Does modern 35mm match up to 60s 65mm?

[JayEmm]

Originally Posted by 42041

Nothing wrong with that. Personally I can't stand "technically superb" lenses. The sterile image quality all the fancy modern coatings and aspherical elements and whatever else produces just puts me to sleep. For my photography I usually reach for older 70s glass.

Which is fine, I just find far too few people understand anamorphic properly. If you want a specific look, or whatever - go for it. I just don't believe there is a technical reason to shoot anamorphic anymore. An odd dichotomy for a type of photography that exists SOLELY for technical reasons.

It is also a very expensive decision to make in the world of low-budget filmmaking. That's where most of my dislike comes from. Perhaps even worse, films like Die Hard 5 shamefully using blue streak filters and not even getting the aspect ratio right

[applemac]

Anyone preferring to shoot in 35MM still has a valid use of anamorphic lenses, and anyone shooting for widescreen with a camera that doesn't have a native 2.35:1 sensor.

The entire point of anamorphic is to get a widescreen picture on a not-as-wide medium, while using the most resolution/film emulsion possible.

The problem with using Super35 for widescreen movies is that they only use a smaller portion of the negative, while an anamorphic uses almost the entire emulsion area for each frame.

Digitally, shooting scope is now less pixels than shooting in flat due to using circular lenses on a 16:9 sensor and cropping, just like Super35. With anamorphic lenses for capture and digital projection, quality would be much higher for digital scope/widescreen movies.

One thing about Blu-Ray vs DVD is the lack of anamorphic encoding. I'd much rather have an anamorphic encode of Ben-Hur, or any 2.76/2.35 ratio movie than the current scaling down to fit inside the 16:9 frame.

[JayEmm]

Originally Posted by applemac

Digitally, shooting scope is now less pixels than shooting in flat due to using circular lenses on a 16:9 sensor and cropping, just like Super35. With anamorphic lenses for capture and digital projection, quality would be much higher for digital scope/widescreen movies.

One thing about Blu-Ray vs DVD is the lack of anamorphic encoding. I'd much rather have an anamorphic encode of Ben-Hur, or any 2.76/2.35 ratio movie than the current scaling down to fit inside the 16:9 frame.

There are digital cameras with 4x3 sensors. There are also anamorphic lenses with a milder (1.33x) squeeze to get a 2.39:1 picture from a 1.78:1 sensor.

I personally don't understand people using anamorphic lenses on home projectors... like you say would be valid for a DVD but not blu-ray.

[Opips3]

Originally Posted by JayEmm

There are digital cameras with 4x3 sensors. There are also anamorphic lenses with a milder (1.33x) squeeze to get a 2.39:1 picture from a 1.78:1 sensor.

I personally don't understand people using anamorphic lenses on home projectors... like you say would be valid for a DVD but not blu-ray.

that's a reason. Some people dislike black bar top and below.

[applemac]

Originally Posted by Opips3

that's a reason. Some people dislike black bar top and below.

It would be the same effective resolution with bluray just to mask off the black bars instead of stretching the picture (possibly causing distortions in digital scaling) then using anamorphic.

[JayEmm]

In which case I would have thought a zoom would be a more natural thing to do. I believe that is what is now done in cinemas as there is no anamorphic in the DCI spec for projection (as far as I know).

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Dragun

I wish they had shot the non-IMAX scenes on 65mm at 2.20:1, rather than 35mm anamorphic. Maybe it looked fine on a normal sized screen, but on an IMAX screen the 35mm looked like mush. Whatever noise reduction they used for the blow-up surely didn't help.

You may get your wish for Nolan's next film. Apparently, the non-IMAX parts are all in 65mm.

[JayEmm]

Originally Posted by Poya

You may get your wish for Nolan's next film. Apparently, the non-IMAX parts are all in 65mm.

I'm looking forward to that. I think 65mm makes a more practical companion than IMAX if you are framing for 2.39:1 as your key ratio.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JayEmm

Which is fine, I just find far too few people understand anamorphic properly. If you want a specific look, or whatever - go for it. I just don't believe there is a technical reason to shoot anamorphic anymore. An odd dichotomy for a type of photography that exists SOLELY for technical reasons.

It is also a very expensive decision to make in the world of low-budget filmmaking. That's where most of my dislike comes from. Perhaps even worse, films like Die Hard 5 shamefully using blue streak filters and not even getting the aspect ratio right

I'm no cinematographer, merely a "theoretician" (a kind euphemism for armchair expert ), but if people want that classic anamorphic 'look' with the shallow DOF (especially when shot wide open) and the elliptical bokeh then why begrudge them that, even if they're ignorant of the ultimate aim behind its conception? It's hardly point and shoot, even today (they had to redo Alec Baldwin's side of a scene in Rogue Nation because it came back out of focus), so if people have the gumption (and budget) to take it on then fair play to them I say, regardless of whether they've taken a history lesson as to why it ultimately exists in the first place.

