Shooting in 2.35 / 2.39 format at DVinfo.net

Claude Mangold · May 6th, 2008, 01:49 PM

Hi,
what is your actual experience with this (pesudo-)format on the 100/200 series ? How much is the picture deteriorated due to less lines, particularly in view of later film-out ?
Also, it's not exactly Cinemascope 2.37 or Panavision 2.39.

I have two pictures in the works where I could use this (with mini 35 and Zeiss highspeeds), one shooting in a few weeks, the other this fall. Especially since in the second I have a proposal to mix HD251 and 35mm acqusition (the latter for high-contrast and/or very low-light).

And - has anyone tried anamorph lenses on the mini 35 ?

Thanks !

Tim Dashwood · May 6th, 2008, 05:53 PM

You are better off shooting with spherical lenses because the sensor is only ever 16x9 in HD. You'll waste a lot of pixels on the left and right if you shoot anamorphic.
We have a thread somewhere with regard to Duke's film and the possibility of anamorphic. I've tested Clairmont's anamorphics on the HZ-CA13U, but not the mini35.

As for cropping to 2.35/2.37/2.39/2.40:1 from 16x9 it is done all the time.
For all intents and purposes all ratios in the 2.35-2.40:1 range are all the same, it just depends if your talking Panavision or Cinemascope. There is really no reason not to do it since the horizontal resolution stays the same. You just have black letterbox bars on your 16x9 master, so there is no picture deterioration. Are you talking about a filmout to anamorphic print?

The HD200 series cameras can produce 2.35:1 frame lines in the centre or at the top of the frame. Shooting with a common topline is useful if you make a TV sale and the broadcaster wants full 16x9.

Claude Mangold · May 13th, 2008, 08:50 AM

Many thanks, Tim.

The quality issue I was thinking of is this: when I have person or object filling the frame guide vertically, he/it will be pictured with less lines in 2:35 (about 545 instead of 720, the remaining 175 lines beneath the guide frame (if it's top-aligned as you suggest) because of the letterboxing .

So I really work with an image that is 545x1280 (and that's not that far from the SD vertical 480)

Or is my reasoning wrong ?

So when this goes on the big screen, via anamorphic filmout I suppose since that's the usual way for widescreen, I have Cinemascope or Pana, yes, but at what quality cost ? Is it worth it ??

Creatively, the answer is yes, because I have much larger lateral composition possibilities, and my script would make fullest use of that. Plus Kodak has offered to pitch in with a few minutes of 35mm, so I could use Vison negative film for very high contast and very low light scenes - the HS or Ultra primes are the same.

But if it's going to look a lot less satisfactory before audiences because 25% of the vertical resolution is missing, and the difference between "545p" and Vision film is not bridged, and gets criticied for it I may just decide to stick with 16x9.

Jack Walker · May 13th, 2008, 11:22 AM

I'm not going to comment on the quality, but as Tim says, this seems to be done.

One example is the film _Gabriel_, shot on the HD100 cameras:
http://pro.jvc.com/pro/pr/2007/releases/gabriel.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0857376/

Another is the film Tim shot, _Bull_, which I believe is currently in post production:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0818831/
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...highlight=Bull

I'm not a technical wizard, but I believe it's not so much a question of resolution as it is quality of images and production/post production workflow through to filmout.

It seems that in professional hands the ProHd format holds up leaving the question of 1.85:1 or 2:35:1 a matter best determined by other considerations. For many films this decision is best decided by the content, style, mood and so forth of the film.

Claude Mangold · May 18th, 2008, 02:35 AM

jack & tim, your're right of course, the format choice depends mostly on film genre, composition, subject, notion inside the screen, etc. i.e. creative/artistic criteria.

I'm not going tu use cinemascope format for my next film which is an urban short drama where the screen width is not necessarily a plus for composition.

It's just that I do have the choice since I often shoot full-film style, and with quite high budget expenditures for light, dollies, cranes etc.

but I don't want to risk lower-quality theatrical results and thus issues with distributors, who are happy anyway with 16:9 here in Europe.

Maybe I'll run a number of tests this summer and check them out in a theatre, both beamed and tranferred. and put them up here.

