Talk:Super 35

Anamorphic Super 35?

Is it possible to use anamorphic lenses with Super 35mm film; to take advantage of the rest of the negative space from the film? It seems like an option; not sure why no one has thought about it. Is it possible? If so, why has no one used both?

The problem is not so much the shooting as the projection - most theatres can only accommodate 1.85 and normal anamorphic (2.39). You'd also have to re-center your lenses and wouldn't have an optical soundtrack backup. A bit of a pain. Plus, the whole reason why Super 35 is often used is in order to avoid certain disadvantages of anamorphic lenses! I don't think the relatively negligable difference between 2.39 and 2.66 would be that noticeable to an audience anyway. Girolamo Savonarola 09:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You could, however, utilize anamorphic Super 35 for telecine (non-printed) projects. LACameraman 01:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any guarantee that the anamorphic lenses can cover the full Super 35 area? I know that it's not a big difference, but it has been an issue in the past with older sphericals designed for Academy which had problems with early Super 35 productions. Girolamo Savonarola 02:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. As I wrote the note above I was sure that I could think of a project or two that did Super 35 anamorphic (mostly Music Videos) - but I can't seem to confirm that. There would be a concern that the lens would cover the full negative area. Honestly - I don't know - that would totally depend on each lens.LACameraman 02:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

full-frame cropping

It is unfortunate that this particular graphic does not depict the simultaneous widescreen and full-frame cropping applied to many Super 35 films, which is the entire point for most film-makers (such as James Cameron); the top image only shows the widescreen crop, which may confuse some readers. I've added a link to the "full frame" page on Wikipedia because it has an example of how both crops are made; unfortunately this example is NOT Super 35 because it contains a sound-track. I have seen some good graphic examples in the past in high-end video magazines. Notmicro 09:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I can make the change - however I need to confirm if the normal framing is as featured in this article:

• http://modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/AV/FilmToVideo/

? Megapixie 13:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes the 4 examples shown in section "4.4 Super-35" are reasonable; I've just been looking around online and have not found any better examples. The only problem is that they happen to depict a "top-weighted" widescreen framing, and my understanding is that currently most widescreen-framing is "center-weighted", like what is show on the full frame page. Notmicro 21:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the image to show 4:3 TV framing for all the image types. Can you take a look - it's pretty easy for me to make corrections - so let me know if anything should change. (You might have to hit refresh on your browser to pick it up). Cheers Megapixie 04:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That looks great! I could add screen-caps, like 2 examples from "Legally Blonde", but I don't like to get into the hassle of justifying the copyright stuff. Notmicro 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, this is wrong. Most Super 35 is not center-framed, but top-framed. This is called "common topline" and is an easy way to avoid problems with framing headroom which occur when using center extraction. (See American Cinematographer Manual, p. 36-37, 8th ed., along with ICG page.) Girolamo Savonarola 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made the change to reflect "common top" - let me know if it looks right. I can easily make other changes. Megapixie 12:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the extraction is literally from the top of the frame, so the red box should be shifted higher. Also, the television extraction's top line should be very slightly within the red box, not outside of it. I think that in all the graphics you've overestimated the TV extraction, which is actually just a fraction smaller than the projector extraction, which in turn is a fraction smaller than the full frame. What you've illustrated is probably closer in proportion to what is known as TV safe, which doesn't apply in the case of HDTV or computer screens, neither of which overscan. Take a look here, page 11, for an idea of extraction sizes, and go back to page 10 for TV extraction sizes (note the difference between the extraction and the "safe" areas). In any case, well done on the revisions and thanks for your continued effort to keep them up to spec and accurate! Girolamo Savonarola 13:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Super 35 and Widescreen TVs

With the advent of 1.78:1 television sets, 4-perf Super 35 would be obsolete. Instead 3-perf Super 35 would be used for 1.78:1 television work instead of 2.35:1 film work. If Super 35 films are in Blu-Ray format, they would be in widescreen only, because fullscreen version would be pillarboxed. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 21:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think that 3-perf isn't already used for 2.39 films? Or that it would stop? Blu-Ray isn't, to my knowledge, restricted to widescreen format either - there's no reason why it can't be used to encode 4:3 information - it's ultimately just a data system. The pillarboxing is only a factor assuming that everyone has widescreen televisions - and then they'd probably just watch their 4:3 discs in zoom mode (which I assume would come closer to restoring the original theatrical frame - although at a cost of resolution). Girolamo Savonarola 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The DVD of Kenneth Branagh's "As You Like It", made in Super 35, is, according to the information on the keepcase, released at a 2.35:1 ratio, not a 2.39:1 one. And the TV showing on HBO was framed at a 1.85:1 ratio. I know this because I taped it off the air a month before the DVD was even released. (The film, though made for theatres, was only shown on TV in the U.S., and the wider ratio seems to have been the preferred choice.) I have tried to post information about the screen ratios of this film in the article, but it is always removed as soon as I post it. AlbertSM (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The 2.35/2.39 misnomer issue is discussed in anamorphic format - in short, 2.35 is the old term that's been in use since the 50's, even though the spec has slightly changed. The Branagh issue should be addressed in that film's article - it has no proper context in this article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did the sound track go?

