2-perf vs. Super35
 

35mm film is still a viable resource for filmmakers and still promises a future just as strong even before shooting on digital was a reality.

I think HD is good because you get a natural widescreen format at 1.78:1.

2-perf or Techniscope was developed by technicolor in Italty while back in the states RKO Radio pictures developed SuperScope with is today known as Super35 and would shoot 4perf Acadamy format 1.33 but would show a dramatic loss of image when you go to 2.35 or 2.40. Techniscope captures a natural widescreen format of 2.33 with no serious loss of the image when printed at 2.35 or 2.40.

If a studio is demanding that you shoot on 35mm film that do not want to shoot animorphic then how would you shoot, Super35 or 2-perf?

Not sure what you're asking. Are looking for a comparison between the two formats?

I think a studio would want acquisition in anamorphic, if they want an anamorphic release print.

The advantage to Super 35 is during shooting, since you can use regular spherical lenses, which are faster and lighter than anamorphic lenses. The disadvantage to Super35 is in post production because of the additional cost and steps in making an anamorphic release print. Plus, because it's an optical process, you can get increased grain and contrast; however, a digital intermediate can alleviate that, but at an additional cost. In the last few years, newer fine grained films like Kodak Vision2 and Fuji Eterna film stocks make the optical process look much better, making it more attractive to do.

Here are some helpful links:

http://jkor.com/peter/super35compare.html

Mr. Mullen spells it out:
http://www.2-popforums.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=84926

Abel Cine Tech on Aaton's 2 Perf Penelope camera.
http://www.abelcine.com/articles/ind...d=26&Itemid=34

Actually the studios generally prefer Super-35 over anamorphic photography for a number of reasons -- they are afraid of focus problems or needing a bigger lighting package with anamorphic and they like the reframing options of Super-35. And they don't particularly have a problem anymore with the quality level thanks to D.I.'s. Super-35 is seen are more post friendly.

2-perf hasn't been much of an option since Techniscope died in the early 1970's so the studios haven't expressed any opinion. The only advantage over 3-perf Super-35 would be the cost savings and the longer runs on mags, and most studios would rather just spring for the money to shoot 3-perf over 2-perf. So I see 2-perf as making more of a comeback for the indie crowd.

Quality-wise, the 2.40 frame extracted from 2-perf is only slightly smaller than the one extracted from 3-perf or 4-perf Super-35.

Thank you Mr. Mullen!

So, if you are going to shoot on 3 perf S35, these days, what would be a rough estimate for the cost of a DI for a 90 minute film?

What would be the reframing options?

A friend of mine is thinking of shooting all of his films on 2 perf. He had Ultracams, but got rid of them since there was no support. He's getting old Arri2's, or something and blimps so he can shoot 2 perf. Is it really worth it? Should he just shoot S35 and extract a widescreen frame? I think he was kind of jazzed about the longer run times and savings on film with 2 perf.

I wasn't even aware of 2-perf being a viable format through the post workflow at this point--how many post facilities are set up to handle telecine/scan for this format? Seems pretty exotic.

Good question!

Not a clue for an answer. Looking...

According to Aaton's info, the post workflow looks like this:
1) Acquire on camera 2 perf neg to >
2) 6K/4K Linear Scan to >
3) Corrections on DPX files to >
4) 4K anamorphic interneg to >
5) Deliver on 4 perf anamorphic 'Scope' Print.

You pretty much have to go with a DI, but then you go out onto an anamorphic release print.

http://www.aaton.com/files/penelope_format.pdf

Never done it, but just reading what their info says.

In theory, scanning 2-perf is not a big hurdle, most Spirits and whatnot can do it -- in practice, the post houses don't have much experience with 2-perf scanning and EDL's, mixing 2-perf timecodes with other formats, etc. But it doesn't seem unsurmountable.

As for the wisdom of converting Arri-2C's to 2-perf for production, the problem is more that they are not modern pin-registered sync-sound cameras -- they would be more useful as a MOS camera for a production shooting on some other sync-sound cameras converted to 2-perf.

35mm 3-perf Full Aperture (Super) is native 1.78 : 1 (16x9) so there is some mild reframing capability if one is shooting for 2.40 extraction.

I also think that having digital workprints instead of film workprints for 2-perf is a good coast saving methoid. What you want to do is to set it to where the telecine is sending the image directly into the computer to reduce the grain apperance. Then you start snycing up the sound by first digitizing the sound then start snycing it up, then you have a good video file you can work with on top of countless others.