Comparing Super 35 to 35mm Anamorphic Production

Anamorphic technology has come a long way since 20th Century Fox introduced Cinemascope to the world in 1953. When properly presented on a large screen, the extra wide-screen, anamorphic format can unleash a power and a fascination that is difficult to explain in words.

There are two ways to get anamorphic prints for theatrical release. One method stays anamorphic all the way through the process, just like the original "Cinemascope". And the other process starts as a normal spherical or "flat" image, and is converted to anamorphic (or "squeezed" image) later. This other process is known as Super 35.

Super 35 makes things easier at the shooting stage, so D.P.'s tend to love this format. But producers should realize that the eventual conversion from the Super 35mm negative to make the final film prints is very expensive. It always adds a significant amount to the overall budget ..... something in the order of US$60,000 to US$90,000 approximately. The price depends on where you get the final conversion done (i.e. which lab), and on the final running length of the movie. This step is necessary to get normal theatrical release prints for distribution and exhibition on film (......unless the production is just releasing on video tape, or it is for television broadcast only).

What happens is that an optical print needs to be made of your entire movie. Using an optical printer, the lab takes the Super 35mm image frame by frame, blows it up a little bit, and then squeezes it anamorphically to make the final printing master (also similar to an Inter Positive [IP] or Inter Negative [IN], but optically derived) . So it is just like a giant, or super long optical. And as we know, opticals are expensive ..... especially big ones like this i.e. it costs the approximately US$60,000 to US$90,000 mentioned above.

After this step, the final film prints look exactly the same as if they were shot in the true anamorphic format in the first place. So for projection in the cinema, everything is the same again. It is just that the path to get there is different. There are two main ways to get anamorphic prints ....... (1) shooting with anamorphic lenses, or (2) converting from a "flat" or spherical Super 35mm original negative. As I will explain in more detail below, both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.

As a matter of interest, it is the same problem with ALL the so called "Super" formats (like Super 16, Super Techniscope, Super 35 - 3 perf etc.). And also the same with 24p High Definition, or any other system where you shoot in one format that later has to be converted to another format for release. All the advantages of the "Super formats" are at the shooting stage, and all the disadvantages tend to come later in post, or in the final lab work (especially in terms of the overall cost).

Both approaches have their pros and cons, which I will try to summarize below in point form. So here is a short summary that compares Super 35 and 35mm Anamorphic production.

Advantages of shooting Super 35mm:

(1) Much wider choice of lenses (especially for zoom-lens options).
(2) Lenses are usually smaller and lighter
(3) Much faster lenses available i.e. you can shoot in lower light with higher quality
(3) More Depth of Field (but this is either an advantage or disadvantage depending on your point of view)

Basically, Super 35 tends to make life easier and more convenient for the D.P., but it can also make the cinematography better for certain types of movies too. And it may give the director more options as well.

Disadvantages of shooting Super 35mm:

(1) Very expensive conversion to make the final prints (an extra US$60,000 to US$90,000 approximately)
(2) Lower overall image quality, because of the smaller negative area of the image
(3) The optical conversion step adds grain and contrast to the final printing master and film prints

So the disadvantages tend to come in the final post work, and especially the extra expenses involved (i.e. the extra US$60,000 to US$90,000 approximately)

Advantages of shooting 35mm Anamorphic:

(1) Largest image negative area of any 35mm format (biggest possible on a 35mm frame apart from horizontal VistaVision)
(2) Significantly less expensive in terms of the overall budget (save US$60,000 to US$90,000 approximately)
(4) Less Depth of Field (but this is either an advantage or disadvantage depending on your point of view)
(5) No additional costs or steps to make the final prints
(6) Entire process very similar, and mostly the same as standard 35mm production

Disadvantages of shooting 35mm Anamorphic:

(1) Much narrower choice of lens options (and zooms are not very practical because they are too slow, usually around T4.5 or greater)
(2) Lenses are usually physically larger and heavier
(4) Lenses are slower (T2.2 or greater) so the quality is compromised a little bit in very, very low light situations.
(5) Need a special de-squeezing viewfinder on the camera
(6) The lens options for Steadicam work can be very restricted because of the heavier lenses

Personally, I tend to gravitate towards the anamorphic approach myself. I love the higher image quality of anamorphic, especially in terms of less grainy release prints. This is because the anamorphic format has the largest possible image area of any 35mm (vertically transported) format. I find that simple fact alone to be very important. So for me personally, I'd rather shoot with anamorphic lenses, and cope with the slight disadvantages of bigger, heavier and slightly slower lenses on the set.