An excellent, in-depth article — my compliments — but the lay reader is going to wonder, “If Super 35 pushes into the area on the left, where did the sound tracks go?”

One could, I suppose, figure out how it works if one understood the current use of DAT by the recordist, but I think there should be a line-or-two explaining why the sound tracks are not used on the production film in Super 35.

[I’d add them myself, but this really isn’t my field and I’d rather have someone more qualified do the edit.]--OldCommentator 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Films don't usually record soundtracks onto the film stock itself during the filming - there are a few specialist cameras (e.g. old news cameras) which used to do this either optically or through film with a special magnetic strip added on - but virtually all sound processes involved with feature filmmaking since its development have the sound physically married with the film in post-production. In order to keep the lab processes simple and at maximum quality, the ground glass and lens mount are each designed to reserve space on the side of the film for where the soundtrack will eventually go. Sometimes this area is matted out in production, but usually the entire silent gate is filmed even on non-Super 35 films. The difference is that Super 35 intentionally frames within this side as well and recenters its gate to accomodate it. Since a release print requires space on the side for the soundtrack, and also because most Super 35 films are shot for 2.39:1 presentation, a lab or post-production facility is required to optically re-size the width of the image for Academy ratio-width, crop the frame to the proper height for the intended 2.39 aspect ratio, and horizontally squeeze the image for 2x anamorphic presentation - thus creating a standard anamorphic release print. The problem is that the optical process costs more money and loses quality as the intermediate stages require more work. Recently the digital intermediate (DI) process has become increasingly popular for doing this instead of the optical way. In a DI, the film is scanned in at extremely high resolution (usually 2K or 4K) and then the resizing, cropping, and anamorphic squeeze are all done in the computer without any generation quality loss. Usually a color grade is also done at this point. When that's all done and approved, a film recorder (often an Arrilaser) then outputs the film properly framed and squeezed for a release print - the sound is still usually married to the print later. It's likely that the DI method will become the dominant method as the costs of DI continue to drop.

Is that all clear? Please feel free to ask if you need further clarification! :) Girolamo Savonarola 18:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's very clear. Thanks for the prompt answer. I'm screening The Shipping News for my students this week and I knew that Lasse & Oliver used Super 35, but I wasn't really sure of the differences were between Super 35 and regular flavoured 35 ... at least not well enough to answer potentially embarrassing questions. Thanks. --OldCommentator 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Great question and great answer, guys. But I also agree, the article needs to say this. Perhaps not all the detail, just a sentence or two, please.Marzolian (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Andrewa 10:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Super 35 mm film → Super 35 — Super 35 is not a different type or gauge of film; it's a frame width standard for some formats which use normal 35 mm film. Super 35 merely denotes the centering of the lens and how much of the film is being used. Super 35 is also the common title (as a Google search should prove) - referring to the format as Super 35 mm film is a misnomer that isn't even in great usage. —Girolamo Savonarola 21:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

One thing to consider in using super35 is that when converting to animorphic in the post lab process or D.I. you are actually blowing up the image aproximately 20%. If being done traditionaly in a lab on an optical printer, this will result in a "grainer" picture and loss of quality depending on the nature of the original photography. To achieve the best looking 2:39 widescreen movie, you would need it shot using traditional animorphic lenses. The increase in capture area on the frame in super 35 is more than negated by the 20% blowup of the overall image. If the animorphic conversion is done digitally in a D.I., the picture quality loss is not as noticeable (since you are not introducing another lens) but it still does remain a blow up of aprox. 20%.

The highest quality super 35 format would be to shoot super35 for 1:85 aspect ratio. When this is converted to full aperture 1:85 it becomes a "reduction" of image size, thus greatly improving resolution and clarity while reducing film grain. This format was first used on "Yentil" and has been used on a few other pictures although largely ingnored by the mainstream community. Bmarkoe (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The OTHER Super 35mm?

Some digital cameras are now being called Super 35mm. Is this yet another type of Super 35mm? I don't see it mentioned in the article. One example that I just ran across today of a Super 35mm is the Canon C500. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

List in History section

Super 35 § History, starting at Tony Scott, contains an unreasonably long and unreadable list of directors and films that employed the format. It's unclear whether this is intended to be exhaustive, or what the criteria for inclusion is. If it's useful to show all these, how about converting it to table form? If not, how about just a few representative or notable examples. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, it needs to be sourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

IMDB cites some movies in the list (I didn't check all of them) as Super 35 in their technical specs. May it be a valid source? 189.9.32.2 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)