Personally I LOVE that anamorphic made a comeback (I also thought it would be wiped out by flat 2.35) because IMO motion picture acquisition doesn't always have to be about getting the tightest, sharpest, cleanest image every time. If you're annoyed that people are using it as something of a status symbol then I appreciate that, but the same sort of thing happened with Super 35 when everyone realised they could shoot a widescreen movie on the cheap, and for a while it seemed like every damned film was 2.35 whether it needed to be or not. Point being, it seems like the cart often gets put before the horse where filmmaking trends are concerned, but in anamorphic's case I simply can't be sorry about it.

Still, the flaring in Die Hard 5 did piss me off too because it just seemed wrong somehow (Avengers in 1.85 also has some digitally added flaring), but I was amazed to see such things during S3 of the X-Files on my Blu-ray rewatch of that, I thought it looked terrific there. Streak filters FTW, in that case.

[JayEmm]

Geoff

I very much appreciate where you're coming from. I'm as big a fan of old fashioned anamorphic photography as anyone - believe it or not. My issue, coming from the film MAKING side, is that there's simply an awful lot of mis-information about the whole process.

Generally speaking, people argue the case for anamorphic on technical grounds when the reality is there isn't a case for it. I saw MI5 in cinema and thought a lot of the exterior night scenes looked very mushy, I also recall to this day several shots (including one of Spock at the end) in Star Trek which were badly out of focus. To be honest, this is as much a result of the decision to shoot film as much as it is one to shoot anamorphic (but it doesn't help).

Again, from a film-maker's point of view (partially relevant here) it is important to understand what anamorphic is and how it works - because if people are only used to working in spherical, then you've got a real problem - especially if you've just chosen 40-year old anamorphic optics for your project. From a film watching perspective, it's handy to know if you're a cinephile because it will explain why some scenes in your favourite films might look great and others might look like garbage! Mad Max 2 comes to mind - any of the night scenes in that you can very clearly see what happens to old anamorphics (with slow stocks) when wide open.

I think this is also relevant (I'm trying my best to keep it relevant) to the UHD discussion, because people buying 100" TVs might suddenly start noticing how violently an anamorphic lens can fall off at the edges if its not under ideal circumstances.

The great news is there has been something of a large format revival recently, so we are seeing the first genuinely new optics made for 65mm for about 25 years. Exciting times indeed.

As an aside, I think digital saved anamorphic. It was going the way of the dinosaur quickly about ten years ago, but now people have more or less changed over to digital (with very few high profile exceptions), many cinematographers have sought to use optics as a way of getting "that look" back - hence the anamorphic revival. That's my theory anyway.

[JayEmm]

Let's take a minute to remember the original cheapskates for 2.35, Technicolor and a certain Mr. Leone! Long before S35

[Geoff D]

Well, with the home iteration in mind, it's funny you should mention that about people possibly noticing the less-than-stellar sharpness in whatever scene in whatever movie, as when HD first came along I heard a LOT of comments along the same lines. Because people were so conditioned to expect this bright, clean, sharp HD picture they were recoiling in horror at the "out of focus backgrounds" and saying "it wasn't like that on DVD!"

Trouble is, can you really do a kind of large scale "edumacation" for people on why anamorphic does what it does just so that Joe Blow doesn't think his TV is on the fritz? I'd still rather have the filmmakers do what they do and let the masses get on with it, and while I have to concede that anamorphic does present its fair share of foibles it still gives something of an imperfect human touch to proceedings which I like, as daft as that sounds. For a professional in your position I can understand if that pisses you off though.

[JayEmm]

It only pisses me off when I see other professionals not knowing what they're doing! Like getting anamorphic lenses for the blue flare and realising not every set of anamorphics does that (in fact very few do).

To be honest, we'll never educate Joe Public. I know plenty of people who still use the zoom mode on their TV whenever a 2.39 ratio film comes on, because they can't stand black bars top and bottom.

I'm a massive hypocrite anyway - I shot my last short in 2-perf

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JayEmm

Let's take a minute to remember the original cheapskates for 2.35, Technicolor and a certain Mr. Leone! Long before S35

Indeed. How do you feel about the DI effectively giving Techniscope a new lease of life, being able to cut out the middle man of the optical 2.35 squeeze and go straight off the neg into the DI? (Hell, same goes for Super 16 for that matter, Aronofsky used it to good effect IMO on Wrestler and Black Swan). David O Russell in particular has used it quite a bit in recent years. Or does that fall under the same remit as anamorphic for you, i.e. they're doing it because they can, not because they have to?

