Home of Professional Cinematography since 1996
>I'm in pre-production for my next feature and Iâ€™m seriously thinking about shooting in 2-perf. First of all there is only a tv release, but I love the option for theatrical release...
>I'm looking for any information about camera equipment, contact information an post production, esp. in Europe.
>Lars R. Liebold
EU based (MUC, Germany)
>Lars R. Liebold wrote :
class="Paragraph">>I'm in pre-production for my next feature and I'm seriously thinking about >shooting in 2-perf.
>The only people punting a 2-perf system that I've come across are :
>If you shoot 3-perf Super35 (either 1:2.35 or 1:1.85) there's a lot more options available in terms of camera gear in Europe - both Aaton and Arri have plenty of 3-perf converted bodies.
>Tom Townend writes :
>>The only people punting a 2-perf system that I've come across are : http://www.multivision235.com.au/
>Check out www.solidentertainment.se in Malmoe Sweden, a German feature was recently shot with their 2 perf Kinor/Lomo packages, that can be an option.
>JM FerriÃ¨re, Cinematographer/Paris.
>Speaking of 2-perf, check out the recent re-release of THX-1138 on DVD, George Lucas' first feature. Shot in the uncompleted rapid transit tunnels in the San Francisco Bay Area, it was the last Techniscope picture Technicolor made using their 3-strip B&W matrices. Shot on location, mostly, with 5247, if memory serves. I was a focus puller. Dave Myers, who just passed on, was DP with Al Kihn.
>The film is stunning because of the pretty slow film and the wizards at Technicolor. (All those Techniscope machines are in Italy and China, I think). But, I love the format (just don't get a hair, which the Eclair CM3s never did) and wish it had survived.
>Stephen Lighthill, ASC
class="Paragraph">>Speaking of 2-perf, check out the recent re-release of THX-1138 on >DVD, George Lucas' first feature.
>We are very pleased to have done the HD restoration on THX 1138.
Lowry Digital Images
>Stephen Lighthill, ASC writes :
class="Paragraph">>But, I love the format and wish it had survived.
>I recall an article in the ASC magazine (2000) that a laboratory/rental house in Sidney is promoting Techniscope as an alternative to S-16. Additionally a couple of years ago I discussed the issue with the night shift manager of the Ascent Media Laboratory, Paul Murray, who used to work for Technicolor, back when the format was popular. He claims that he would be able to set the labs printers to deal with Techniscope. Given todayâ€™s fine grain stocks it would be nice if the format could be revived.
Cinematographer, Los Angeles
class="Paragraph">>Given todayâ€™s fine grain stocks it would be nice if the format could be >revived.
>Consider it revived and running. I have just completed a feature with 2-perf 35mm and this was my second 2-perf feature and there have been many others and several in production.
>Its ideal format is 2.35 but can it can still be effective in 1.85. The cut for 4x3 TV is radical as there is no negative top and bottom to expand into but presently in Australia all broadcasters require 16x9 masters and most DVD production is at least 16x9. The new Vision stocks go a long way to make up for a smaller negative area. I shot most of the last picture with 5218 and grain was not an issue.
>The results are way better than S16 and the "compromises" from 4 perf are only minor. If your budget is tight your stock and process requirements will be halved. Magazine changes are also halved saving production time.
>Couple of things to watch out for are hairs in the gate. You are back in 16mm territory with dirt and hairs. You must be vigilante. The other issue is flare. There is almost no frameline and I have found bright sources close to the frameline can flare. This is probably gate flare and it can be a pain.
>If you believe you will need a print 2-perf is an ideal candidate for a DI but an optical path can be perused via Movielab http://www.multivision235.com.au/ Also telecine choice can be limited but at least in Sydney a couple of the chains can deal with 2 perf.
>If you have a big budget 4 perf is the way to go but if you are struggling with S16 or HD budgets 2 perf can be a cost effective way of getting that yet to be beaten 35mm image quality.
>Wasn't Reds shot 2-perf ?
class="Paragraph">>Consider it revived and running. I have just completed a feature with 2->perf 35mm and this was my second 2-perf feature and there have been >many others and several in production
>I also have long considered Techniscope (aka 2-perf) to be an ideal format for many purposes.
>I write software for a living, so I am not closely connected to the daily changes that are going on in the world of film production, although I try to keep up via list servers such as CML and attending the local SMPTE meetings, etc.
>My question to the CML group is: In the Los Angeles, California area what labs, post houses, DI faculties (if any) are "set-up" to handle 2-perf? What have been your experiences with this format?
>Much appreciate any info
class="Paragraph">>We are very pleased to have done the HD restoration on THX 1138.
>I have been a big fan of yours since I saw your first tape -> film transfers at Image Transform (early 1970's)
>To the best of my knowledge, THX 1138 (theatrical version) was shot on 5254, much of it pushed 1 stop.
>I know that you are extremely busy but could you expand on what some of the issues were doing this restoration? Where the original negatives in good shape? Did the producers A-B roll the neg? What about I/P's and cut-in opticals? (if any). Any advice for those shooting new material today on 2-perf? Would you even recommend the format?
>Thanks for your time.