Home of Professional Cinematography since 1996
class="style8" 2 Perf Cameras
>Published : 30th September 2003
>In addition to my earlier posting about 2 perf cameras, is there anyone out there who has used one or is using them and if so, what are your views?
>The indie film "Slaughter Rule" was shot in the 2-perf Multivision-235 format.
>The short story is that when 2-perf Techniscope came out, color duplicating stocks were not good enough to do a decent blow-up to 35mm 4-perf CinemaScope so Technicolor offered a deal to people using that format (which Technicolor Italia introduced in 1962) that it could be blown-up directly from the 2-perf Eastmancolor negative to three 4-perf 35mm CinemaScope B&W positive "matrices", which then were used to make dye transfer prints, thus saving a generation and creating very nice release prints. When Technicolor killed off dye transfer printing in the mid 1970's, it effectively killed off the Techniscope format (plus that was the era of new quiet sync-sound cameras like the Panaflex and the Arri-BL and none of them did 2-perf.)
>In 1984, John Alcott developed the Super-35 format for "Greystoke", which he called "Super Techniscope" (although he had really re-invented "SuperScope-235".)
>The main impediment to 2-perf is the lack of modern cameras (most old 2-perf equipment are Eclair Cameflexes and Arri-2C's). Multivision uses a modified Moviecam. 3-perf has become more popular as an alternative to 4-perf and has some advantages in terms of framing flexibility for theatrical and TV, while 2-perf creates a natural 2.66 Full Aperture which means that it has to be panned & scanned for non-letterboxed TV just like scope photography.
>2-perf was used by James Cameron to shoot the real "Titanic" wreck for the movie "Titanic" and was then digitally converted to 4-perf Super-35 (with a hard matte.) The advantage was the longer running times possible on the camera loads.
Cinematographer / L.A.
>Chris Maris wrote :
class="style9">>In addition to my earlier posting about 2 perf cameras, is there anyone >out there who has used of is using them and if so, what are your views?
>Was popular around the late 1950's called Techniscope if I don't disremember. Shot a few features in Indonesia for Run Run Shaw, Hong Kong based, you know, early Kung Fu movies on a modified Arri, mostly about Indonesians slashing up Japanese and Dutch.
>Saved a good deal of money, but editing was a bitch as there was no room for a splice. I suspect that must've been the start of A-B neg cutting. Again I sort of recall it was Gaumont-Kalee who proposed building 2 perf projectors for the Far East. You see, release prints had to be 4 perf, so that was a waste, and optical blowup became very expensive, leading to its demise. But Hollywood put a stop to that. Indonesia would then be in the same boat as Uzbekistan with its 32mm, or very early Canada with 28mm. NO MORE DORIS DAY!!!!
>So I asked Google, found this :
>On a specialized optical printer, Technicolor added a 2 x 1 anamorphic squeeze and, at the same time, optically 'blew up' the half-frame image to the full, 4 perf., anamorphic format. It could then be projected in the same way as regular CinemaScope/anamorphic films in virtually any cinema around the world. Despite this 50% enlargement of the image, Techniscope was usually clearer and sharper than CinemaScope at the time. It was ironic that it performed better than the system it tried to emulate. While the laboratory work was slightly more expensive than normal, production costs in film stock were cut in half. And there were further savings by avoiding the need to hire the more expensive anamorphic camera lenses.
>Oh yes, the Dutch had a good idea HOW to make inexpensive anamorphic type lenses. A company called "Oude Delft" made a contraption from 2 mirrors, one concave, one convex, hung in front of an ordinary lens.
>You'll be surprised to learn these movies were shot 2 perf...
>The Ipcress File (United Artists 1965)
Fistful of Dollars (United Artists 1967)
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (United Artists 1967)
Once Upon a Time in the West (Paramount 1969)
American Graffiti (Universal 1973)
>In answer to your query, better stick with 35mm or if you want to save money, not only in neg stock but ease of shooting, smaller package etc, use Super 16. Everything is still in place for its use and you don't have to re-invent the wheel.
>Robert Rouveroy csc
The Hague, Holland
>I plan to live forever. So far, so good.
>Robert Rouveroy wrote :
>>…better stick with 35mm or if you want to save money, not only in neg >stock but ease of shooting, smaller package etc, use Super 16.
Well normally I would but the Swedish production company had there own adapted Kino cameras and wanted to shoot 2 perf. I think the idea was to get the best quality possible on a widescreen format to be TK'd and graded for DVD release. If the project then gets to go to the cinema, a blowup from the digital master would be done as normal. The TK house in Denmark is apparently geared up to TK 2 perf.
class="style9">>…better stick with 35mm or if you want to save money, not only in neg >stock but ease of shooting, smaller package etc, use Super 16.
>I believe the Multivision235 site has a chart that illustrates how 2-perf offers a vastly larger neg. area in 2.35 or 1.85 when compared to Super-16. But I certainly agree that S-16 would be cheaper and far easier to work with, plus it's so much more easily available.
>I've used 2-perf on several music videos and shorts. I've even used it as a back up camera when shooting 4 perf 1.85
>The cameras that have been converted to 2 perf are mostly Arri-2Cs and Eclair Cameflexes, although Multivision in Australia has a BL-4 and Moviecam converted, perhaps even a 535B.
>There is no learning curve with 2-perf, no change in the modus operandi of filming, and there's almost twice as much negative real estate than super-16, but with half the price of film stock and processing of 4-perf 35mm.
>A CML'er recently shot a feature in Alberta using 2 perf, and he was feature in an issue of Kodak's In Camera magazine. The camera came from Multivision. Hmmm, what was his name...?
>Why isn't it more popular? Well, perhaps if a cutting edge rental house on this continent decided to convert a couple of their cameras and pushed them, maybe the tide will turn (are you listening, Denny Clairmont?)
>Perhaps with al the hype surrounding the different types of high definition video out there, maybe rental houses are nervous about investing in a 'new' 35mm format.
>With Titanic, Panavision converted a couple of Arri 2-C magazines with 200' mags to 2-perf, for shooting the actual submerged ship. This way they could fit the camera in the submarine housing and get four minutes out of it rather than two.
>Seems like a 2 perf morning on the CML. The format is very much alive and well. At present we have three 100 minute features in production, two of which are in post and another couple are due to start shooting. There are also shoots happening in the UK and Germany in the next few months. There are now over ten cameras in the fleet, mostly Moviecam's and Arri BL's, up to 4S, yes even a couple of trusty 2C's and a Cameflex is there.
>The students love em, or should I say they love shooting BIGGER pictures.
Movielab P/L & Multivision 235 P/L
>Kelvin Crumplin wrote :
class="style9">>There are now over ten cameras in the fleet, mostly Moviecam's and Arri >BL's, up to 4S, yes even a couple of trusty 2C's and a Cameflex is there.
>If you'd like a 2 perf Mitchell, let me know...I know of one that's available.
>Jeff "has enough Mitchell’s already" Kreines