I’m literally stumbling across this video at 730am, and the first thing I thought was, “what a great video to enjoy the silence of the morning with som coffee”
Another reason you might choose 2-perf over shooting anamorphic is that, in the early days of CGI, it was difficult to blend CGI effects with live-action footage filmed with anamorphic lenses because of the artifacts they introduced into the image, such as barrel distortion, lens flares, bokeh, and so on. So if you were making a movie with a lot of CGI in it, and you wanted it to be widescreen, it made the most sense to either shoot 2-perf or "open gate". This became less of a problem with the advent of "rear anamorphic" lenses which did away with those artifacts, but those artifacts became associated with the "cinematic look" and which filmmakers desired, so as technology progressed, CGI software became able to work with anamorphic footage.
Great video! However I do feel there is a slight detail you missed. Often times, the picture recorded onto 35mm regardless of perf will not utilize the entire 35mm width because they need to compensate for the area on the left (right of the sprockets) that is needed for the optical soundtrack when making theatrical prints, therefore your measurements might be off. Prior to optical sound, yes, 4-perf film utilized the entire width (Academy 35mm) but this changed when sound format became standard. Especially with 4-perf anamorphic, there will often be negative space on the 35mm negative on the left. A quick search online will show examples of 35mm negative film.
Most times that's the surface that leads to films having 2.4:1 instead of 2.66:1 ratio when using a 2x anamorphic on 4 perf for example. Also, since the advent of digital sound, the optical sound isn't usually done in the same print because that allows you to do mono only. The solution now is having the sound reel separate from the image.
The "Academy format" has optical sound and thick frame lines to keep the original aspect ratio of 1.33:1. The lens is now centered on this off-center Academy aperture. "Full aperture silent," AKA "super 35." The lens is centered geometrically between the perforations, and the frame lines are thin. The native aspect ratio is 1.33:1
@@markmervis9273 "The "Academy format" has optical sound and thick frame lines to keep the original aspect ratio of 1.33:1. " Wasn't the Academy Format 1.375:1?
For still photographers, this means your "full frame" camera is actually a double frame camera, since a 24x36mm frame is 8 sprocket holes or 2 4-perf frames
Anamorphic lenses squeeze the picture left and right to fit the 4 perf film surface. But when it is projected it is not de-squeezed left and right as the myth says, it is squezed again but now on top and bottom to fit the theater screen, which most of the time is 1.85:1. You end up with a picture that has the same width that 1.85:1 but its shorter in height. You do have a wider field of view, but not a wider image. The actual width of 2.39:1 and 1.85:1 in film or digital is the same. Just measure them.
Somebody should make a 2-perf or 3-perf 16mm camera for that TikTok grind. One hundred feet is also just the right length. I'm joking of course, but that would be funny.
Good content. At the 3:57 mark, you start off the point about the more surface area that is used, the higher quality the image will become. That is not fully precise. Film does not work off of the bigger the aspect ratio, space or framing, the higher the quality of the image: which is why if a cinematographer uses 8mm, 16mm or 35mm, the quality is in the light or mood of the action or inaction filmed. Also, how that film is processed & developed plays a pivotal part as well. What if the film is pushed or pulled or goes through bleach bypass? does the initial quality improve or decrease? This is why the size, the tangible size is not the definitive high quality of a film/celluloid image or images. I am not a cinematographer but I am a film photographer who has used film & only film for over 25 straight years & we have small-format (135 film also known as 35mm film), medium-format & large-format film & each format have their own size uniqueness but that size uniqueness does tangibly make one size more high quality than the other sizes. Again the quality is in how it is lit, processed, developed & to a certain extent, the technique used to get that latent image into the shape a photographer or cinematographer want it to be, visually.
It's a video about formats. So it's understood that talking about how changing the format affects the image is under the context of other circumstances being the same. If he made a video about film speed and how changes in that affect the image, there wouldn't be a need to mention cross processing affecting the image.
