DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Techniques for Independent Production (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/techniques-independent-production/)
-   -   The Man Who HATES Film (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/techniques-independent-production/6154-man-who-hates-film.html)

Martin Munthe February 12th, 2004 07:28 PM

"2-perf only decreases the frame size in the vertical direction but maintains the horizontal. Nothing is lost since this vertical area would be masked off anyway when projected or in post."

Objection. The usual process to achieve a 2,35:1 projected aspect ratio is either to shoot anamorphic - which is more than double the negative resolution compared to 2-perf Techniscope. 2,35:1 is never "masked of" in a theatre. Only 1,85:1 or 1,66:1 are masked or "matted" in projection. A Techniscope negative is blown up to an anamorphic print for theatrical distribution. There are no Techniscope projectors out there. The other more common way to shoot 2,35:1 is by shooting super35. The "advantage" of super35 is that it can be shot for "open matte" 4x3 TV-viewing without cropping the sides of the image. super35 hasn't got the resolution of a true anamorphic negative but it's has a lot more resolution than Techniscope.

Techniscope is half the image resolution of Cinemascope. Half the resolution of a 35mm image is pretty close to super16.

"I'm waiting for all those editors out there to chime in about editing just being a mechanical process."

I did'nt say that film editing is just a mechanical process. I said it's probably a mechanical process for Rodriguez as he is also his own editor and he has already edited in camera. Much like it was to Hitchcock who also edited in camera. His reason for it was to maintain control over final cut. There are many ways to make a film. And there's no right or wrong in my book. A lot of people like Rodriguez movies so who are we to judge that he's doing it all wrong?

Rob Belics February 12th, 2004 09:45 PM

>>shoot anamorphic - which is more than double the negative >>resolution

Squeezing an image into the same size space does not increase resolution. That's like using an anamorphic lens on a dv camera with 786 horizontal pixels and saying now you have 1572 pixels. It doesn't create resolution.

Both techniscope and Super35 shoot full width of the negative, hence, they have the same resolving power. So does CinemaScope.

By "editing in camera" you aren't saying they transfer those edits directly to the finished product, are you?

Martin Munthe February 13th, 2004 10:03 AM

I have to disagree once again. Super35 and Techniscope does not have the negative reolution of a scope image. They are not the same size at all. I could'nt find a web graphic of the different scope processes so I made one myself. Note the size of the full frame scope negative compared to the others. I did the graphics in a hurry so they're not completely correct. They're just meant to clarify the priciple behind the scope process and how techniscope only uses half (2-perf) of the full frame negative compared to scope that uses the full frame (4-perf). A theatrical scope print is 4-perf. That means you have to blow 2-perf techiscope up to 4-perf for projection. And keep in mind that super35 is a 3-perf process.

Here's the graphic:
http://www.operafilm.com/Images/scope.jpg

The equivalent to the Techniscope technique on a DV-frame would be that you shot the image at a resolution of 720x240. Remember that Techniscope is only using half the 35mm negative - and that would be half the DV image. Using a scope lens on that same camera would uitilize the full 720x480. That's the techichal difference between the processes. Providing you have a good lens the 720x480 image will look better projected than the 720x240.

By editing in camera I mean that you never ever do any master, two shots or close ups of the whole scene. You just shoot exactly what you're going to use in the editing. In the case of Hitchcock the editor really only trimmed the edges in most edits. Trimming is an artform too but you could really only edit a Hitchcock movie in one way. There wasn't much room (or footage) for creative editing like you see in other great films.

Young Lee February 13th, 2004 12:39 PM

Rob, no one's gonna make Lawrence of Arabia on a MiniDV cam. :)

John Hudson February 13th, 2004 04:42 PM

No.

But they will make "Larry of Arcadia"

: )

Martin Munthe February 14th, 2004 07:10 AM

I'm really looking forward to see some HDCAM SR footage. Anyone out there that has?

Finally they're going the RGB route using 4:4:4. My guess is the next Star Wars intallment will be a major step up in image quality.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:30 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network