Super 35

[8th Man]

So are the release prints of super35 done as anamorphic most often?
Cameron films are known to be grainier in cinematography circles however, I never really noticed grain in movies before I started getting into S8 filming. Now I ask friends if they noticed anything grainy after a viewing and they say they don't.

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

[technicolour]

About Super 35 being grainy, I recall Lord of the Rings being very grainy indeed and thats a super 35 film


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

[crimsonson]

You cant just say Super 35 as being grainy without mentioning stock speed, f stop, lens, and a whole slew of post process. Remember, some films (Lords probably did) had 2K or 4K digital print made for FX before the final print was made.



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

[technicolour]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:
You cant just say Super 35 as being grainy without mentioning stock speed, f stop, lens, and a whole slew of post process. Remember, some films (Lords probably did) had 2K or 4K digital print made for FX before the final print was made.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasnt "saying" it was grainy just because it was super 35, it was just an observation, It might very well have been the cinemas own copy that was grainy. Seeing as i dont have magical powers im unable to recall the specific film speed, f stop and all the other lens stuff. I was just wondering if grain is influenced by the particular process itself

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

[blackangus1]

I've seen LOTR twice, and it never looked overly grainy -- maybe it's a variation in the prints.

I'm a big proponent of Super35, but I will be the first to admit -- Super35 for theatrical release in 2.35:1 ratio is almost always going to be grainier than the same film shot in anamorphic for 2.35:1. It's inherent in the using of a smaller surface area of the negative... less negative surface = more grain, same reason S8 is grainier than 16mm. Plus the inherent optical transfer to anamorphic for release printing means the grain will get worse because you're photographing the original's grain onto the anamorphic final. No doubt, theatrically-released 2.35:1 S35 is grainier than the same shots made in anamorphic in the first place.

S35 uses less negative than anamorphic, so it's grainier -- but you can use better higher-quality spherical lenses instead of anamorphics, so your picture may actually be sharper. And spherical lenses are typically faster, and cheaper, and easier to use. And the lenses are faster, so you can use a slower filmstock for less grain.

S35 is cheaper, faster, and much easier to shoot. Anamorphic is bigger, clumsier, more expensive, more limiting... but delivers a less-grainy picture. Where S35 really, really shines is direct-for-TV work, or low-budget 2.35:1 production, and especially for the eventual TV release because you can shoot multiple aspect ratios at the same time and protect for an eventual 1.85:1 or 1.33:1 release. S35 is superior in every way for a production that's slated for TV release. Anamorphic is the preferred method for theatrical releases.

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

[Matt Pacini]

Well, we can go around and around about what makes a film grainy; stock, shooting conditions, etc., but the fact is, the smaller the originating image area, the grainier it's going to be, all other factors being equal.

I saw Titanic not in 70mm.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a film is shot in Super35, I think it is projected spherical, with the widescreen masking put on the projector.
Which means, it's going to be grainier than any 35mm release format, period.

I was quite shocked with Titanic being grainy, because it was the most expensive film ever made, and I just thought they would make the image as perfect as possible having spent that much money.

By the way, Lord of the Rings was scanned at 2K for a digital intermediate.
I didn't know it was shot in Super 35. That looked much better than Titanic, at least to me.
Maybe James Cameron being such a jerk ended up having some bad Karma coming back at him...
Nahhhh, maybe not.
I read an article that he was so bad on Terminator II, that crew made T-shirts that said "Terminator III, not with me".
He would actually scream "anyone goes to the bathroom might as well keep on walking".
But he got pretty far, for a guy who's first movie was Piranah II.
Anyone ever see it?

Matt Pacini

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

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a film is shot in Super35, I think it is projected spherical, with the widescreen masking put on the projector.
Which means, it's going to be grainier than any 35mm release format, period.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily. If the movie is shot in Super35 and blow up to 70mm, it could look as good as a straight 35mm anamorphic release. Remember, the grain of the negative isn't as obvious as the grain of the print stock and the grain of the 70mm stock is going to be minimal compared to the grain of the 35mm print stock. So it is possible that a 70mm print of a Super35 negative will look as good as a straight 35mm anamorphic print.

Of course, this is all academic. Even the worse super 35 looks better than super 8! (sob).

Roger

Roger

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

[blackangus1]

<<Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a film is shot in Super35, I think it is projected spherical, with the widescreen masking put on the projector.>>

No, Super35 films are shot spherically, but release prints are anamorphic. A digital or optical print is made to resize the negative onto an anamorphic print. But the net result is the same, you're using and projecting a smaller image area, which means more grain...


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

[technicolour]

Just out of interest, what aspect ratio is Super 35 again?

Is it smaller than anamorphic widescreen?

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

[blackangus1]

Super35 can be pretty much any aspect ratio you want. The full frame is 1.33:1, which is what I mainly use for TV commercials. For most people, shooting Super35 means extracting a 2.35:1 strip from the 1.33:1 frame, and reprinting that 2.35:1 strip onto an anamorphic print for release. This is how Titanic, Lord of the Rings, Terminator 2, and all sorts of pictures get shot. Then, for video transfer, you can "open up" the matte to include the information that was cut off to create the widescreen image.

A good discussion that shows the full frame and resulting theatrical and TV aspect ratios, is at: http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml

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