@@gregorylagrangeI completely disagree. In my opinion he seemed to be aligning digital's standards for "high quality" to a tangible film format. If I go out here & photograph with Kodak Ektar (a professional brand of film), this does not make my roll of film "high quality." In this situation, the format is connected to the concept of actually working with film & to sit up here & say that a film is high quality because of a perforation selection is not precisely true. I don't use digital so maybe the understanding of "high quality" is a bit different to my understanding. However, the foundation of tangile film & all of its qualities are interwoven with the format, the speed of film, the film chemistry & how that film is processed & is developed, all of which does not start or stop at the selection of perforations. If you look at celluloid filmmaking throughout the 20th Century, you would clearly see that "high quality" was not as easy as some perforation selection.
@@shaunlaisfilm He literally said that exposing a larger film area is kind of like a digital sensor with more resolution. Then went on to include a graphic saying that perfs affect the cost of shooting and the quality of the image. Doesn't matter if you use ektar, porta, fujichrome, reala, larger format is going to give you better image quality than a smaller format when you're talking about formats. No need to say "well you didn't mention using outdated film that's left in the car over the summer".
@@gregorylagrangehow are the both of you comparing a digital sensor to the area of tangible film, logically? This is the reason why there are no large-format digital photography cameras for still-photography & even digital medium-format photography does not fully compare to what tangible 120 or 220 film can do as in a physical emulsion scientifically dealing with light, time & the chemicals that it takes to process & develop. It seems like you are trying to override the physical properties that comes with film while using digital as a comparison point when digital came after film (the cart in front of the horse). The reason why the Daguerreotype has an extremely high resolution is not because it can be measured digitally but because the real space of what a latent image landed on, is dimensionally, physically precise. I guess every large-format photograph is high quality as well, if we are to use what we are discussing here. I do understand how one can compare digital to film, terminology wise, like (ISO readings) but to try & maneuver the basis of high quality in film photography or cinematography is again, not precise.
Makes me wanna shoot on film again! KODAK LETS GO!! Thanks for reminding me about this dying art form. I wish I still shot on film, but digital is so much cheaper. And less companies digitizing film stock these days.
In the late 70's a device called the Duo-Sprocket invented and developed (patented worldwide) by cinematographer Donald McLendon in Houston Texas allowed any 4 perf camera to be converted to 3 perf. The Duo-Sprocket also had a version that would work in film projectors allowing the projectionist to be able to adapt the projector. Major film producers (Kodak and Fuji) fought the idea (because it cut cost in film purchases). It came along just before major film camera manufacturers began offering cameras that would shoot 2 and 3 perf and retrofit kits. Unfortunately the inventor died suddenly of a massive heart attack and the concept died along with him.
Awesome vedio,but one doubt is how grains reduced in 4 perf with larger area than 3 perf as light falling on unit area of filim negative is same on both as it is regulated by the gate, please reply, Ashok
Can someone explain me how cropping into a widescreen aspect ratio on 4 perf would be different than shooting just in 2 perf? The negative is still the same width so why wouldn't the amount of grain and character be the same if you crop the top and bottom half? I understand how 4 perf anamorphic would have larger negative quality as well as just standard 4 perf but when explaining 4 perf he seems to be saying you would get a different character of negative shooting 4 perf with a letterbox verses just shooting 2 perf.
When he talked about the larger exposure area of 4 perf giving a better image, he was also talking about it in context of projecting it in the aspect ratio of 4 perf. The larger exposure area doesn't need to be expanded as much to the viewable image size as does a smaller exposure area. Cropping 4 perf into a 2 perf aspect ratio would be similar to image quality as shooting 2 perf because the exposure areas are the same.
Great video as per usual, could you maybe do a video on 8-perf Vista Vision ? Feels like an almost lost or forgotten format, when in fact it would be the perfect film equivalent to the Alexa lf Plus I heard the guys at tribe 7 wanted to make a camera but nothing really came of it. Would be really cool
I remember he also shot the brilliant BBC drama 'Edge of Darkness' in 1985, for director Martin Campbell, which was the first "cinematic" TV shows I remember seeing!
After seeing Zack Snyder use the 4-perf 35mm full-frame in _Zack Snyder's Justice League,_ THAT'S how I'd want all my movies shot. Because if I use the whole frame, I feel I could freely crop it to my liking.
