Are super 35 and anamorphic the same thing

[Ben Gurvich]

In a recent dvd commentry i watched, the Director said he choose to shoot in Anamorphic rather than Super 35, because of something like more or less DOF .

I thought Super 35 was 35mm with an Anamorphic lens making it 2.35:1 anamorphic.

so am i confused or are they different?

[Charles Papert]

With traditional 35mm formats such as 1:85 or anamorphic 2:35, space was reserved on the negative for the optical soundtrack, reducing the available width for exposure. The Super 35mm format reclaims that space, allowing a wider (and thus taller, if desired) frame. The 2:35 Super 35mm format is simply a masked-off frame, analoguous to the method of shooting 16:9 DV by using framelines in 4:3 and adding a mask later. The image area of Super 35 2:35 is less than anamorphic, resulting in a slightly grainer image, but with current filmstocks getting better and better, this option (championed by filmmakers such as James Cameron) is becoming more and more viable. The advantage is that traditional (spherical) lenses can be used, as opposed to the more exotic anamorphic lenses which tend to be bigger, heavier, slower (exposure-wise) and generally of older design. The DOF in anamorphic is half that of spherical 35mm, which makes focus pulling a real challenge.

There are other lesser-known uses of Super 35mm than 2:35 presentation, such as Super 35mm 4:3, which is used on certain episodic TV shows since it also allows a greater amount of negative to be used. This format is referred to within the Panavision system as "Big TV"

Personally, I think anamorphic has its place and can look great, but it can be a pain. Especially as a Steadicam operator--some of those prime lenses can top 10 lbs!

[Ben Gurvich]

Had to read that a few times for it to make sense,
thanks anyway.

Think ill stik to HD if im ever in the situation to make that choice.

Cheers,
Ben Gurvich

[Rob Belics]

If you are ever in a situation like that you would never pick HD or digital.

To simplify what Charles said, Super35 uses the total with of negative area from sprocket hole to sprocket hole.

Standard 35 and anamorphic leaves a sliver of the area used for audio unexposed.

The Super35 image must be squeezed in post to deliver an anamorphic image but filming with an anamorphic lens using standard 35 delivers a better image.

But, as Charles said, spherical, ie standard lenses, are easier to work with than anamorphic lenses.

[Charles Papert]

Yeah sorry, I couldn't sleep in the middle of the night and for some reason thought I could write something coherent. Obviously I was mistaken.

Does it make sense at this point, after Rob's efforts, Ben? If not, I'll try again.

[Dan Uneken]

There's an article on the Kodak website:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/servi...q2110.shtml#g3

and another page here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~mrob/pub/filmformats.html

I have even heard of a Spanish system that uses fewer sprocket holes in order to expose the entire width of the negative, up to the edges... cinemascope on 35mm.

[Rob Belics]

The number of sprocket holes has nothing to do with the width of the exposed frame. It is only a matter of format.

If you get into the height of the frame, then you count sprocket holes. Actually, we call them "perfs". Most films are shot using 4-perfs. Some use three to save on film.

Imax and Iwerks cameras use five, eight and 15-perf for their 70mm cameras. And now I will correct myself because some of these expose the frame horizontally in which case the number of perfs do count.

[Dan Uneken]

The system I'm referring to shoots between two perfs, so the perfs are very far apart. Or maybe I understood wrong, in which case I beg all your pardon..

[Charles Papert]

Actually I believe I have heard of that system, Dan, but not that I can recall anything about it.

3-perf has become very popular for obvious reasons: 25% film savings over 4-perf, with no image quality loss. A lot of TV shows use 3-perf.

[Ben Gurvich]

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Belics : If you are ever in a situation like that you would never pick HD or digital.

->>>

Rob,
I said this because by the time im in that situation, most likely 35mm will be like recording onto record. Which is why I say i'd shoot HD, even masking the 1.78:1 to become 2.35 with a little loss of quality, i guess like Super 35.

Charles, after a good 15 minutes of visualising last night, I fully get the super35 / anamorphic thing. The only prob is now if i watch a movie im wondering if its anamorphic or super35 2.35

Thanks all foryour comments,

Cheers,
Ben Gurvich

[Charles Papert]

Ben, the easy giveaway with anamorphic is that highlights that are out of focus in the background will become ovals rather than circles. It is also susceptible to horizontal flares from really bright highlights.

[Joshua Starnes]

However, a good DP and gaffer can minimize those effects, and it will be difficult to tell between the work.

If you want a good way to compare, watch the 2 X-Men movies and compare them. They were both shot by the same DP with more or less the same lighting crew; X-Men was shot anamorphic, X2 was shot super35. Can you see a difference between the two.

[Ben Gurvich]

Cheers,

My Mate's got both of em, ive been meaning to check em out to. Nows a good time.