Anamorphic vs Super 35

[Drain Bamage]

Which do you generally prefer the look of?

For those that don't know, Anamorphic is when a conversion lens is used so that the entire 35mm negative can be used for a 2.4:1 widescreen image. It generally leads to finer grain and greater detail. You also get those cool streaky lens flares seen often in JJ Abrams and Michael Bay movies which are a by product of the de-squeezing done to get the full frame negative image back to widescreen. The main tradeoff is it has a bunch of focusing issues - you can't get as close with anamorphic lenses and there is also focus "fall off" on the sides of the image even when the center is in perfect focus. So close ups on faces can be a challenge because you often need to decide whether you want the nose or someones eyes to be in focus. The lenses are also heavy as fuck so can be difficult to use in handheld and steadicam work (unless you're built like Dean Cundey haha).

Movies with the prototypical anamorphic look:
Halloween
Escape From New York
There Will Be Blood
Transformers
Star Trek (2009)
Django Unchained
Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Close Encounters of the Third Kind showing prototypical anamorphic lens flares and focus fall off (note how Richard Dreyfuss' hair begins to go out of focus at the top)

Super 35 is the other means of getting widescreen images on a 35mm negative. Instead of using the whole negative like anamorphic it is a crop format that uses part of the negative typically used for optical soundtrack as part of the image area and is typically either 3-perf (what most bigger budget movies use) or 2-perf, which is basically saying how much film you want to use per frame. You can use 2-perf to save on film or if you want that grainer verite look. Super 35 tends to be grainier than anamorphic (especially 2-perf) but the positives are the spherical lenses are faster (no conversion lens needed) so you can shoot in less light, the lenses are also lighter which is good for steadicam work, and they are easier to focus and can focus closer to the subject. People tend to use Super 35 when they want a grainier look or a more "personal" look.

Movies with the prototypical Super 35 look:
American Graffiti (2-perf)
Se7en
Fight Club
Minority Report
Munich
No Country For Old Men
Watchmen

Spherical lenses like those used in Fight Club allow handheld shooting in natural light and note the lack of lens flares

 

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

Lol didnt read

 

[Drain Bamage]

 

[MMA since 1993]

gotten to/triggered

 

[Jack Stevonovich]

it depends. I hate anamorphic lightflares but sometimes the format is so cinematic in that extra kind of way.

I think I like super 35 better though

 

[TheLinguist]

Actually a decent thread.

Super 35 for me just because anamorphic has been over used in recent films.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

You could probably argue Anamorphic is the "80's look" and Super 35 is the "90's look".

Anamorphic does I think have quite a strong association with sci fi/horror as well, the lens flairs, the focus dropoff, etc tends to bring to mind Close Encounters, Blade Runner, etc plus a lot of those films were done in dark conditions were keeping grain more controlled was important. I think you can see why something like Lord of the Rings was shot in super 35 wanting to avoid that kind of look.

 

[Drain Bamage]

Actually a decent thread.

Super 35 for me just because anamorphic has been over used in recent films.

I love the grain of Super

 

[Drain Bamage]

You could probably argue Anamorphic is the "80's look" and Super 35 is the "90's look".

Anamorphic does I think have quite a strong association with sci fi/horror as well, the lens flairs, the focus dropoff, etc tends to bring to mind Close Encounters, Blade Runner, etc plus a lot of those films were done in dark conditions were keeping grain more controlled was important. I think you can see why something like Lord of the Rings was shot in super 35 wanting to avoid that kind of look.

Super tends to be easier to work with in CGI heavy films because you don't need to emulate as many lens artifacts. It's a "flatter" image so it's easier to match the CGI to the live action. Another reason why I respect guys like Bay and Abrams because anamorphic is definitely the harder format to work with in that regard.

That being said I think there are good examples of both formats being used in most genres. Anamorphic feels more "epic" to me because the artifacts add depth to the image whereas Super 35 feels a little more personal and verite.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

I think there are good examples of both formats being used in most genres. Anamorphic feels more "epic" to me because the artifacts add depth to the image whereas Super 35 feels a little more personal and verite.

Films that play around with focus and lighting effects I think tends to benefit from Anamorphic were as with something like LOTR whilst its "epic" theres also quite a strong effort to ground it with less narrow focus outside of closeups and fewer flare effects.

 

[TheLinguist]

I love the grain of Super

Agreed

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Part of the reason super 35 became more popular though was actually that improvements in film stock ment that it could be used with less grain noticeable.

 

[Drain Bamage]

Part of the reason super 35 became more popular though was actually that improvements in film stock ment that it could be used with less grain noticeable.

Finer grain film stock and the use of digital intermediates means less grain in both Super and Anamorphic. Although most people using film nowadays would want the grain I think.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Finer grain film stock and the use of digital intermediates means less grain in both Super and Anamorphic. Although most people using film nowadays would want the grain I think.

It effected both but it ment that super 35mm could be used and avoid a certain level of grain which you would have needed to used Anamorphic for previously.

Certainly I think you've seen a shift in the way grain is viewed more recently with home releases, the idea from the 90's and 00's of trying to remove it has declined in favour of mastering that keeps it(and more detail with it), especially on third party labels like Criterion, Studiochannel, Arrow, Indictator, etc.

 

[Drain Bamage]

It effected both but it ment that super 35mm could be used and avoid a certain level of grain which you would have needed to used Anamorphic for previously.

Certainly I think you've seen a shift in the way grain is viewed more recently with home releases, the idea from the 90's and 00's of trying to remove it has declined in favour of mastering that keeps it(and more detail with it), especially on third party labels like Criterion, Studiochannel, Arrow, Indictator, etc.

It actually affected anamorphic more because the desqueezing effect being done optically meant using a 2nd generation of film stock for your workprint whereas the entire process can be done digitally now.

 

[NoGoodNamesLeft]