Super 35

[technicolour]

I was recently looking around on IMDB's website looking at the technical specs of various movies, and noticed one that was filmed in "super 35" Is there such a thing and is it like super 8 and super 16?

Also, Im confused about how widescreen pictures are placed on a 35 neg, is it true that a anamophic lens is used and actually compresses the image so that it fits? Does then the projector in the theatre need the same sort of lens to "uncompress" the image?

------------------
Jim

[Matt Pacini]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by technicolour:
I was recently looking around on IMDB's website looking at the technical specs of various movies, and noticed one that was filmed in "super 35" Is there such a thing and is it like super 8 and super 16?

Also, Im confused about how widescreen pictures are placed on a 35 neg, is it true that a anamophic lens is used and actually compresses the image so that it fits? Does then the projector in the theatre need the same sort of lens to "uncompress" the image?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the short and simple answer to your first question is, Super35 uses a near square image area to shoot on, so they can either frame at 1:33.1 for video transfer, or mask it to widescreen, but cropping out the top and bottom for theatrical projection.
It's not as good of quality as anamorphic widescreen, because anamorphic uses the entire neg area, but squeezes the wide image area, then unsqueezes it later.
(In other words, YES is the answer to your second question).

For the long answer on film formats, go here: http://www.onscreen.org/formats.htm

Matt Pacini

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

[blackangus1]

To further expound (i.e., more than you probably wanted to know):

All the major film formats originally started out as 1.33:1 aspect ratio (or very nearly that). Super8 is 1.33:1, 16mm is 1.33:1, and 35mm was originally 1.37:1. So is TV.

With the advent of the soundtrack on film, some room had to be made on the film to give way. On Super8, they used thin strips on each side of the film, which didn't really cost anybody any image area. With 16mm, they replaced one row of sprockets with a sound stripe -- again, not costing any image area. With 35mm, they were already using all the width between the sprockets, so they actually shrunk the width of the frame a bit. The 35mm optical soundtrack rests inside the sprocket area, next to the picture.

Then the "super" formats came about. By ignoring the soundtrack and making silent-only filming, you can get bigger image area on the standard film gauge. Super16 is made by replacing the soundtrack area with image, making for a 20% wider image area. Super35 is made by ignoring the soundtrack area and spreading the image across the entire frame (which is identical to the original silent-35 frame). Super8 is a little different, instead of ignoring the sound area they made the sprockets smaller than Regular8, which leads to the same result -- more usable image area.

When you say "how is 35mm made widescreen", there are two answers, because there are two prevalent widescreen formats for 35mm (the definition of widescreen being "wider than 1.33:1"). For standard "flat" 1.85:1, they simply crop the 1.33:1 image, throwing away the top and bottom. Really. They waste about 25% of the film, just to make the image wider. For "scope" 2.35:1, they use an anamorphic lens to squeeze the image horizontally by a factor of 2x, which turns the 1.33:1 full frame into 2.66:1 widescreen (when unsqueezed by an anamorphic lens on the projector), and when you crop out the soundtrack area it leaves a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

An alternative to using anamorphic lenses to get a 2.35:1 widescreen picture is to use Super35 and crop it to 2.35:1. By doing this you get the full width of the negative, but only half the height. This is what most people mean when they speak of shooting in Super35, is using the wider negative to deliver a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. It is cheaper and easier to shoot 2.35:1 this way instead of using anamorphic lenses, but the main drawback is that you're using only half the available negative.

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

[Konton]

Hey blackangus1! Finally decided to post here? Man, I'm all jazzed up about shooting Super 35mm now. But I'm also jazzed up about working on my Super 8mm camera to prepare for Super 35mm. Same aspect ratio of 1.33:1 with the final aspect ratio of 2.35:1. Learn it! Live it! Love it!

------------------
Konton the Grey

[mattias]

a super 35 frame is about 25x11 mms. a super 16 frame is about 13x8. notice how small the difference is, especially in height? super 35 is wider, but the projection is also wider, so the grain and sharpness is about the same. and both formats require optical printing as well, so the cost for making a print is the same. unless you really need wide screen and can't afford anamorphic lenses, or need a portable camera, or want to do compositing, i wouldn't use super 35. just check out ocean's eleven in a large theater. looks just awful if you're closer to the screen than twenty feet or so, which i like to be...

