Talk:Super 35

message: Is it possible to use anamorphic lenses with Super 35mm film; to take advantage of the rest of the negative space from the film? It seems like an option; not sure why no one has thought about it. Is it possible? If so, why has no one used both?
:The problem is not so much the shooting as the projection - most theatres can only accommodate 1.85 and normal anamorphic (2.39). You'd also have to re-center your lenses and wouldn't have an optical soundtrack backup. A bit of a pain. Plus, the whole reason why Super 35 is often used is in order to avoid certain disadvantages of anamorphic lenses! I don't think the relatively negligable difference between 2.39 and 2.66 would be that noticeable to an audience anyway. Girolamo Savonarola 09:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could, however, utilize anamorphic Super 35 for telecine (non-printed) projects. LACameraman 01:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any guarantee that the anamorphic lenses can cover the full Super 35 area? I know that it's not a big difference, but it has been an issue in the past with older sphericals designed for Academy which had problems with early Super 35 productions. Girolamo Savonarola 02:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question. As I wrote the note above I was sure that I could think of a project or two that did Super 35 anamorphic (mostly Music Videos) - but I can't seem to confirm that. There would be a concern that the lens would cover the full negative area. Honestly - I don't know - that would totally depend on each lens.LACameraman 02:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anamorphic Super 35? 

message: With the advent of 1.78:1 television sets, 4-perf Super 35 would be obsolete.  Instead 3-perf Super 35 would be used for 1.78:1 television work instead of 2.35:1 film work.  If Super 35 films are in Blu-Ray format, they would be in widescreen only, because fullscreen version would be pillarboxed.  Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 21:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think that 3-perf isn't already used for 2.39 films? Or that it would stop? Blu-Ray isn't, to my knowledge, restricted to widescreen format either - there's no reason why it can't be used to encode 4:3 information - it's ultimately just a data system. The pillarboxing is only a factor assuming that everyone has widescreen televisions - and then they'd probably just watch their 4:3 discs in zoom mode (which I assume would come closer to restoring the original theatrical frame - although at a cost of resolution). Girolamo Savonarola 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The 2.35/2.39 misnomer issue is discussed in anamorphic format - in short, 2.35 is the old term that's been in use since the 50's, even though the spec has slightly changed. The Branagh issue should be addressed in that film's article - it has no proper context in this article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super 35 and Widescreen TVs 

message: :Any additional comments:
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
One thing to consider in using super35 is that when converting to animorphic in the post lab process or D.I. you are actually blowing up the image aproximately 20%.  If being done traditionaly in a lab on an optical printer, this will result in a "grainer" picture and loss of quality depending on the nature of the original photography. To achieve the best looking  2:39 widescreen movie, you would need it shot using traditional animorphic lenses.  The increase in capture area on the frame in super 35 is more than negated by the 20% blowup of the overall image.  If the animorphic conversion is done digitally in a D.I., the picture quality loss is not as noticeable (since you are not introducing another lens) but it still does remain a blow up of aprox. 20%.  
The highest quality super 35 format would be to shoot super35 for 1:85 aspect ratio. When this is converted to full aperture 1:85 it becomes a "reduction" of image size, thus greatly improving resolution and clarity while reducing film grain.  This format was first used on "Yentil" and has been used on a few other pictures although largely ingnored by the mainstream community.  Bmarkoe (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Some digital cameras are now being called Super 35mm. Is this yet another type of Super 35mm? I don't see it mentioned in the article. One example that I just ran across today of a Super 35mm is the Canon C500. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The OTHER Super 35mm? 

message: , starting at Tony Scott, contains an unreasonably long and unreadable list of directors and films that employed the format. It's unclear whether this is intended to be exhaustive, or what the criteria for inclusion is. If it's useful to show all these, how about converting it to table form? If not, how about just a few representative or notable examples. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it needs to be sourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMDB cites some movies in the list (I didn't check all of them) as Super 35 in their technical specs. May it be a valid source? 189.9.32.2 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  List in History section