Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: James Cameron, Super 35 and/or Anamorphic Cinematography

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » James Cameron, Super 35 and/or Anamorphic Cinematography

Author

Topic: James Cameron, Super 35 and/or Anamorphic Cinematography

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-30-2009 07:42 PM

I'm just trying to prevent any more clutter on the "Reviews" thread about Aliens. So, please, continue the discussion.

I worked for a few days on The Core, which was shot in true anamorphic. On that particular shoot, the video assist monitors (which had the same frame lines as the viewfinders) had absolutely no extra lines to help anyone frame for multiple aspect ratios. Later, I worked on a Super35 production which was eventually called Blind Dating. (We didn't know we were working with Captain Kirk.) Again, there was no guide to help anyone frame for multiple aspect ratios.

I can't say that I have a lot of other on-set experiences involving 2.4:1 aspect ratios since then.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-30-2009 09:22 PM

quote: Greg Anderson
Later, I worked on a Super35 production which was eventually called Blind Dating. (We didn't know we were working with Captain Kirk.) Again, there was no guide to help anyone frame for multiple aspect ratios.

I'll have to look at some of the "making of" bits on some of the movies I have on DVD and Blu-ray that were originally shot in Super35. I'm pretty certain just about every video assist monitor I've seen on those sets merely had a white border labeling the 2.40:1 framing area with the top and bottom areas of the film frame still visible.

| IP: Logged

Tim Asten
Film Handler

Posts: 98
From: Brighton, United Kingdom
Registered: Nov 2006

posted 05-05-2009 06:38 AM

All the talk of Super 35 potentially giving the best of both worlds (ratio wise) for cinema release and for home video is interesting, but I have only ever seen one film that was released in 2.35 at the cinema and then 1.85 for DVD and that the IMAX version of Apollo 13 and even that was on a supplemental second disc that came with the original scope version of the film. As well as filling whole TV screen, the quality of the IMAX re mastered version was much better than the regular version, although a little shorter due to IMAX running time restrictions at the time I was told. I once saw The Matrix on TV here in England which was in 16x9 and there was definately more picture information top and bottom than the scope DVD version. The only downside I can think of is the composition of various scenes will change i.e. a close up shot on cropped 2.35 will become a medium shot on uncropped 1.85.

Tim.

| IP: Logged

Michael Barry
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 584
From: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-05-2009 07:11 AM

Yikes! I just checked for ticket availability re: Cameron and it seems to be already sold out.

I was actually thinking of going to LA for a few days (from Australia!) just to see this. Since there's no tickets, I guess I'll make other plans...

I can't wait to revisit LA and NYC. I'm also looking forward to seeing Chicago and San Francisco for the first time, too. I just love it so much over there. [thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 05-05-2009 09:53 PM

On the one Super 35 shoot I've been on I didn't see the monitors on the set, but on the flatbeds and Lightworks video monitors in Editorial they fitted black cardboard masks to give the 2.39 AR. In the screening room I used custom cut plates to give the 2.39 AR for the dailies.

The Camera Dept shot a 1000' roll of a focus-and-frame target card which we printed as needed to give us the leaders we used for set up on all of the Daily and KEM reels. That card was made to match the finder marks on our Panavision camera package (one-each Platinum, Gold, and Panaflex).

I don't remember any discussions during the shoot of how it would look later in 1.37 AR. They must've dealt with that much later in post.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-07-2009 09:54 PM

I was the setup guy for the dailies projectors on "True Lies" when it shot in D.C., I was fortunate enough to also stay through quite a bit of that part of the shoot and all I can say is that the projected dailies there looked absolutely magnificent. I'd still wager that it is one of the best looking Super 35 jobs to date. The 70mm release prints also looked absolutely flawless. I've been on alot of other Super 35 jobs but none looked near as good although the dailies generally looked very nice. I believe no doubt that alot of the muck up of Super 35 happens during intermediate stages. All of the Super 35 plates I filed over the years went either right to the edge of the DP's own framing leader OR just slightly beyond the standard 2.39 area per the request of the D.P.'s.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Julie Lucero
Film Handler

Posts: 37
From: Valencia, California, USA
Registered: Sep 2008

posted 05-10-2009 01:50 PM

quote: Monte L. Fullmer
[Re: ALIENS being shot in 1.85:1] Why did FOX put that restriction on him of his choice of filming? Was Super35 not perfected yet, or something else?

quote: Bobby Henderson
The true Super35 format hadn't even been introduced at that time. What I mean by true Super35 is the Super 1.85/Super 35 system Clairmont Camera and Arri developed to use up the space normally reserved for the optical analog audio track and yield a significantly larger image on the negative. "Super Techniscope" movies like Silverado and Top Gun still left the optical track space intact on the negative instead of using up all the area in between the perforations. The Abyss was a true Super35 movie.

