>Anyone know if you can shoot 1.85 and 2.35:1 aspect ratios at the same time? I have a job where they want both ratios delivered and trying to figure out if I need to shoot it twice or can I compromise.....
>Shure you can. All you have to do is shoot Super 35. You can then have all formats by optically cropping the appropriate part of the image.
>DoP Athens Greece
>You can try getting a ground glass with common top lines. That way, in 1.85, you'll just have some extra space on the bottom.
>Shooting everything twice doesn't seem like a very good answer.
>Too bad you have to do that. I don't know that you can do both well, and the project will eventually get released in whatever format you didn't frame for.
>-Art Adams, S.O.C.
>Director of Photography
>I would shoot super 35 using .925 by .394 as my ground glass markings and super 1.85 using .925 by .500 for ground glass drawings. Move the 1.85 down to match the 2.35 top line and you will have some extra image on the bottom of the picture for the 1.85. Have your neg tranfered on a Phillips Spirit to digital and edit on a Avid. After editing have the final edit put onto intermidate film using a Arri Laser for your 2.35 intermediate and then again for your 1.85. The 2.35 will have to be squised and uncentered. The 1.85 will have to be reduced and uncentered. These things can be done electronicly.This way you get good results without having an optical.
>Thanks so much for the information on my aspect ratio question. Much appreciated. That's essentially what my take on it was. I guess the producers are not making up their minds on the aspect ratio because this is a logo which will be attached to all sorts of fims that they produce and they want the ability to use it on everything.
>How does it work if I shoot Super-35 (and with 1:85 in mind) ? Do I have to go through an optical process to have the neg made "anamorphic", ie squeezed?
>And I've never shot with the Super 35 ground glass. Does that put your center of frame in a different spot than it would normally be for the 1:85 aspect ratio? I would guess that it's truly center of full frame going left to right whereas 1:85 would put it off-center to the right as you look through.
>By the way, I'm shooting animation with a Nikon-based Mitchell GC camera. Don't think I really have the option of shooting with truly anamorphic lenses without getting a new mount. Not aware of any lenses with a nikon base that are anamorphic.
>How does it work if I shoot Super-35 (and with 1:85 in mind) ? Do I have to go >through an optical process to have the neg made "anamorphic", ie squeezed?
>You can either get to the anamorphic neg via an optical or, as Denny suggested, if you have scanned the original neg, you can film it out on intermediate stock as a squeezed neg.
>Does that put your center of frame in a different spot than it would normally be for the >1:85 aspect ratio?
>Yes, as you look through the eyepiece, the crosshairs for Super 35 (optical center) are a few thou to the left of where they are for Academy center. It is not an aspect ratio issue, it is a function of shifting the axis of the lens.
>Mark H. Weingartner
>I hope I made it clear that I was suggesting the 1.85 be a enlarged 1.85 using the full width of the neg. The image composed for would be .925X.500 instead of the usuall .825X.446. The only reason I suggested this is because of the Super 35 that would become anamorphic later that was also wanted. The formats could share common tops.