Billy Pilgrim said:
Must have been reffering to myself again. I see what you your saying, but personally I prefer the extra real estate.
2:35:1 or 1:85:1
- Thread starter J.R. Hudson
- Start date
Must have been reffering to myself again. I see what you your saying, but personally I prefer the extra real estate.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Super 35
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]This process does not involve widescreen lenses, but rather it involves framing the picture to fit the ratio of the screen. The top and bottom of the frame are "matted" out and removed from the picture completely, resulting in a rectangular picture.
Super35 movies are filmed using flat lenses. Using an optical printer, the "interpositive" image is then contact-printed to produce an "internegative" anamorphic release print. As a result, an anamorphic image from a Super35 original tends to have a "gritty but sharp" look that is "harder" in a way than an anamorphic image, which has a "smooth" look.
Many movies made in Super35 are transferred to video with the top and bottom of the frame restored, so that you actually see more of the picture on video than you did in the theater. However, scenes which include special effects in them are almost always filmed hard-matted in the appropriate widescreen ratio and therefore must be subjected to the pan-and-scan process.
The image above is from James Cameron's Terminator 2. The red area represents what you see in the theatrical version. The blue represents the "pan-and-scan" version, although as you can see there is no panning or scanning. [/SIZE][/FONT]
You have all the real estate you need; just a different way of composing the shot
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
i think in more genral terms, the difference between 35 and super35 is simply that super35 is larger.
Again, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, super35 uses the sides of the frame normally reserved for the soundrack, allowing more surface for image (more res), which indeed makes it easier to crop without losing detail.
Again, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, super35 uses the sides of the frame normally reserved for the soundrack, allowing more surface for image (more res), which indeed makes it easier to crop without losing detail.
PopcornFlix
Well-known member
You can also shoot Super35 3-perf, which modifies the camera's pulldown to limit each frame to only three sprocket holes high (instead of the usual four). You can cut 25% of your stock costs this way.
Wikipedia Super35
Wikipedia Super35
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
ive heard that 4 perf is much more reliable though, with 3 perf jamming and chewing up stock more often. Not that I have any personal experience.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
This may have gotten lost Cheese; what's your opinion on this? Steve shot Scope the first 7 / 10 times and only 3 of the last 13 times
I can't see any ryme or reason to the choices. Can you ?
Maybe throw Indy and Jurassic out of the equation due to sequel purposes
Munich 2:35:1
War of the Worlds 1:85:1
The Terminal 1:85:1
Catch Me if you Can 1:85:1
Minority Report 2:35:1
AI 1:85:1
Private Ryan 1:85:1
Amistad 1:85:1
Lost World 1:85:1
Schindler's List 1:85:1
Jurassic Park 1:85:1
Hook 2:35:1
Always 1:85:1
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 2:35:1
Empire of the Sun 1:85:1
The Color Purple 1:85:1
Temple of Doom 2:35:1
E.T. 1:85:1
Raiders of the Lost Ark 2:35:1
1941 2:35:1
Close Encounters of the Third Kind 2:35:1
Jaws 2:35:1
The Sugarland Express 2:35:1
I can't see any ryme or reason to the choices. Can you ?
Maybe throw Indy and Jurassic out of the equation due to sequel purposes
Munich 2:35:1
War of the Worlds 1:85:1
The Terminal 1:85:1
Catch Me if you Can 1:85:1
Minority Report 2:35:1
AI 1:85:1
Private Ryan 1:85:1
Amistad 1:85:1
Lost World 1:85:1
Schindler's List 1:85:1
Jurassic Park 1:85:1
Hook 2:35:1
Always 1:85:1
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 2:35:1
Empire of the Sun 1:85:1
The Color Purple 1:85:1
Temple of Doom 2:35:1
E.T. 1:85:1
Raiders of the Lost Ark 2:35:1
1941 2:35:1
Close Encounters of the Third Kind 2:35:1
Jaws 2:35:1
The Sugarland Express 2:35:1
Daniel Skubal
Veteran
John_Hudson said:
Interesting list John... I starred at it for like 5 minutes trying to figure out a pattern, is it possible it's just the decision of the cinematographer? I don't have time to go through the list and look up the cinematog (cramming for exams), but it's possible there'd be a correlation between who shot each one. Depending on the framing, you'll need proper 1.85 or 2.35 lenses right? Therefore the cinematographer would have to choose which one would ultimately look better for the film. Maybe it's completely up in the air and it's just randomly decided once the film is greenlit. The producer would be like "hey, we need to fill out this spec sheet on the film, are we shooting on 1.85 or 2.35?" This is all speculation... my guess is that there's not really a solid answer.