3-perf is a great middle ground between the two, especially in the modern age where you’re no longer needing to reframe for a 4:3 television presentation like you used to in the 90s and 2000s (when super 35 was everywhere) Spielberg used the format just recently on the Fabelmans and it looks great. TV Shows like Breaking Bad and Succession use it too, and HBO used to mandate it’s usage in the early 2000s so shows like the Sopranos could already be shot in 16:9 and retroactively un-cropped for HD.
![New Strategy W/ The Armament Conversion Feature [Rise of Kingdoms]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t6U-3XDCW_0/mqdefault.jpg)
Great way to start off my day, a cup of coffee and in depth cine.
this is my morning routine
Don’t forget the satisfying post-coffee poop
I like starting my day by being blown by my lady
I’m literally stumbling across this video at 730am, and the first thing I thought was, “what a great video to enjoy the silence of the morning with som coffee”
Another reason you might choose 2-perf over shooting anamorphic is that, in the early days of CGI, it was difficult to blend CGI effects with live-action footage filmed with anamorphic lenses because of the artifacts they introduced into the image, such as barrel distortion, lens flares, bokeh, and so on. So if you were making a movie with a lot of CGI in it, and you wanted it to be widescreen, it made the most sense to either shoot 2-perf or "open gate".
This became less of a problem with the advent of "rear anamorphic" lenses which did away with those artifacts, but those artifacts became associated with the "cinematic look" and which filmmakers desired, so as technology progressed, CGI software became able to work with anamorphic footage.
Although certain films used VistaVision for filming plates for CGI characters. See Jurassic Park and its sequel
Of all the faces I didn't expect to see here. How's the trash hunting?
Great video! However I do feel there is a slight detail you missed. Often times, the picture recorded onto 35mm regardless of perf will not utilize the entire 35mm width because they need to compensate for the area on the left (right of the sprockets) that is needed for the optical soundtrack when making theatrical prints, therefore your measurements might be off. Prior to optical sound, yes, 4-perf film utilized the entire width (Academy 35mm) but this changed when sound format became standard. Especially with 4-perf anamorphic, there will often be negative space on the 35mm negative on the left. A quick search online will show examples of 35mm negative film.
Most times that's the surface that leads to films having 2.4:1 instead of 2.66:1 ratio when using a 2x anamorphic on 4 perf for example.
Also, since the advent of digital sound, the optical sound isn't usually done in the same print because that allows you to do mono only. The solution now is having the sound reel separate from the image.
The "Academy format" has optical sound and thick frame lines to keep the original aspect ratio of 1.33:1. The lens is now centered on this off-center Academy aperture. "Full aperture silent," AKA "super 35." The lens is centered geometrically between the perforations, and the frame lines are thin. The native aspect ratio is 1.33:1
@@markmervis9273 "The "Academy format" has optical sound and thick frame lines to keep the original aspect ratio of 1.33:1. " Wasn't the Academy Format 1.375:1?
For still photographers, this means your "full frame" camera is actually a double frame camera, since a 24x36mm frame is 8 sprocket holes or 2 4-perf frames
Anamorphic lenses squeeze the picture left and right to fit the 4 perf film surface. But when it is projected it is not de-squeezed left and right as the myth says, it is squezed again but now on top and bottom to fit the theater screen, which most of the time is 1.85:1. You end up with a picture that has the same width that 1.85:1 but its shorter in height. You do have a wider field of view, but not a wider image. The actual width of 2.39:1 and 1.85:1 in film or digital is the same. Just measure them.
This was excellent, I’d love to see a 16mm video
Somebody should make a 2-perf or 3-perf 16mm camera for that TikTok grind. One hundred feet is also just the right length.
I'm joking of course, but that would be funny.
Good content. At the 3:57 mark, you start off the point about the more surface area that is used, the higher quality the image will become.
That is not fully precise. Film does not work off of the bigger the aspect ratio, space or framing, the higher the quality of the image: which is why if a cinematographer uses 8mm, 16mm or 35mm, the quality is in the light or mood of the action or inaction filmed.
