35mm movies to Blu Ray

DAvid · External Since: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 33

<davidm2.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1176348350.534950.176150@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I can't really say much, other than I was the co-DP on Season Two of
> "Big Love", and that we shoot 4-perf Super-35 framed for 16x9, posted
> in HD.
>
> David Mullen, ASC
> Los Angeles

What is 4-perf Super-35 as opposed to normal 35mm? Would I be correct in
assuming it's the same size film (thus the 35mm) but has a larger emulsion
frame, similar in concept to the old Standard 8 and Super 8? Apologies if
it's a dumb question.

DAVO

Black Tiger · External Since: Apr 12, 2007 Posts: 1

Big LN wrote:
> "DAvid" <davideo RemoveThis @bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>><davidm2 RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:1176348350.534950.176150@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>I can't really say much, other than I was the co-DP on Season Two of
>>>"Big Love", and that we shoot 4-perf Super-35 framed for 16x9, posted
>>>in HD.
>>>
>>>David Mullen, ASC
>>>Los Angeles
>>
>>What is 4-perf Super-35 as opposed to normal 35mm? Would I be correct in
>>assuming it's the same size film (thus the 35mm) but has a larger emulsion
>
>
>>frame, similar in concept to the old Standard 8 and Super 8? Apologies if
>
>
>>it's a dumb question.
>>
>>DAVO
>
>
> Hi DAVO. 4-perf Super 35 is simply the original frame size that was used in
> 35 mm silent films. That is, it is a return to the way the film stock was used
> before the frame size was cropped to allow room for a soundtrack. HTH.
>
> 'Onya

That's correct.

Big LN · External Since: Apr 12, 2007 Posts: 15

"TG'sFM" <suvvdj.DeleteThis@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1176366457.450985.71570@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 12, 2:31 pm, "Big LN" <Big....DeleteThis@this.ng> wrote:
>> "DAvid" <davi....DeleteThis@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> ><davi....DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >news:1176348350.534950.176150@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >>I can't really say much, other than I was the co-DP on Season Two of
>> >> "Big Love", and that we shoot 4-perf Super-35 framed for 16x9, posted
>> >> in HD.
>>
>> >> David Mullen, ASC
>> >> Los Angeles
>>
>> >What is 4-perf Super-35 as opposed to normal 35mm? Would I be correct in
>> >assuming it's the same size film (thus the 35mm) but has a larger
>> >emulsion
>> >frame, similar in concept to the old Standard 8 and Super 8? Apologies
>> >if
>> >it's a dumb question.
>>
>> >DAVO
>>
>> Hi DAVO. 4-perf Super 35 is simply the original frame size that was used
>> in
>> 35 mm silent films. That is, it is a return to the way the film stock was
>> used
>> before the frame size was cropped to allow room for a soundtrack. HTH.
>
> Well explained. You are not only correct, but you should be
> congratulated for not having a go at DAVO for asking such a dumb
> question.

Why would anyone have a go at DAVO?

'Onya

DAvid · External Since: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 33

<davidm2 DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1176386105.045304.108820@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Standard 35mm is 4-perfs tall. "Super-35" means you are exposing
> across the Full Aperture, picture extending between the two sprocket
> rows, rather than not using the left edge where the soundtrack stripe
> goes on the print. Basically 4-perf Super-35 is the same thing as 4-
> perf Full or Silent Aperture, which is what Silent Era movies used.
> It is a 1.33 : 1 (4x3) negative. But usually Super-35 these days is
> used for the extra width, not the extra height.
>
> TV more commonly uses 3-perf Full Aperture these days when shooting in
> 35mm. By dropping one perf per frame, the shape of the negative is
> more widescreen, roughly 1.77 : 1, which perfectly matches 16x9 TV
> proportions while saving money. I had assumed that HBO would want to
> shoot 3-perf, but they told me that they preferred 4-perf because it
> gave them more options to reframe the image vertically in post. Seems
> like a waste of money just to be able to occasionally reframe a shot
> (which they have never done as far as I know.) You save 25% of the
> cost of stock and processing by switching from 4-perf to 3-perf.
>
> The differences between regular 8mm and Super-8 and regular 16mm and
> Super-16 are more extreme.
>
> In the case of Super-8, they actually made the sprocket holes smaller
> to allow a bigger image (8mm uses the same sprocket holes as 16mm and
> 35mm, a bit large - this is because regular 8mm rolls are 16mm wide
> and you expose one side of the frame than filp the roll over and
> expose down the other side, and it gets slit in half in the lab.
> Super-8 is already in 8mm-wide rolls, in cartridges for easy loading.)
>
> Super-16 uses 16mm film with no sproket holes on the right side of the
> frame, only on one side. This allows the frame to be extended towards
> the right edge of the film, making a widescreen image.
>
> David Mullen, ASC
> Los Angeles
>
Thanks for the explanation David. I don't know of any theatres in Australia
that would project Super-35mm ( I could stand to be corrected though) as I'm
sure the projectors would all need modifying (film gate and lens) so what is
the advantage and where would the soundtrack go? (I could only think of
discs but wouldn't there need to be a control track on the film to keep it
in sync?). Wouldn't any advantage be lost once the film was produced with
the soundtrack added for cinema use? Seems to me like a lot of added
pressure on the camera operators' framing.