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
I don't get why he went 1:85:1 with Jurassic Park, when that one was so expansive.
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
My guess is it's just "what felt right". I mean thinking about the look of each film, I wouldn't argue the decision. Jaws looks like it should be 2.35, ET looks like it should be 1.85 to me.
It could also very well be that the DP weighed into the decision. But again, considering he's had the same DP for juts about every movie in the last decade, we're right back to it note being a "Im a 2.35 kinda guy myself" thing.
Although I've shot just about everything in 2.35, i think some movies are just meant for certain formats.
If it was ME shooting Saving Private Ryan (lol) I would have gone with 1.85 also. Minority Report? Gotta be 2.35, right?
It could also very well be that the DP weighed into the decision. But again, considering he's had the same DP for juts about every movie in the last decade, we're right back to it note being a "Im a 2.35 kinda guy myself" thing.
Although I've shot just about everything in 2.35, i think some movies are just meant for certain formats.
If it was ME shooting Saving Private Ryan (lol) I would have gone with 1.85 also. Minority Report? Gotta be 2.35, right?
That is really interesting.....Spielbergs aspect ratio choices. Heres all I can figure.
In his early career he was still a nobody...I assume all his favorite directors shot in 2:35:1 so wanting to be like them he did too.
As he began establishing himself and started to have success he may have begun thinking about different ways of going about shooting. Its also possible that a cinematographer of Allen Daviau's talent may have talked him into 1:85:1 for the color purple and Empire....
That could also be the reason for shooting 1:85:1 so much with Janusz...simply the cinematograhers preference. Also it seems that most movies that are in the WWII era are all in 1:85:1 whearas almost everything occuring or filmed in the 70's is in 2:35:1. Could it be that since Munich was supposed to occur in the 70's he chose to film it in 2:35:1? He may associate that time in history with looking like that...because of his previous films or for other reasons.
As for A.I. being in 1:85:1 and Minority Report 2:35:1...those films occur two years apart in the future as far as I can remember (2051 and 2053?...is that right?)...yet the future looks is vastly different in both. Could the aspect ratio just be something to further separate them from each other stylistically? Either that or Kubrick may have wanted A.I. in 1:85:1.
Hmm...its possible none of that makes any sense...but thats all I can think of.
In his early career he was still a nobody...I assume all his favorite directors shot in 2:35:1 so wanting to be like them he did too.
As he began establishing himself and started to have success he may have begun thinking about different ways of going about shooting. Its also possible that a cinematographer of Allen Daviau's talent may have talked him into 1:85:1 for the color purple and Empire....
That could also be the reason for shooting 1:85:1 so much with Janusz...simply the cinematograhers preference. Also it seems that most movies that are in the WWII era are all in 1:85:1 whearas almost everything occuring or filmed in the 70's is in 2:35:1. Could it be that since Munich was supposed to occur in the 70's he chose to film it in 2:35:1? He may associate that time in history with looking like that...because of his previous films or for other reasons.
As for A.I. being in 1:85:1 and Minority Report 2:35:1...those films occur two years apart in the future as far as I can remember (2051 and 2053?...is that right?)...yet the future looks is vastly different in both. Could the aspect ratio just be something to further separate them from each other stylistically? Either that or Kubrick may have wanted A.I. in 1:85:1.
Hmm...its possible none of that makes any sense...but thats all I can think of.
Last edited:
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
no, weston, you touched on many things I agree with yet was too lazy to actually type out.
