Choose: 1.85 or 2.35 perspective?

[Joe G.]

I am concerned that this could be a major decision for a feature film, and that I don't have the background to weigh the pros and cons properly.

With the new possibility of a 4520 wide mode, this would seem to be the best option. The vertical should be something like 1900. That would be acceptable, but can you get a film out with that kind of resolution, and at what price?

What happens when / if the 4520 is squeezed down to 2k? How much clarity is going to be lost in the process?

Also, how does anamorphic factor in? Should the camera use anamorphic lenses, and are there theater projectors that use anamorphic projection lenses?

The other option of 4k 1.85 should have a vertical about 2200px. Is this a better clarity film out than the other?

At each stage of post production, is there a benefit to using one over the other? What about the film out stage in particular?

Have people compared the quality results on film prints in various modes such as these?

My point is to have a final film that can't be identified as "shot on video." I want it to pass for 35mm.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

My point is to have a final film that can't be identified as "shot on video." I want it to pass for 35mm.

Well... It depends sooo much on your post-production.

I've shot in 4k 2:1 and CC in scratch, output to 2k dpx and scanned to a negative Kodak 5201. You barely notice it was not generated on film.

This also because of the negative 50 asa (and not iterneg with 6 asa)/positive process wich gives you film grain (not much but enough) the scanner was Lasergraphic.

Be sure you protect your high lights or you create a nice fall off wihle CC. It's in the high lights that you see the weak point of the digital media but you can work around.

Don't shoot with 360 shutter angle, the resulting motion blur is "non filmic".

These are not dogma but they are tricks to avoid the "video" or digital look.

See you.

Patrick

PS: format is much more an esteatic choice about composing your framing.

 

[Tai Wah Lim]

Patrick, funny you mention 360 shutter angle. we were shooting 120fps for slow mo on green screen and the subject - jumping up and down is not really that sharp and give a strobbing illusion that fleak the director out. Using relative mode will automatically adjust the angle to 360 angle for 120fps. It there any other adjustment that need to be make or just have to shoot at lower fps?

Well... It depends sooo much on your post-production.

I've shot in 4k 2:1 and CC in scratch, output to 2k dpx and scanned to a negative Kodak 5201. You barely notice it was not generated on film.

This also because of the negative 50 asa (and not iterneg with 6 asa)/positive process wich gives you film grain (not much but enough) the scanner was Lasergraphic.

Be sure you protect your high lights or you create a nice fall off wihle CC. It's in the high lights that you see the weak point of the digital media but you can work around.

Don't shoot with 360 shutter angle, the resulting motion blur is "non filmic".

These are not dogma but they are tricks to avoid the "video" or digital look.

See you.

Patrick

PS: format is much more an esteatic choice about composing your framing.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

You surely can choose greater shutter speed with slowmo (or smaller shutter angle).

We shot 25p at 1/25 sec wich means 360 shutter angle and the motion blur was closer to what can be acchieved with a video camera (because film camera has it's phisical limitations and can't achieve 360 shutter angle). As we where not "educated" to see such an effect with film, it "naturally" reffers more to a "video look".

Patrick

 

[Chris Pickle]

Obviously, aspect is a big creative choice, but it also affects distribution in a major way. Especially for "deliverables" on various distribution deals.

When a distributor in a certain market offers a deal, but wants a pan & scan, it will hit you like a ton of bricks. All of your creative worry will be replaced with financial concerns and make or break distribution issues.

I plan to shoot my film in 2:35 but I also understand that I will want to stab my eyes out when they ask for something different.

Chris

 

[Kenn Michael]

The vertical should be something like 1900. That would be acceptable, but can you get a film out with that kind of resolution, and at what price?

Did you see Superman Returns, Zodiac or 21 in the theaters? What did you think of those films image-wise?

All three of those films were shot at HD resolution with cropped vertical to about 803 lines.

Shooting 4K and scaling down to 2K for 2.39:1 you would still have more lines than those films. Since most movies are done with 2K DIs, doing a 4K DI with a vertical crop of 1716 lines (or 4.5K with 1923 lines - or whatever it ends up being) should look phenomenal.

 

[liquidigital]

At this point, with this technology, I wouldn't worry too much about resolution anymore.

A strong story, production design, good casting, clean sound, good lighting, strong editing, all of these things mean so much more than resolution in making the final product look filmic.

If you get a chance, check out "The Counterfeiters." It won the Oscar for best foreign film. Shot on Super-16. Grainy as hell and I loved it, and I forgot about what it was shot on about a minute into the movie, because the eyes tend to get forgiving when the story is engrossing and all the other elements are there.

 

[Joe G.]

Thanks for the input. Still not sure that 2.39 will hold up because of the 850 lines of vertical in the final output. I was hoping for an option that allowed more vertical resolution in the end. Something about anamorphic stretching.