[JayEmm]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Indeed. How do you feel about the DI effectively giving Techniscope a new lease of life, being able to cut out the middle man of the optical 2.35 squeeze and go straight off the neg into the DI? (Hell, same goes for Super 16 for that matter, Aronofsky used it to good effect IMO on Wrestler and Black Swan). David O Russell in particular has used it quite a bit in recent years. Or does that fall under the same remit as anamorphic for you, i.e. they're doing it because they can, not because they have to?

2-perf is interesting. It's very very rarely considered for technical or artistic reasons - usually economic ones. IE. "it's that or we shoot digital". The only person I know off-hand to have used it for technical reasons too was Steve McQueen - the famous long take in Hunger would have not been possible without it (shooting film, anyway).

I am in the middle of post on a project shot on 2-perf, my feeling are thus far mixed. It was almost the same cost as doing it on 16mm, which I also shot about two weeks earlier. These may be my last film projects. Who knows.

[JayEmm]

Here's a couple of shots which illustrate the kind of problems that you have in the realm of UHD. It's bad enough in HD. Any sort of movement, focus issue or anything totally screws your resolution.

It has become quite common now for people to ask for frame grabs from camera footage to use in promotional material (the press guy doesn't always get *that* shot). When you do that, you realise how few frames actually really give you the full 4K.

Here's two screen grabs to illustrate. Same film, same camera, same lenses, same compression etc... both of these are "4K"

[Geoff D]

The lack of temporal resolution with 24fps is what it is though, surely? Until/if we move to HFR on a permanent basis then it'll always hold true that movement will zap the appreciable resolution down by quite a way, as will dimly lit scenes and other such things. Mr J Public will just have to get on with it on his shiny new UHD TV.

[JayEmm]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The lack of temporal resolution with 24fps is what it is though, surely? Until/if we move to HFR on a permanent basis then it'll always hold true that movement will zap the appreciable resolution down by quite a way, as will dimly lit scenes and other such things. Mr J Public will just have to get on with it on his shiny new UHD TV.

High frame rate only accidentally improves resolution by virtue of having a narrower (faster) shutter angle. Hence less movement per frame exposed.

Unfortunately we have become so unbelievably ingrained into 24 (or 25) frames per second, at a 180 (or 172.8) degree shutter, any change is often very, very noticeable.

The Hobbit in HFR was interesting. I think HFR would be wonderful for a nature documentary. Fantasy films, not so much. It doesn't help that half of the trickery in film relies desperately on 24fps being far-from perfect.

[applemac]

Originally Posted by JayEmm

High frame rate only accidentally improves resolution by virtue of having a narrower (faster) shutter angle. Hence less movement per frame exposed.

Unfortunately we have become so unbelievably ingrained into 24 (or 25) frames per second, at a 180 (or 172.8) degree shutter, any change is often very, very noticeable.

The Hobbit in HFR was interesting. I think HFR would be wonderful for a nature documentary. Fantasy films, not so much. It doesn't help that half of the trickery in film relies desperately on 24fps being far-from perfect.

After watching the hobbit in 48 in theater and then 24 on the bluray, I can understand why a lot of people don't like it. There are some VERY aggressive camera moves that just look awkward and though 48 can handle the clarity well, it looks very rushed and uncomfortable. The 24 makes it more pronounced since the camera moves are much quicker than someone directing in 24 would make.

I think if Jackson went with 48 but didn't do some of these quick camera moves and effects it would have worked out a lot better.

Oklahoma 30FPS bluray is a good example of a higher frame rate (24 to 30 isnt a big jump) that looks extremely good. I don't think anyone would have an issue with watching it that way.


"It has become quite common now for people to ask for frame grabs from camera footage to use in promotional material" - This is their own fault for not understanding why it will look terrible.


On Nolan - I wonder if he will keep it in a 2.20:1 ratio or use the UltraPanavision on his new movie (I can't imagine anyone wanting to jump between 2.76:1 and 1.4:1 IMAX scenes though.

Doing interstellar with 35mm was an issue as most of that footage (even on the 35mm prints) was not clear, and was a huge contrast to when the negative printed IMAX scenes came on.

[JayEmm]

I think it will depend on what the "majority" format of the film is. If the majority of the film is 65mm, he'll keep it in 2.20 I would think. If it's a mix of 35mm anamorphic and 65mm, then it'll probably be protected for 2.39:1.

Tomorrowland I believe was framed for 2.20:1, although it was acquired digitally.

I imagine shooting Ultra Panavision would be difficult. As it was, Tarantino had basically every single working 65mm camera on his shoot. Including non-Panavision ones. Not sure what they actually shot though.

Spectre was actually going to shoot partially in 65mm, although they abandoned that idea when the logistics were revealed to be very difficult.

I need to get a Blu-Ray of interstellar, I remember it looking incredibly mushy in the cinema. I saw it in a regular screen and I can't even recall there being an obvious difference when it moved to IMAX - even though there will be.