrical widescreen, and the TV telecine'd copy uses the full virticle information that was exposed during filming, but cropped out in the printmaking for widescreen.

This is why I've heard that mistakes can be seen in some of Jim Cameron's movies (he loves Super 35), like (I've not seen this personally) I guess in T2, there's a phone booth scene, and they damaged it in one of the takes.
I guess you can see that it's messed up somehow on the top of the frame, then it's not, then it is.... but this is cropped out in the widescreen print, and the camera op aparently wasn't protecting for TV at this point, and let the mistake in.
Funny they didn't just zoom in in telecine... someone must have not noticed.
Also, keep in mind when they shoot widescreen, like 1:85.1 they are losing lots of negative area by the cropping, which is a waste of film.

Some guy recently came up with a new format, which would probably be super popular if it weren't for this new digital craze.
It's 48fps, and it is widescreen spherical, but with no extra space being wasted between frames. I read an article on it last year (I think it was American Cinematographer), and apparently it looked absolutely amazing, and wasn't much more than standard 35mm, certainly not twice as much (because of using the entire neg area virtically).
Hmmmmm.
I think I'll design a 48fps Super 8 setup. (Har har!) That would be great, 1.25 minute cartridges!

Matt Pacini


------------------

[8th Man]

I wish sombody could explain to me why the three perf format for 35 isn't more popular. Aaton is always pushing it and it makes perfect sence to me. Why waste so much film to cropping ? Plus you get more time out of a mag. I still want to shoot some anamorphic S8 though. When I'm back in Cal. I'll probably rent the package from Pro8 for a weekend and see if I like it.
Matt, is there some place that has a graphic of super 35? I don't quite understand the concept. Is it single perf like super16?

------------------
PRM