Anamorphic vs. Super 35

What's the difference between anamorphic and Super 35? I know the former is full frame and Super 35 uses extra space with the absence of a audio track. Many have a preference it seems, like how Deakins chose to shoot on Super 35 for TRUE GRIT instead of anamorphic, which the Coens were considering before he convinced them otherwise. Is there much of an aesthetic difference, and what are the advantages?

Python wrote:

What's the difference between anamorphic and Super 35? I know the former is full frame and Super 35 uses extra space with the absence of a audio track. Many have a preference it seems, like how Deakins chose to shoot on Super 35 for TRUE GRIT instead of anamorphic, which the Coens were considering before he convinced them otherwise. Is there much of an aesthetic difference, and what are the advantages?

If you can think of a film frame as a television screen, anamorphic uses a special lens or adapter to squeeze a wider image into a narrower frame.  Super 35 uses standard lenses and blocks out the unused portion of the image when displayed.



Anamorphic technically gives you more detail (since it's using more film), but the difference has gotten smaller as film stocks have gotten sharper. Anamorphic also has some distinctive visual artifacts (oval bokeh and the JJ Abrams Lens Flare), but I hear the lenses are tougher to work with.

Yeah I'm aware of the method, I just want to understand why one would prefer over the other especially now that they aren't too dissimilar with today's film stocks. Like Deakins preferring standard lens over anamorphic because of some technical reason, thing is I'm not so savvy about the technical specs beyond basic descriptions, what the pros and cons are for professionals. There only seem to be a few filmmakers today that still prefer anamorphic such as Nolan and Abrams, while almost everyone else is aiming for 2:35 use Super35 instead.

It's probably because the DI/VFX work with anamorphic takes much longer. Deadlines are getting increasingly tighter.

True, as far as deadlines go I can see that. Makes sense why Nolan's films were shot much earlier and had more than enough time in post, while Bond's has lately been more constricted. That might factor in him never getting the Bond gig too, as he prefers not only using anamorphic but using color dye as opposed to DI.

This might be a relevant thread:

http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1556