The A.I. thing is interesting considering the discovery of his personal preference to 1.85. Considering prepro had already started before his death, maybe aspect ratio was a left over.
The A.I. thing is interesting considering the discovery of his personal preference to 1.85. Considering prepro had already started before his death, maybe aspect ratio was a left over.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I have to think at the end of the day, Spielberg is calling the shots (pun) on what aspect ratio they're shooting; not the DP
It is the DP's job to interpet the directors vision
It is the DP's job to interpet the directors vision
Sure theres no question about that....but wouldnt he be willing to take advice and suggestions from his DP's?
Also....do you think there is anything to everything either shot or occuring in the 70's being in 2:35:1? Could it he just be giving different time periods different looks?
Also....do you think there is anything to everything either shot or occuring in the 70's being in 2:35:1? Could it he just be giving different time periods different looks?
Ralph Oshiro
Veteran
Just my stupid opinion on aspect ratios . . .
2:35:1
If I were shooting 35mm, and projecting in a commercial theater, 2:35 would be my aspect ratio of choice. It offers the most dramatic compositional opportunities, and more closely mimics the aspect ratio of human vision. And, I simply prefer hugely asymmetrical compositions anyway. Also, in a theater, you have the screen size to take advantage of the wide aspect ratio without compromising image scale.
1.85:1
If I were shooting 35mm for the small screen (broadcast or pay cable), and never expect to have it screened theatrically, I would avoid 2:35, primarily for issues of subject scale, and would choose 1.85 instead.
1:78:1 (16:9)
Conventional HD or SD 16:9 widescreen is my preferred shooting format for video-originated production, simply because it's the optimum ratio to make best use of the camera's 16:9 imager, and it fits on modern widescreen TVs perfectly. I like "filling the frame" on my DVD personal projects. Although I may be tempted to shoot a 1:85-aspect ratio project for a DVD project someday, but probably never 2:35.
1:33:1 (4:3)
Standard TV aspect ratio--I absolutely HATE this aspect ratio! You'd have to put a gun to my head for me to shoot anything in 1.33:1 again for my personal projects.
2:35:1
If I were shooting 35mm, and projecting in a commercial theater, 2:35 would be my aspect ratio of choice. It offers the most dramatic compositional opportunities, and more closely mimics the aspect ratio of human vision. And, I simply prefer hugely asymmetrical compositions anyway. Also, in a theater, you have the screen size to take advantage of the wide aspect ratio without compromising image scale.
1.85:1
If I were shooting 35mm for the small screen (broadcast or pay cable), and never expect to have it screened theatrically, I would avoid 2:35, primarily for issues of subject scale, and would choose 1.85 instead.
1:78:1 (16:9)
Conventional HD or SD 16:9 widescreen is my preferred shooting format for video-originated production, simply because it's the optimum ratio to make best use of the camera's 16:9 imager, and it fits on modern widescreen TVs perfectly. I like "filling the frame" on my DVD personal projects. Although I may be tempted to shoot a 1:85-aspect ratio project for a DVD project someday, but probably never 2:35.
1:33:1 (4:3)
Standard TV aspect ratio--I absolutely HATE this aspect ratio! You'd have to put a gun to my head for me to shoot anything in 1.33:1 again for my personal projects.
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
Good thoughts dude... I'd agree with them mostly... though I do like the bit of dimension I get from 1:85:1
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Nice thoughts indeed.
I am shooting scope this weekend for the first time; have always shot flat.
Joshua Provost
Veteran
On Spielberg's choices, the choce is not always between the aspect ratio of the frame, but the look of spherical vs. anamorphic lenses. Because when you do a Super35 center extract you get the apect ratio, but not the anamorphic. With anamorphic, you get that soft, surreal look with eliptical bokeh.
Aspect ratio, lens selection, film stock selection, these are almost always collaboratively decided between the Director and DP. Usually, the choice is pertinent to the emotion and context of the story.