Wouldn't 1.85 be superior then, given that at some point when blown up large, the limited resolution DOES become noticeable?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It will hold up, no problem.

Also note that by recording to 35mm anamorphic, you are using more of the print area, which is enlarged less than the 1.85 area of a print to fill a screen of the same height, so while you may be using fewer pixels, the print image is generally less enlarged, so it's a wash in terms of which looks like it has more resolution.

Even with F900 HD material, I've sent the same images out to film both to 1.85 and cropped and stretched to 2.35 and the sharpness was about the same, the only difference I really saw was that some noise artifacts were more visible in the 2.35 version because of using fewer pixels. But honestly, the overall quality was about the same.

 

[Joe G.]

visible

visible

"...some noise artifacts were more visible in the 2.35 version because of using fewer pixels."

That's EXACTLY what I was (am) worried about.

2.39 CROP

2048 / 2.39 = 857 px vertical

857 x 2048 = 1,755,136 pixels total

1.85 CROP

2048 / 1.85 = 1107 px vertical

1107 x 2048 = 2,267,136 px total

Gain of 512,000 pixels, per frame, or 22.5%, if I did the math correctly.

This could definitely make the difference, considering all the different film lighting and contrast situations that end up in a feature film. Factor in a crew that isn't at the top of the totem pole, learning new technologies, etc. I believe that 1.85 is the safer choice, as it will reduce one risk factor, if only by 22%.

Am I wrong?

 

[Robert Sanders]

If I tore my hair out over every single pixel...well...I'd be even more bald! LOL!

Seriously. 2K looks good printed to film. Shit, 1080P 2.35 (816px tall) looks pretty good printed out. Christ, 4K RED footage has to look AMAZING printed out!!

I'm not exactly sure why you're so gun-shy about printing 2.35 RED footage. All 2.35 formats push the origination medium pretty far regardless. Super35 either has to go through an optical or a 2K scan. Anamorphic is fraught with lens anomalies. 1080P is scarily short on resolution.

 

[10s]

"...some noise artifacts were more visible in the 2.35 version because of using fewer pixels."

That's EXACTLY what I was (am) worried about.

You might want to go visit a lab and watch their demos of 720 & 1080 prints... they look great! In fact many people like the 720p over 1080p because it smooths the picture and takes skin blemishes away, (somewhat). 1080 is sharp, 3k, 4k, 5k must be amazingly sharp prints, I've yet to see any. For an audience, most movies look fine at 720; you have nothing to worry about with 3k resolutions & beyond other than actors worried about skin flaws...and this is a serious consideration, afterall, who wants to look bad on the big screen?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think you should shoot a test and see for yourself.

I like the 2.35 frame enough to fight for it on many projects.

The truth is either you are passionate to shoot 2.35 or you are not. If you are not, then you might as well shoot 1.85. If you are, then nothing should be able to talk you out of it, certainly not the loss of a few pixels.

Many Genesis movies were released cropped to 2.35 from a 1920 x 1080 HD recording -- "Flyboys", "Superman Returns", "Forbidden Kingdom"... Many F900 and F950 movies as well such as "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith".

If those major movies were willing to crop 1920 x 1080 to 2.35, then why are you so worried about cropping 4K to 2.35???

 

[Chris Pickle]

I think you should shoot a test and see for yourself.

I like the 2.35 frame enough to fight for it on many projects.

The truth is either you are passionate to shoot 2.35 or you are not. If you are not, then you might as well shoot 1.85. If you are, then nothing should be able to talk you out of it, certainly not the loss of a few pixels.

Many Genesis movies were released cropped to 2.35 from a 1920 x 1080 HD recording -- "Flyboys", "Superman Returns", "Forbidden Kingdom"... Many F900 and F950 movies as well such as "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith".

If those major movies were willing to crop 1920 x 1080 to 2.35, then why are you so worried about cropping 4K to 2.35???

Hi David,

Could you speak to your thoughts on 2:35 over 1:85 from a creative choice? I assume there are creative choices per the specific project, but generally how do you view it?

Your insight is greatly appreciated as this is a major decision I'll soon be making.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I like 2.35 for a number of reasons.

#1 Most indie movies are 1.85, so 2.35 lifts the movie (a little) out of the "low-budget" feeling that many indies have, gives them some "scope" so to speak.
#2 I like retaining as much of the surrounding space in the frame around the character, so 2.35 frames even in close-ups include other objects and parts of the room.
#3 The 2.35 frame is a bit wide and awkward, which lends itself to more abstract and "modern" framing due to the greater ability to emphasize negative space and imbalance in the frame.
#4 You can often frame a scene tighter and yet hold people in 2-shots, so sometimes you need less coverage of a scene.

Downside: more things and characters are in the frame, so often dialogue scenes are "dirty", both characters are in both angles, it's harder to get a "clean" close-up when two people are next to each other, so matching becomes more important. You need to think more about production design and location to take advantage of the wider frame. You have to "think" in terms of 2.35.