/matt

[technicolour]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
Well, the short and simple answer to your first question is, Super35 uses a near square image area to shoot on, so they can either frame at 1:33.1 for video transfer, or mask it to widescreen, but cropping out the top and bottom for theatrical projection.
It's not as good of quality as anamorphic widescreen, because anamorphic uses the entire neg area, but squeezes the wide image area, then unsqueezes it later.
(In other words, YES is the answer to your second question).

For the long answer on film formats, go here: http://www.onscreen.org/formats.htm

Matt Pacini

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So with Widescreen Super 35, all they do its cut the top and bottom off?

------------------
Jim

[blackangus1]

<<So with Widescreen Super 35, all they do its cut the top and bottom off?>>

Basically, yes. Widescreen Super35 is the full width of the full frame, and you just crop it to 2.35:1. Of course, 1.85:1 is basically the same technique, they use the width of the frame (less the soundtrack area) and crop that to 1.85:1. When they transfer that to TV, it gets even worse -- they then crop that cropped image, thus using only a small portion of the original negative.

For more about 2.35:1 Super35, look at http://www.multivision235.com.au/moreinfo.html

This is a site that specializes in the revival of TechniScope, which is Super35 but 2 perfs instead of 4, so you get the true 2.35:1 aspect ratio and the full width of the film but you cut your film & processing costs in half. There's no waste of film, as opposed to standard S35 (which wastes half the film) and regular 1.85:1 35mm, which wastes about 1/4 of the film. It brings the cost of shooting 35mm extremely close to that of 16mm.

As for Mattias' comments about frame size, there is similarity to frame height, but the aspect ratio is profoundly different so it's not really a fair apples-apples comparison. S16 is 1.66:1, cropped S35 is normally 2.35:1. So if you're comparing aspect ratio to aspect ratio, you'd have to crop S16 to about 5mm high, which would give you 60mm2 of image area. S35 2.35:1 delivers 264mm2. And if aspect ratio is not part of the formula, then we should consider that the true S35 spec includes all the height of the 4:3 frame, so full-frame S16 delivers about 84mm2, whereas full-frame S35 delivers about 490mm2. By any measurable calculation, Super35 is much superior to any flavor of 16mm (which it should be, because it costs a lot more to shoot it). I like S35 because I can decide on the fly, per project, what aspect ratio to compose for. I can shoot 2.35:1 widescreen and get very good theatrical quality, or 1.33:1 fullscreen and get incredible quality for full-screen TV commercials. Or frame & crop for theatrical 1.85:1, every bit as good as any "standard" 35mm camera.


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

[Matt Pacini]

You know though, everything james Cameron does is S35, and I thought Titanic was grainy as hell.

None of my filmmaking buddies noticed this though, so maybe it was the print I saw, but I was shocked at how chunky the image was in the theater.
Really grainy on the interiors.

Matt Pacini

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

[mattias]

> but the aspect ratio is profoundly different

doesn't matter if we're comparing sharpness and grain, since the projected height is the same no matter what the width.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
I thought Titanic was grainy as hell.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A lot depends on whether the film was blown up to 70mm for projection or kept at 35mm in one of two different states. I first saw "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in 70mm and it was stunning in its sharpness, even though it was shot in 35mm. Then I went back with some friends to another theater and saw it in 35mm and it was grain city. The, I saw it again at another theater that was a little larger and it was not as grainy but still not as sharp as the 70mm. I knew the projectionist there and had a look at the print. After that and some research, here is what I found:

The best is to blow it up to 70mm as this will allow for projection with aspheric lenses and the only grain you will notice is that of the original negative, since all the intermediates were 70mm.

The next best is an anamorphic 35mm print since that will let you still have the maximum 35mm frame height and the width is achieved using an anamorphic lens to unsqueeze the image. However, the grain of the print material will still be more obvious and is, really, what you are seeing more so than the original neg grain.

The worst is a 35mm aspheric print that has the unsqueezed image reduced to fit the 35m frame. This is used in smaller theaters that lack anamorphics or 70mm capabilites.

So, when a film is released, it is a crap shoot what version you will see depending on what type of theater you go to. The local "stadium style" theater near us often has one theater showing a film in 70mm and another right down the hall showing the same film in 35mm anamorphic. I've only noticed the smaller shoe-box theaters using the aspheric 35mm prints. Those are, indeed, grain city.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html