2 questions about Black Swan
- Thread starter naavt
- Start date
Jordan Scott Price
Veteran
1. Yep, rotoscoping.
2. Cropped. No Anamorphic lenses were used on the DSLRs.
2. Cropped. No Anamorphic lenses were used on the DSLRs.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Anamorphic is 2.39:1 commonly called 2.40. Black Swan was 2.39:1 (2.40) aspect ratio.
2.35:1 has been dead for four decades as a common standard.
I'm not taking a shot at the og, I always take advantage to correct this and help get rid of this lingering misrepresentation of anamorphic standards.
2.35:1 has been dead for four decades as a common standard.
I'm not taking a shot at the og, I always take advantage to correct this and help get rid of this lingering misrepresentation of anamorphic standards.
Really? I never knew that.
Jordan Scott Price
Veteran
Finnegan
Well-known member
Except for the subway scenes which were shot on the Canon 7D.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
It's just a common misconception and an amazingly strange one at that. It's lasted nearly 30-40 years as a misquoted standard. Even the new AF-100 has 2.35 guides (as far as I know in the pre-production model)
Of course, you can make a 2.35 image if you want there isn't a law. But talking about what modern anamorphic is standards wise, it would be 2.39:1 or called 2.40.
Of course, you can make a 2.35 image if you want there isn't a law. But talking about what modern anamorphic is standards wise, it would be 2.39:1 or called 2.40.
Finnegan
Well-known member
It does? A director at the production company I work for bought one and when I asked him about widescreen guides and he said that the cam didn't have them, which struck me as strange because I figured it would. Could also be that he just doesn't know where they are in the menus.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
This is interesting as I ran across a quote in a book on cinematography, where the quote is from Deakins about his 'film' selection, namely 3 perf Super 35mm, and he uses 2.35 in his discussion, along with using spherical lenses, rather than anamorphic. I got the impression that this was a compromise for getting the 'cost savings' of the 3 perf, but not sacrifice completely
the wide screen aspect ratio. Since I have no plan to actually shoot film film... or even use sophisticated equipment of any sort... this is more of an intellectual interest...
What is even more interesting is the spatial digitizations that were mentioned for 2k, looked to drop what I would consider to be 'a lot' of resolution, like 1824x778 or what have you... surprising in that the higher end digital direct cameras are getting to that level 'straight out of the box'... the only thing missing now seems to be bit depth on R, G, and B...
On looking for "3 Perf Super 35mm 2.35" as a google search term, I ran across this from the ARRI archives:
http://archiv.arri.de/prod/cam/technology_3_perforation.htm
Which depicts the various formatings and attendant aspect ratios.
With the use of a Digital Intermediary, one can 'easily' generate the standard 2.40:1 projection format.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Even Roger occasionally references modern anamorphic 2.39 as 2.35 sometimes. He's still human despite his supernatural talent.
http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=262&start=0
Finnegan
Well-known member
You're lying!