I also like to work with less Depth-of-Field. Compared to spherical cinematography, anamorphic lenses have less Depth-of-Field, not in fact, but in its practical application. But this is either an advantage or disadvantage depending on your point of view. I actually prefer the shallower Depth-of-Field inherent with anamorphic lenses. I try to use the shallower Depth-of-Field artistically to enhance or embellish the images. I try and incorporate that from a dramatic or artistic point of view. In short, I try to make it my friend, rather than my foe.

Of course, there can be reasons to shoot spherical Super 35 for certain types of productions, but Super 35 always comes with a very big price tag. Unless the type of production really calls for physically smaller and lighter lenses, then Super 35mm tends to be a bit of a luxury. Same thing if you really need fast lenses, or want to shoot with zoom lenses. But again it costs more in the final analysis. And same if you need a lot of Depth of Field for whatever reason, and so on. But ultimately, the production will have to pay a large amount of money for the relative "luxury" of shooting Super 35.

If a production can afford the extra expense of shooting Super 35mm, then that may very well be appropriate for the type of production envisaged. Many Hollywood D.P.'s chose this route. It is normally best suited for very high-budget productions where money isn't really an issue. But for medium to lower budget films, I think this extra money is better spent elsewhere. I think it is better to invest it in improving the overall "production value" or "look" of the movie. My feeling is that it is better to invest this extra large slab of money in improving overall "production value" of the movie i.e. by redirecting the extra US$60,000 to US$90,000 approximately. It is better to get it up there on the screen if possible.

If you do end up choosing the true anamorphic process, here is a little more detail about practical production issues. But first, let me assure you that for most steps in the overall production process, anamorphic production is very similar to normal 35mm production, both on the set, and also in post production. But if considering true anamorphic production, then here are some additional points to take into consideration:

(1) Rental of anamorphic lenses usually cost a little more compared to normal lenses (but this relatively small difference may be absorbed in a discounted camera/lens package-deal perhaps).

(2) A special de-squeezing viewfinder is required, and this is an additional item to rent with the camera package.

(3) A larger camera gate is required. This is not normally a problem with newer cameras, but it can be a difficulty for some older models of cameras however. The camera aperature needs to be 18.6mm high x 22mm wide, or larger. This is equivalent to 0.732 inches high x 0.866 inches wide e.g. Arriflex Format Mask (or gate): K5.42388.0

(4) Focus pulling tends to be a little more critical, and requires a skilled person.

(5) The location manager and the production designer must take into consideration the wider frame (although there is a big advantage in that the sets don't need to be as high comparatively speaking).

(6) You need a projector with an anamorphic projection lens for screening rushes or dailies. But most 35mm projectors have this type of lens as standard equipment.

(7) The telecine must be anamorphic-capable for making video copies, which will be later digitize for loading into a non-linear editing computer like an Avid etc. But most telecine facilities should be able to handle anamorphic without any problems.

(8) Negative matching, is more critical and precise, because of the very narrow frame line between individual frames. This is worth double checking with local professionals to make sure this is no problem for them.

(9) Final lab work is virtually identical. The sound side of things (i.e. sound negative - digital or analog) also works just the same.

(10) Titles need to be shot with an anamorphic lens.

(11) Finally, for theatrical release, cinemas need an anamorphic projection lens, but this has always been very standard equipment worldwide. In fact, it is probably the most universal of all 35mm projection formats, across the entire world.

In summary, there is not much to worry about when shooting anamorphic. I'd definitely check about the negative-matching issue, as negative matchers in your location may not have experience with conforming anamorphic negative perhaps? I'd also double check with your lab, in case they have any special issues or advise. Also with the telecine company to make sure they can make suitable "letterboxed" video copies. But this is not normally a problem for most facilities.

Finally, you may be interested to read my compilation called "CinemaScope - A Concise History" It explains where the anamorphic format came from, and how it rose to prominence. I think you will find it interesting reading if you want to know more about the history, origins and overwhelming success of the anamorphic format (although be forewarned, it has a lot of historical and technical detail).

Anyway, good luck with your preparations for your wide-screen production!!!!!

Peter Gray
(near Los Angeles)
P.O. Box 5132
Pine Mountain Club, CA 93222
United States of America
telephone: +1(661) 242-1234

dp@petergray.org