Also, how that film is processed & developed plays a pivotal part as well. What if the film is pushed or pulled or goes through bleach bypass? does the initial quality improve or decrease?
This is why the size, the tangible size is not the definitive high quality of a film/celluloid image or images.
I am not a cinematographer but I am a film photographer who has used film & only film for over 25 straight years & we have small-format (135 film also known as 35mm film), medium-format & large-format film & each format have their own size uniqueness but that size uniqueness does tangibly make one size more high quality than the other sizes.
Again the quality is in how it is lit, processed, developed & to a certain extent, the technique used to get that latent image into the shape a photographer or cinematographer want it to be, visually.
It's a video about formats. So it's understood that talking about how changing the format affects the image is under the context of other circumstances being the same.
If he made a video about film speed and how changes in that affect the image, there wouldn't be a need to mention cross processing affecting the image.
@@gregorylagrangeI completely disagree. In my opinion he seemed to be aligning digital's standards for "high quality" to a tangible film format.
If I go out here & photograph with Kodak Ektar (a professional brand of film), this does not make my roll of film "high quality."
In this situation, the format is connected to the concept of actually working with film & to sit up here & say that a film is high quality because of a perforation selection is not precisely true.
I don't use digital so maybe the understanding of "high quality" is a bit different to my understanding.
However, the foundation of tangile film & all of its qualities are interwoven with the format, the speed of film, the film chemistry & how that film is processed & is developed, all of which does not start or stop at the selection of perforations.
If you look at celluloid filmmaking throughout the 20th Century, you would clearly see that "high quality" was not as easy as some perforation selection.
@@shaunlaisfilm He literally said that exposing a larger film area is kind of like a digital sensor with more resolution.
Then went on to include a graphic saying that perfs affect the cost of shooting and the quality of the image.
Doesn't matter if you use ektar, porta, fujichrome, reala, larger format is going to give you better image quality than a smaller format when you're talking about formats.
No need to say "well you didn't mention using outdated film that's left in the car over the summer".
@@gregorylagrangehow are the both of you comparing a digital sensor to the area of tangible film, logically?
This is the reason why there are no large-format digital photography cameras for still-photography & even digital medium-format photography does not fully compare to what tangible 120 or 220 film can do as in a physical emulsion scientifically dealing with light, time & the chemicals that it takes to process & develop.
It seems like you are trying to override the physical properties that comes with film while using digital as a comparison point when digital came after film (the cart in front of the horse).
The reason why the Daguerreotype has an extremely high resolution is not because it can be measured digitally but because the real space of what a latent image landed on, is dimensionally, physically precise.
I guess every large-format photograph is high quality as well, if we are to use what we are discussing here.
I do understand how one can compare digital to film, terminology wise, like (ISO readings) but to try & maneuver the basis of high quality in film photography or cinematography is again, not precise.
@@shaunlaisfilm How?
Simply because we're not concerned or bent on being pedantic.
Love all of your videos. You have a talent in teaching. The editing and of use of still images are awesome!
Then what is super 35mm... please reply and how it is different from 35mm
Super 35 uses the part that's normaly reserved for sound on the film. Same as Super16.
This helps me completely contextualize all of the reasons for the digital equivalents. Thank you.
Makes me wanna shoot on film again! KODAK LETS GO!!
Thanks for reminding me about this dying art form. I wish I still shot on film, but digital is so much cheaper. And less companies digitizing film stock these days.
This was all new information for me, and you explained it so well. I learned something today! Thank you!
Love starting my sundays learning about cine and video from you guys!
IMAX film camera uses 15 perfs on 70mm film stock
In the late 70's a device called the Duo-Sprocket invented and developed (patented worldwide) by cinematographer Donald McLendon in Houston Texas allowed any 4 perf camera to be converted to 3 perf. The Duo-Sprocket also had a version that would work in film projectors allowing the projectionist to be able to adapt the projector. Major film producers (Kodak and Fuji) fought the idea (because it cut cost in film purchases). It came along just before major film camera manufacturers began offering cameras that would shoot 2 and 3 perf and retrofit kits. Unfortunately the inventor died suddenly of a massive heart attack and the concept died along with him.