The resident know-it-all is wrong again. [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Julie Lucero
Film Handler

Posts: 37
From: Valencia, California, USA
Registered: Sep 2008

posted 05-13-2009 11:32 PM

I'm surprised Bobby hasn't chimed in!

Relax, Bobby, I'm just razzing you. [Smile]

I am interested, though, in learning why you believe "Super 35" didn't exist in the mid 1980s or what evidence you have to support the claim that "Super Techniscope" productions did not use the full width of their negatives.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 05-14-2009 02:37 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I've seen on those sets merely had a white border labeling the 2.40:1 framing area with the top and bottom areas of the film frame still visible.

I have worked on one super 35mm production as a video split operator. The telefeature was shot in duel 16/9 native with the action centered in the 4/3 safe.

On the splits moniter, I used black tape to mark out the 16/9 shape only. In the cameras viewfinder from memory I think that the ratios were clearly marked on the ground glass for the camera operator to easly frame.

The only real problem we faced was that the B&W split camera, which shares the viewfinder, was knocked slightly out of place and for a few hours and did not match the operators framing, which caused some confusion.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-14-2009 08:53 AM

quote:
I'm surprised Bobby hasn't chimed in!

Since you called me a "know it all" I didn't think you were interested in what I had to say.

quote: Julie Lucero
I am interested, though, in learning why you believe "Super 35" didn't exist in the mid 1980s or what evidence you have to support the claim that "Super Techniscope" productions did not use the full width of their negatives.

Some of it has to do with full page ads Clairmont Camera ran in American Cinematographer back in the late 1980s where they specifically compared their Super 1.85/Super35 system against competitors who they claimed weren't really using the full width of the 35mm negative on their spherical setups.

I know full width 35mm photography has existed for many decades. Silent movies were originally shot full width. However, Clairmont Camera in Hollywood in conjunction with Arri brought forward the first Super 35 system that delivered very good quality results and a noticeable improvement on 70mm blow-up prints versus 35mm. Their setups were used on The Abyss and some other better looking Super 35 movies. Maybe there are other variables at work which made a difference in why a movie like The Abyss had noticeably better cinematography than a film like Top Gun. Perhaps better film stocks and lenses were factors.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-14-2009 10:37 PM

"Greystoke" was I believe shot Super 35 in the mid 80's and it looked dam good for the time. It may also have been one of the first big productions blown up to 70mm that did so.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-15-2009 12:22 AM

When exactly did Kodak introduce their T-grain series of film emulsions? I'm pretty sure it was sometime during the mid 1980s or even the late 1980s. There might be some interesting parallels between the growing popularity of Super35 and improved film emulsions.

Silverado was the first movie I noticed with the "Super Techniscope" listing in its end credits.

Today Super35 use is very common. The last couple of movies I watched on Blu-ray this week, Frost/Nixon and Taken were Super35 -although parts of Taken were shot with HD video cameras. The Wrestler was shot in Super 16 and shown at 2.39:1.

Out of the 42 movies in my Blu-ray collection, most were shot in Super35 -particularly the recent releases. Out of contemporary movies I have only a handful of discs framed in 1.85:1 and only a handful filmed in anamorphic 35mm. There's more in the way of flat in anamorphic 35mm among the older movies in my collection. The last 1.85:1 movie I added to my Blu-ray collection was [i]Sin City{/i] (excellent BD release BTW) and it was shot in "digital."

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 05-15-2009 04:51 PM

T-Grain emulsions were introduced in 1986 with 7292:

quote: http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Chronology_Of_Film/chrono4.htm

1986: EASTMAN Color High Speed Negative film, 7292. Tungsten, EI 320. Replaced 7294. First motion picture film to have "T" Grain. T-Grain is in the fast magenta and slow blue (N).Discontinued 1992.

Not quite as clear what the first 35mm stock was, but probably 5243 in the same year.

And a useful reference for this stuff is the Wikipedia List of Motion Picture Film Stocks, which is pretty well-maintained (I help) and doesn't have URLs that break every few years like Kodak does.

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Julie Lucero
Film Handler

Posts: 37
From: Valencia, California, USA
Registered: Sep 2008

posted 08-08-2009 02:19 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Some of it has to do with full page ads Clairmont Camera ran in American Cinematographer back in the late 1980s where they specifically compared their Super 1.85/Super35 system against competitors who they claimed weren't really using the full width of the 35mm negative on their spherical setups.

I suspect you misinterpreted those Clairmont ads. That, or maybe the ads were deceptive because the folks at Clairmont Camera weren't the ones who developed the Super 35 process.

For a really good explanation of Super 35 I would recommend Mike Coates' article written for Widescreen Review magazine. I couldn't find a link to an online version but the print issue was from Sep '99. The article included everything one would need to know about the process: how it works, its history, the technical specs (with framing leader and groundglass marking samples), interviews with DPs, list of relevant titles, etc. Coates cites titles like GREYSTOKE, SILVERADO and TOP GUN as all definitely being shot in Super 35.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.