ASPECT RATIOS

Started by Ordet, March 04, 2004, 03:54:37 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ordet

What is the difference between 2:35:1 and 2:40:1 aspect ratios?
Is one Super 35 mm and the other anamorphic lenses?
were spinning

prophet

i think 2:35 is with lenses and 2:40 is just a differnt wider stock.
We gonna do a little Q&A Mr. Worley, and at the risk of sounding redundant please... make your answers Genuine...

Ordet

Loved your story by the way.

Instead of Japanese ketchup could be Japanese avocado.
were spinning

cowboykurtis

Quote from: Roman Cibeles
Is one Super 35 mm and the other anamorphic lenses?

correct
...your excuses are your own...

prophet

didnt know that i saw some 2:70 or something on some russian cameras.
We gonna do a little Q&A Mr. Worley, and at the risk of sounding redundant please... make your answers Genuine...

Ravi

Quote from: Roman CibelesWhat is the difference between 2:35:1 and 2:40:1 aspect ratios?
Is one Super 35 mm and the other anamorphic lenses?

Both numbers are used interchangeably aren't they?  AFAIK, Super35 or anamorphic doesn't make a difference like that in aspect ratio, since the release prints for a Super 35 film are anamorphic.

cowboykurtis

Quote from: Ravi
Quote from: Roman CibelesWhat is the difference between 2:35:1 and 2:40:1 aspect ratios?
Is one Super 35 mm and the other anamorphic lenses?

Both numbers are used interchangeably aren't they?  AFAIK, Super35 or anamorphic doesn't make a difference like that in aspect ratio, since the release prints for a Super 35 film are anamorphic.

incorrect
...your excuses are your own...

Ravi

An excerpt from an old post at rec.arts.movies.tech on groups.google.com:

Quotehttp://groups.google.com/groups?q=2.35:1+2.40:1+super+35+group:rec.arts.movies.tech&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8&group=rec.arts.movies.tech&selm=19970618173501.NAA18664%40ladder01.news.aol.com&rnum=1

The 2.35:1 ratio eventually settled on for CinemaScope, Panavision,
etc. was altered in the early 70s to 2.40:1 to help keep
film splices from being projected.

The 1995 Panavision catalog specifies the anamorphic projection
aperture at .838 inches by .700, giving a ratio of 2.394:1. The catalog
rounds this up to 2.40:1, but some posters in this group round it
to 2.39:1. In the same catalog, the "Super Panavision 35mm" (super 35)
extracted area is specified as .945 X .511, yielding 2.398:1, which
rounds closer to 2.40:1.

Link

I think it's funny that people always type 2:35:1.  That would mean 2 by 35 by 1.  Where's the third dimension?!  I used to wonder about this, and then saw on FCP that it was 2.35:1.  Then the clouds cleared and the world made sense  :wink:

cowboykurtis

i was recently researching anamorphic vs. super 35mm. the depth of anamorphic is wonderful -- also what the sphereical lenses do with highlights and flares is such a greast look -- however the actual shooting process is excrutiating -- as fincher would put it shooting anamorphic is nothing short of archaic -- i know a process that fincher uses is shooting super 35 and doing a digital anamorphic pull in post -- anyone have any insight on this process?
...your excuses are your own...

mutinyco

The new Panic Room DVD offers a good explanation of super-35.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Ordet

QuoteI think it's funny that people always type 2:35:1. That would mean 2 by 35 by 1. Where's the third dimension?! I used to wonder about this, and then saw on FCP that it was 2.35:1. Then the clouds cleared and the world made sense
That's true 2.35:1 it made sesne to me in astronomy class while explaining scales. I still type 2:35:1. Looks cool

Does this mean that Spy Kids 3D is ..... :shock:
were spinning