Have been working on this demo, that will help demonstrate how the different Cinematographic processes impacts the grain.

So first of all, I have created a simultated 35mm frame with alot of grain.

2048*1535 (the program couldnt go higher, but since everything is equal, this works aswell)

The frame has then been cropped for the 3 standard formats.

CYAN = Super35mm (2,35:1) GREEN = Anamorphic 35mm (2,35:1) and RED = Widescreen 35mm (1,85:1)



This gives us the different frames.

Super 35mm (2048*856)
http://www.avsxtest.eu.md/Grain/S35.png

Anamorphic 35mm (1806*1530)
http://www.avsxtest.eu.md/Grain/A35.png

Widescreen 35mm (1806*976)
http://www.avsxtest.eu.md/Grain/W35.png

Then will the frames be reformated into a HD frame (1920*1080)

Super35
http://www.avsxtest.eu.md/Grain/S35-1080P(B).png

Anamorphic35
http://www.avsxtest.eu.md/Grain/A35-1080P(b).png

Widescreen35
http://www.avsxtest.eu.md/Grain/W35-1080P(b).png

And here we see how the same filmstock produced different grainstructure.

That looks nothing like film grain.

That looks nothing like film grain.

Just simulated to show how it comes out different between the formats. Since the 3 frames come from the same "stock".

Not that its accurate shows filmgrain.


But you do agree that the 3 processes impact grain the exact same way, as it does in my demo?

Just simulated to show how it comes out different between the formats. Since the 3 frames come from the same "stock".

Not that its accurate shows filmgrain.



http://images.avsforum.com/avs-images/attach/jpg.gif

Ah forget it I can't get it to stand up to the jpegging.

Ah forget it I can't get it to stand up to the jpegging.

Its OK since I need an exaggerated frame to make
it easy to see the result.

Thanks MovieSwede. So which filming process contains more grain and what are the side effects of judiciously removing the grain or filtering the image from the respective formats ?

Thanks MovieSwede. So which filming process contains more grain and what are the side effects of judiciously removing the grain or filtering the image from the respective formats ?

They all contain the same grain. Its what happens to the grain after its been transferred the desired aspect ratio.

Its an alright demonstration I suppose but it doesn't really tell you anything about grain.

Film Grain, Resolution and Fundamental Film Particles

http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf

The images show that using the same film stock, flat 35 has more grain than Super-35 which has more grain than anamorhpic 35, which makes perfect sense.

I have two or three questions that have always bugged me. Does a 2k scan for all three 35mm formats have the same pixel size? I would've thought the scanner might use a smaller pixels for flat-35 and anamorphic 35mm, to avoid resolution loss due to upscaling the image in the process of generating the 2k digital intermediate.

When generating the 2k digital cinema image and the 1920x1080 blu-ray image, is a border masked out to match the difference between the camera aperture and projector aperture when using traditional 35mm film? Is the border the difference between 1920 pixels in the blu-ray and the 2048 pixels in the DI?

And one side comment, super-35 can use finer grained lower speed film than anamorphic-35 since the flat lenses are one or two stops faster. Some Super-35 are shot with 50 speed film, which is unheard for anamorphic 35.

MovieSwede,

Did you remove the images? There are none to be viewed?

I have two or three questions that have always bugged me. Does a 2k scan for all three 35mm formats have the same pixel size? I would've thought the scanner might use a smaller pixels for flat-35 and anamorphic 35mm, to avoid resolution loss due to upscaling the image in the process of generating the 2k digital intermediate..

A 2k scan is 2048x1556 for a fullap 35mm film frame: sometimes its cropped to save data: for academy relative to fullap, its been a while since I've seen this though, mostly its 2048x1556 or 2048x1152 (3 perf) been years since I saw 1828x1556 for academy film frame.


When generating the 2k digital cinema image and the 1920x1080 blu-ray image, is a border masked out to match the difference between the camera aperture and projector aperture when using traditional 35mm film? Is the border the difference between 1920 pixels in the blu-ray and the 2048 pixels in the DI?

Not too sure what you are asking here. They don't just lop off pixels to get 2048 down to 1920 if thats what you mean.


And one side comment, super-35 can use finer grained lower speed film than anamorphic-35 since the flat lenses are one or two stops faster. Some Super-35 are shot with 50 speed film, which is unheard for anamorphic 35.

Thats not really true. Scope lense tend not to be as fast as spherical ones but thats not the same as saying they are restricted to faster stocks; sometyimes yes sometimes no. The latest fast stocks from kodak have amazing grain. The 500 looks like 100 from less than 10 years ago, its really an amazing advancement in the last few years.