Excellent video, thank you!
I always want to know about 35mm. now i know thanks a lot
Thanks for all this information, had no idea there were so many different film formats!
Exactly what I was looking for, thank you so much for dong this
It's a very good video, thank you for your efforts.
Please prepare a video about imax and 70mm film negative or briefly mention it in a comment.
Another great video. Thanks a bunch.
Do you have any plans to make a video about HDR?
What motion picture is it with the girl and the cinemafilm?
Awesome vedio,but one doubt is how grains reduced in 4 perf with larger area than 3 perf as light falling on unit area of filim negative is same on both as it is regulated by the gate, please reply, Ashok
I absolutely love this channel
Shame we don’t see more 8 perf VistaVision. It has such a distinctive look and feel.
Great video.
Can someone explain me how cropping into a widescreen aspect ratio on 4 perf would be different than shooting just in 2 perf? The negative is still the same width so why wouldn't the amount of grain and character be the same if you crop the top and bottom half? I understand how 4 perf anamorphic would have larger negative quality as well as just standard 4 perf but when explaining 4 perf he seems to be saying you would get a different character of negative shooting 4 perf with a letterbox verses just shooting 2 perf.
When he talked about the larger exposure area of 4 perf giving a better image, he was also talking about it in context of projecting it in the aspect ratio of 4 perf.
The larger exposure area doesn't need to be expanded as much to the viewable image size as does a smaller exposure area.
Cropping 4 perf into a 2 perf aspect ratio would be similar to image quality as shooting 2 perf because the exposure areas are the same.
we need a video about 70 mm
If VistaVision was 8 perf horizontal, how was that projected?
It was projected on special projectors which would play the 35mm print horizontally. Kinda like an imax projector… except it’s 35 and 8 perf.
Great video! What is the movie starting from 8:25 to 8:38? Ty
Shoplifters (2018)
informative topic.
How do you make that shot at 9:15 ?
Great video as per usual,
could you maybe do a video on 8-perf Vista Vision ? Feels like an almost lost or forgotten format, when in fact it would be the perfect film equivalent to the Alexa lf
Plus I heard the guys at tribe 7 wanted to make a camera but nothing really came of it. Would be really cool
What would be the time scale if you short on each one for 16mm film? 10:16
Can you do a video on Andrew Dunn? I think he’s very underrated and his cinematography on perks of being a wallflower is just wow
I remember he also shot the brilliant BBC drama 'Edge of Darkness' in 1985, for director Martin Campbell, which was the first "cinematic" TV shows I remember seeing!
After seeing Zack Snyder use the 4-perf 35mm full-frame in _Zack Snyder's Justice League,_ THAT'S how I'd want all my movies shot. Because if I use the whole frame, I feel I could freely crop it to my liking.
Can't wait for the video on shooting in 1 perf.
3-perf is a great middle ground between the two, especially in the modern age where you’re no longer needing to reframe for a 4:3 television presentation like you used to in the 90s and 2000s (when super 35 was everywhere) Spielberg used the format just recently on the Fabelmans and it looks great. TV Shows like Breaking Bad and Succession use it too, and HBO used to mandate it’s usage in the early 2000s so shows like the Sopranos could already be shot in 16:9 and retroactively un-cropped for HD.
Wish there was a way to use other squeeze ration glass on 2perf.
Would be great . But hey , digital 🤷🏽♂️
If you shoot and finish your project on 35mm then produce 35mm release print which format do you use. Can you use 3 perf for this or just 4 perf
Hi there.
Where did you find the 1.37 images from Jurassic Park??
I’d love to watch it
My favorite format is Squarespace if u ask me.
A spherical 2.35 image is NOT the same as an anamorphic 2.35 image. An anamorphic lens captures TWICE the horizontal information.
I LOVE EATING CELLULOID FILM
So that's why there is 2.40:1 and 2.35:1 aspect ratio, being similar yet different, but both equally popular.