 

[Chris Pickle]

I like 2.35 for a number of reasons.

#1 Most indie movies are 1.85, so 2.35 lifts the movie (a little) out of the "low-budget" feeling that many indies have, gives them some "scope" so to speak.
#2 I like retaining as much of the surrounding space in the frame around the character, so 2.35 frames even in close-ups include other objects and parts of the room.
#3 The 2.35 frame is a bit wide and awkward, which lends itself to more abstract and "modern" framing due to the greater ability to emphasize negative space and imbalance in the frame.
#4 You can often frame a scene tighter and yet hold people in 2-shots, so sometimes you need less coverage of a scene.

Downside: more things and characters are in the frame, so often dialogue scenes are "dirty", both characters are in both angles, it's harder to get a "clean" close-up when two people are next to each other, so matching becomes more important. You need to think more about production design and location to take advantage of the wider frame. You have to "think" in terms of 2.35.

Thanks David,

Does 2:35 cause more "deliverables" issues than 1:85? It must be heartbreaking for a filmmaker to be asked to deliver a 4:3 version of a 2:35 film, but I see it all the time--even big Hollywood films when broadcasted on TV.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure, the 4x3 pan & scan version is awful to make. I don't look at it...

The thing is that it only makes sense to shoot for 2.35 if you plan on projecting the image. For straight to DVD work, stick to 16x9 or 1.85.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Thanks David,

Does 2:35 cause more "deliverables" issues than 1:85? It must be heartbreaking for a filmmaker to be asked to deliver a 4:3 version of a 2:35 film, but I see it all the time--even big Hollywood films when broadcasted on TV.

Cheers,
Chris

I'm seeing more and more letterboxed films on SDTV.
Even some TV Shows are 16:9 letterboxed.

I guess one solution would be the Director along with the DP to search for framings that would work both on 2.39 and 1.85/16:9.

But 4:3 is a radical change, thank god it's dying now... I guess.

 

[Chris Pickle]

Sure, the 4x3 pan & scan version is awful to make. I don't look at it...

The thing is that it only makes sense to shoot for 2.35 if you plan on projecting the image. For straight to DVD work, stick to 16x9 or 1.85.

Now that's very interesting, since in reality, most indie films will never be projected. At most, maybe a digital projection at a festival, or at really most, a quickie "festival" or "4 wall" print from the 720 or 1080.

I think most indie / low-budget filmmakers tell themselves it will--or at least hope it will, but we all know the reality.

If after a truthful gut-check on the real odds of projection, you felt your primary distribution would be TV and DVD, would you suggest a filmmaker should go to 1.85, even if they like 2.35 better?

Do you think 1.85 is a "wiser" choice for that?

I know we may be ultimately talking about creative choice...but I can't help but wonder on the distribution issues.

Thanks so much for your thoughts.

Chris

 

[Jeff Coatney]

The thing about 2.35 is, it's really a theatrical format and it requires that the audience be given enough time to view the frame cut to cut in order to achieve it's best potential. I don't think it's that successful a format when used handheld or with high tempo cutting. Long, fluid tracking shots and good steadicam work look nice in 2.35, but in the hands of a smash cut MTV editor, your eye is led kinetically through the frame and your field of view narrows based on the movement of the action. I think it is also difficult to achieve a real sense of intimacy with the actors in 2.35 sometimes, because as David points out, you tend to have more of the surroundings in the frame. I think it maintains an emotional distance between the audience and the actors, because it becomes somewhat disconcerting to push in on someone's face too closely in 2.35. I don't get those reactions in 1.85.

It's important to note that I'm basing my opinions on a theatrical presentation. I hate 2.35 letterboxed on DVD, first of all, you lose the scale of it unless you have an 8 foot screen. Most people that will see the film on DVD have much smaller viewing environments. Since the film will be in the theatre for a week or two and then on DVD (or whatever) for years and years, why not give the film it's best chance at finding an audience in the arena or venue where the most people will discover it?

I love 2.35 in the theatre, it's great, who doesn't. But IMHO, all the scale and gravitas that aspect ratio is suited for when the image overwhelms you, is utterly lost when it's letterboxed on a 42 inch plasma. I've seen films that use it just for the sake of using 2.35 when the story, tone and environment they're shooting in is best suited to 1.85. Kinda like "Look at this EPIC day care center we shot!"

I love discussions like these, they are very enlightening, I am in the same line of work. I just delivered a pitch reel for a feature in 2.35 and the director asked my opinion on this specific issue. I told him that if you are shooting in 2.35, make sure your subject is important enough to deserve 2.35. 2.35 has presence and gravitas and scale and if those characteristics are important in your project, go for it. I don't think it's a very "intimate" aspect ratio.