Film Grain, Resolution and Fundamental Film Particles
http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf

Essential reading. Great link.

A 2k scan is 2048x1556 for a fullap 35mm film frame: sometimes its cropped to save data: for academy relative to fullap, its been a while since I've seen this though, mostly its 2048x1556 or 2048x1152 (3 perf) been years since I saw 1828x1556 for academy film frame.

Not too sure what you are asking here. They don't just lop off pixels to get 2048 down to 1920 if thats what you mean.
My question is about the difference between the camera aperture and the picture used. The 2048 pixel scan is across the entire 0.98"=24.9mm camera aperture. Do all 2048 pixels get put onto the blu-ray release, or the digital cinema release? Wikipedia makes it sound like the entire 24.9mm width for Super-35 is not visible in the theater.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35mm
Super 35 mm film
* camera aperture: 0.980" by 0.735"
* picture used (35 mm anamorphic): 0.945 in (24.00 mm) by 0.394 in
* picture used (35 mm flat 1.85): 0.945 in (24.00 mm) by 0.511 in (12.97 mm)
35 mm anamorphic
* 2.39:1 aspect ratio, from a 1.19:1 frame with a 2× horizontal squeeze
* camera aperture: 0.866 in (22.00 mm) by 0.732 in (18.59 mm)
* projector aperture: 0.825 in (20.96 mm) by 0.690 in (17.53 mm)


Thats not really true. Scope lense tend not to be as fast as spherical ones but thats not the same as saying they are restricted to faster stocks; sometyimes yes sometimes no. The latest fast stocks from kodak have amazing grain. The 500 looks like 100 from less than 10 years ago, its really an amazing advancement in the last few years.
Yeah, 500 looks great. But Super-35 low speed film is better. Daylight scenes in Pirates of the Caribbean shot on Eastman EXR 50D look better, as do the daylight scenes in Rescue Dawn shot in Fuji Super F-64.

By comparison, anamorphic 35mm daylight films usually use 200 or 250 speed films, like I am Legend, or Flags of our Fathers. I would argue that Super-35 is slightly higher quality than anamorphic 35 perhaps because Super-35 can use slower film and because flat lenses are sharper than anamorphic lenses, especially wide open.

My question is about the difference between the camera aperture and the picture used. The 2048 pixel scan is across the entire 0.98"=24.9mm camera aperture. Do all 2048 pixels get put onto the blu-ray release, or the digital cinema release? Wikipedia makes it sound like the entire 24.9mm width for Super-35 is not visible in the theater.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35mm
Super 35 mm film
* camera aperture: 0.980" by 0.735"
* picture used (35 mm anamorphic): 0.945 in (24.00 mm) by 0.394 in
* picture used (35 mm flat 1.85): 0.945 in (24.00 mm) by 0.511 in (12.97 mm)
35 mm anamorphic
* 2.39:1 aspect ratio, from a 1.19:1 frame with a 2× horizontal squeeze
* camera aperture: 0.866 in (22.00 mm) by 0.732 in (18.59 mm)
* projector aperture: 0.825 in (20.96 mm) by 0.690 in (17.53 mm)


Yeah, 500 looks great. But Super-35 low speed film is better. Daylight scenes in Pirates of the Caribbean shot on Eastman EXR 50D look better, as do the daylight scenes in Rescue Dawn shot in Fuji Super F-64.

By comparison, anamorphic 35mm daylight films usually use 200 or 250 speed films, like I am Legend, or Flags of our Fathers. I would argue that Super-35 is slightly higher quality than anamorphic 35 perhaps because Super-35 can use slower film and because flat lenses are sharper than anamorphic lenses, especially wide open.


You lose a tiny bit due to things like vignetting but its not the case that its cropped to 1920.

I've just checked the lineup leader for a super35 film I'm currently working on and its 2008x835 give or take a pixel.

You often see arguments on here for or against , scope vs Super35. I say its 6 of one half dozen of the other. There are things scope does well and things Super35 does well. Scope is getting rare these days to be honest. Super35 is easier to work with from my perspective: scope can give you frankly nightmarish scenarios.

MovieSwede,

Did you remove the images? There are none to be viewed?

Problem with hosting the files, working on it.

You lose a tiny bit due to things like vignetting but its not the case that its cropped to 1920.
.
I would prefer cropping if the framing were such that nothing relevant gets cropped.

I would prefer cropping if the framing were such that nothing relevant gets cropped.

I don't see knocking 64 pixels off either side as being a big deal myself. Certainly compared with the softening the small sub-pixel resize entails.