2-perf vs. Super35 at DVinfo.net

Robert McGee · September 11th, 2007, 02:16 PM

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?

Mark Sasahara · September 12th, 2007, 02:16 PM

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

David Mullen · September 17th, 2007, 02:30 AM

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.

Mark Sasahara · September 17th, 2007, 02:33 AM

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.

Charles Papert · September 17th, 2007, 11:41 AM

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.

Mark Sasahara · September 17th, 2007, 11:55 AM

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.

David Mullen · September 17th, 2007, 06:05 PM

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.

Robert McGee · October 4th, 2007, 07:15 PM

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.

September 11th, 2007, 02:16 PM	#1
Robert McGee Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: York, south carolina Posts: 24	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?

September 12th, 2007, 02:16 PM	#2
Mark Sasahara Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NYC Posts: 649	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 __________________ Mark Sasahara Director of Photography

September 17th, 2007, 02:30 AM	#3
David Mullen American Society of Cinematographers Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 123	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. __________________ David Mullen, ASC Los Angeles

September 17th, 2007, 02:33 AM	#4
Mark Sasahara Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NYC Posts: 649	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. __________________ Mark Sasahara Director of Photography Last edited by Mark Sasahara; September 17th, 2007 at 03:16 AM. Reason: adding questions

September 17th, 2007, 11:41 AM	#5
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	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. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

September 17th, 2007, 11:55 AM	#6
Mark Sasahara Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NYC Posts: 649	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. __________________ Mark Sasahara Director of Photography

September 17th, 2007, 06:05 PM	#7
David Mullen American Society of Cinematographers Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 123	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. __________________ David Mullen, ASC Los Angeles

October 4th, 2007, 07:15 PM	#8
Robert McGee Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: York, south carolina Posts: 24	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.