2.35 is good not just for showing off epic landscapes, but in other circumstances as well. I used 2.35 in my short film AGTC which plays out as a dizzying sequence of floors ascending up through a corporation. The wide aspect helped highlight the horizontal nature of the floors and recurring shots of a wide bank of elevators on each floor. I also framed very tight, which was good for creating a claustrophobic feeling, like the ceiling and floor were closing in on the main character.
I used 2.35 on another occassion for a short action film. There were four agents involved in the raid, and the wide aspect was better for properly composing four agents standing next to each other.
Consider All The President's Men, particularly the scenes in the news rundowns, with many characters around a long table. Or the wide shots of the newsroom. Or the shots in the parking garage. All all very well served by the wide aspect, without being epic. Those shots would have been difficult to compose in a narrower aspect.
2.35 does draw attention to itself, though, so when it's not necessary, it's better not to use it. The locations and interactions of characters will also drive which aspect is appropriate. I've worked in 2.0 for an Italian film I made as an homage to Vittorio Storaro, who said that was the perfect aspect ratio.
In the end, every choice you make (aspect, lens, focal length, stock, etc.) should be justifiable as supporting the story.
Josh
Aspect ratio, lens selection, film stock selection, these are almost always collaboratively decided between the Director and DP. Usually, the choice is pertinent to the emotion and context of the story.
2.35 is good not just for showing off epic landscapes, but in other circumstances as well. I used 2.35 in my short film AGTC which plays out as a dizzying sequence of floors ascending up through a corporation. The wide aspect helped highlight the horizontal nature of the floors and recurring shots of a wide bank of elevators on each floor. I also framed very tight, which was good for creating a claustrophobic feeling, like the ceiling and floor were closing in on the main character.
I used 2.35 on another occassion for a short action film. There were four agents involved in the raid, and the wide aspect was better for properly composing four agents standing next to each other.
Consider All The President's Men, particularly the scenes in the news rundowns, with many characters around a long table. Or the wide shots of the newsroom. Or the shots in the parking garage. All all very well served by the wide aspect, without being epic. Those shots would have been difficult to compose in a narrower aspect.
2.35 does draw attention to itself, though, so when it's not necessary, it's better not to use it. The locations and interactions of characters will also drive which aspect is appropriate. I've worked in 2.0 for an Italian film I made as an homage to Vittorio Storaro, who said that was the perfect aspect ratio.
In the end, every choice you make (aspect, lens, focal length, stock, etc.) should be justifiable as supporting the story.
Josh
moe_snodgrass
Well-known member
Hey y'all:
There's a book called
Picture Composition for Film and Television, Second Edition by PETER WARD.
This guy apparently researched the psychological/aesthetic implications of all manner of camera techniques: camera height, tilt, focal length, depth of field, aspect ratio--everything. It's a really dry book, written as though it was a Ph.D thesis or something, but I refer to it from time-to-time because it's the only book of its kind that I know of and it's kinda interesting.
I don't recommend that anyone buy it. I found it in my city library and, on free lending terms, it's worth a look. It's a pretty obscure book so you will likely have to request it from your library system through interlibrary loan.
Worth a look. I've checked it out four or five times on a need basis because it's not something you could sit down and read cover to cover unless you're a bigger nerd than me
Best,
Moe
There's a book called
Picture Composition for Film and Television, Second Edition by PETER WARD.
This guy apparently researched the psychological/aesthetic implications of all manner of camera techniques: camera height, tilt, focal length, depth of field, aspect ratio--everything. It's a really dry book, written as though it was a Ph.D thesis or something, but I refer to it from time-to-time because it's the only book of its kind that I know of and it's kinda interesting.
I don't recommend that anyone buy it. I found it in my city library and, on free lending terms, it's worth a look. It's a pretty obscure book so you will likely have to request it from your library system through interlibrary loan.
Worth a look. I've checked it out four or five times on a need basis because it's not something you could sit down and read cover to cover unless you're a bigger nerd than me
Best,
Moe
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
John_Hudson said:
You have always shot flat (4:3)?? I don't understand... are you using an anamorphic adapter?