DAVO

DAvid · External Since: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 33

<davidm2 DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1176446140.676531.198130@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> For television work, it's a non-issue since you don't need to make
> prints with soundtracks on them.
>
> For theatrical work, for awhile now, the main reason to shoot Super-35
> was to be able to use a slightly wider negative, crop vertically to
> 2.35, and then squeeze & dupe in an optical printer to a 2X anamorphic
> image (which fits into the sound aperture area) onto a new 35mm
> anamorphic internegative for making scope release prints, as a way of
> avoiding shooting with anamorphic camera lenses.
>
> But now that more and more features are using digital intermediate
> technology where you scan the negative, color-correct digitally, and
> then record back to film, then there's not much reason to not use
> Super-35 for both 2.35 and 1.85 images, since you can resize and
> reposition them for the projection aperture formats (ones with a
> soundtrack) when to output them back to film again. So in the case of
> "Super-1.85" you expose a 1.85 image across Super-35 (full aperture)
> and reduce this when doing the film recording so that the 1.85 image
> now fit inside sound aperture that excludes the soundtrack area. In
> the case of Super-35 for 2.35, you'd crop and stretch to create a 2X
> anamorphic image for film-out to the 35mm "scope" format.
>
> However, photography using anamorphic lenses to get a scope image
> still has the advantage of using more negative total; even though it
> doesn't use the soundtrack area, it uses more vertical film area than
> cropping Super-35 to 2.35. Anamorphic photography has about a 40%
> larger negative area than Super-35 cropped to 2.35. This larger
> negative area gives you a more detailed, less grainy image even when
> doing a D.I. However, anamorphic photography can have depth of field
> problems (too shallow in focus unless you stop down the lens) and the
> lenses tend to be bigger, heavier, slower, and more expensive to rent.
> And grain can be reduced digitally, so these days, Super-35
> photography for scope images looks closer in quality to anamorphic
> photography thanks to digital intermediates, which don't have the
> grain problems that doing the blow-up in an optical printer used to
> cause. Also, the fact that many D.I.'s are done at 2K resolution to
> save time & money, means that the loss of resolution from using 2K
> sort of mutes the difference between Super-35 and anamorphic even
> further. However a lot of people still think that true anamorphic
> photography looks better, especially if it doesn't go through a 2K
> D.I. For example, almost all of Christopher Nolan's movies ("Batman
> Begins" and "The Prestige") have been shot in 35mm anamorphic and
> avoided using a digital intermediate to get as much quality as
> possible from normal contact-printing (ignoring the D.I. used only to
> blow-up "Batman Begins" to IMAX.)
>
> David Mullen, ASC
>

Thanks for that but it still doesn't answer my query that for it to be
appreciated, wouldn't you need a specially adapted projector with gate and
lens to play the full super35 image? I mean if it has to be "cropped" to get
it back to standard 35mm (for the cinemas) what is the point? Obviously
there is a point but I can as yet see it.

DAVO

Jonathan Wilson · External Since: Apr 14, 2007 Posts: 7

> Current theatrical releases in 35mm are projected in two formats:
> "matted" 1.85, where the projector masks the 4-perf 35mm frame to
Isn't there also a variant where the matting of the frame to create the
widescreen image takes place on the camera lens and not the projector?

bert_smith · Joined: Mar 10, 2009 Posts: 2

"That was the end for 16mm everywhere and the same will happen to 35mm"

Who is this DAvid person? Another self-important fool with a smattering of technical knowledge who likes places like these because he can lecture and feel important? You speak as someone who has never worked in broadcast and/or film production, and I strongly suspect you havent.

The end for 16mm? Comical. So apparently, according to your learned opinion, 16mm ended at around the time when 1" tape did? Please do your own research, people. And trust not those who have an ego-maniacal agenda that does not include factual information.

Not only didnt 16mm end when he assumes, but it's still used today. I personally use whichever acquisition format that the assignment calls for, and of interest in this thread, there is a commercial we will be shooting in Super16 in just a few weeks. You know...16mm, the dead format he mentions. We must be collectors or aficionados or something, I suppose. Surely no serious production company would entertain the notion of using last centuries technology for any reason other then to illustrate how far we have come, or perhaps for a documentary on primitive filmmaking formats?

One needs only to look at the list of current (short and feature) films, documentaries, music videos, and commercial work that is still being shot in 16mm (Super16), to see that it is far from "dead". It certainly is not used as often as it was, and there are certainly a multitude of reasons where it is unsuitable for many assignments. But as some of you know, there are still applications in which film works very well and has significant advantages over digital capture. There are aesthetic and technical reasons behind the decisions to use film today, and not simply foolish and stubborn adherence to very old and established post production workflow principles that carry on mainly due to resistance to change....as this individual would lead you to believe.

If experience teaches anything, it's that those in technical fields LOVE change, and go to great lengths to test new technologies. The broadcast industry shows this quite clearly, as it abandoned film-based newsgathering seemingly overnight, in favor of very large, heavy, and unwieldy early-generation video technology. Yet digital filmmaking has taken quite a while to achieve the foothold it now has. As outdated as many would lead you to believe film is...there is a reason that film is still used today. Why are shows meant for Broadcast TV (like Desperate Housewives) still shot on 35mm film? Rather inconvenient information to those screaming the virtues of digital vs. cine....why on earth would a show meant for the small screen still be shot on film, right? Seems like the perfect venue for digital, doesnt it? They must be lunatics with a film fetish, surely.

They (film and digital) are still very different from one another, and there are many reasons to still shoot film. Though I might not use film as extensively as in the recent past, I will presumably be capturing on film now and then...for the next few years. Film will indeed be as "dead" as this individual predicts, but not just quite yet.

But this post is less about the remaining lifespan of 16mm (and 35mm), as it is about this DAvid individual, who reeks of so many others I have dealt with, who are comical at best, and borderline irresponsible.

Get your facts straight, film-expert....since you feel compelled to continue preaching advice to those who might be foolish enough to assume you are an authority on anything other then feeding a very hungry ego and amusing yourself during your presumably plentiful free-time. Some people take this seriously, so get your facts in order....before boasting about how you "predicted digital......." blah blah.... long before anyone else did. You are a maverick, for sure.

How about get out there and produce some projects?