May 6th, 2008, 01:49 PM	#1
Claude Mangold Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Berlin and Geneva Posts: 259	Shooting in 2.35 / 2.39 format Hi, what is your actual experience with this (pesudo-)format on the 100/200 series ? How much is the picture deteriorated due to less lines, particularly in view of later film-out ? Also, it's not exactly Cinemascope 2.37 or Panavision 2.39. I have two pictures in the works where I could use this (with mini 35 and Zeiss highspeeds), one shooting in a few weeks, the other this fall. Especially since in the second I have a proposal to mix HD251 and 35mm acqusition (the latter for high-contrast and/or very low-light). And - has anyone tried anamorph lenses on the mini 35 ? Thanks !

May 6th, 2008, 05:53 PM	#2
Tim Dashwood Wrangler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 3,637	You are better off shooting with spherical lenses because the sensor is only ever 16x9 in HD. You'll waste a lot of pixels on the left and right if you shoot anamorphic. We have a thread somewhere with regard to Duke's film and the possibility of anamorphic. I've tested Clairmont's anamorphics on the HZ-CA13U, but not the mini35. As for cropping to 2.35/2.37/2.39/2.40:1 from 16x9 it is done all the time. For all intents and purposes all ratios in the 2.35-2.40:1 range are all the same, it just depends if your talking Panavision or Cinemascope. There is really no reason not to do it since the horizontal resolution stays the same. You just have black letterbox bars on your 16x9 master, so there is no picture deterioration. Are you talking about a filmout to anamorphic print? The HD200 series cameras can produce 2.35:1 frame lines in the centre or at the top of the frame. Shooting with a common topline is useful if you make a TV sale and the broadcaster wants full 16x9. __________________ Tim Dashwood

May 18th, 2008, 02:35 AM	#5
Claude Mangold Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Berlin and Geneva Posts: 259	jack & tim, your're right of course, the format choice depends mostly on film genre, composition, subject, notion inside the screen, etc. i.e. creative/artistic criteria. I'm not going tu use cinemascope format for my next film which is an urban short drama where the screen width is not necessarily a plus for composition. It's just that I do have the choice since I often shoot full-film style, and with quite high budget expenditures for light, dollies, cranes etc. but I don't want to risk lower-quality theatrical results and thus issues with distributors, who are happy anyway with 16:9 here in Europe. Maybe I'll run a number of tests this summer and check them out in a theatre, both beamed and tranferred. and put them up here. Last edited by Claude Mangold; May 18th, 2008 at 02:44 AM. Reason: some minor errors

May 13th, 2008, 08:50 AM	#3
Claude Mangold Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Berlin and Geneva Posts: 259	Many thanks, Tim. The quality issue I was thinking of is this: when I have person or object filling the frame guide vertically, he/it will be pictured with less lines in 2:35 (about 545 instead of 720, the remaining 175 lines beneath the guide frame (if it's top-aligned as you suggest) because of the letterboxing . So I really work with an image that is 545x1280 (and that's not that far from the SD vertical 480) Or is my reasoning wrong ? So when this goes on the big screen, via anamorphic filmout I suppose since that's the usual way for widescreen, I have Cinemascope or Pana, yes, but at what quality cost ? Is it worth it ?? Creatively, the answer is yes, because I have much larger lateral composition possibilities, and my script would make fullest use of that. Plus Kodak has offered to pitch in with a few minutes of 35mm, so I could use Vison negative film for very high contast and very low light scenes - the HS or Ultra primes are the same. But if it's going to look a lot less satisfactory before audiences because 25% of the vertical resolution is missing, and the difference between "545p" and Vision film is not bridged, and gets criticied for it I may just decide to stick with 16x9.

May 13th, 2008, 11:22 AM	#4
Jack Walker Trustee Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Burbank Posts: 1,811	I'm not going to comment on the quality, but as Tim says, this seems to be done. One example is the film _Gabriel_, shot on the HD100 cameras: http://pro.jvc.com/pro/pr/2007/releases/gabriel.html http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0857376/ Another is the film Tim shot, _Bull_, which I believe is currently in post production: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0818831/ http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...highlight=Bull I'm not a technical wizard, but I believe it's not so much a question of resolution as it is quality of images and production/post production workflow through to filmout. It seems that in professional hands the ProHd format holds up leaving the question of 1.85:1 or 2:35:1 a matter best determined by other considerations. For many films this decision is best decided by the content, style, mood and so forth of the film.