What's new

"Apocalypse Now Redux" Framing (1 Viewer)

Aaron Reynolds

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Messages
1,715
Location
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Real Name
Aaron Reynolds
Not to stir things up too much...but the bonus material on the LD of Soderbergh's King of the Hill explains the LD's approximately 2:1 AR as the intended AR for the film.
Apparently, some theatre chain in the States had been cropping scope and flat films all to 2:1 rather than changing the screen shape between features. To present King of the Hill properly under these conditions, it was shot in Super35 to be distributed on anamorphic 35mm prints with safe area on both sides -- pretty much the scenario being described with AN, aside from the originating format. The prints were not opened up at the top or bottom, but instead distributed as 'scope prints with extra info at the sides.
Of course, I don't believe this to be the case with AN. I'm sure that it was composed for 2.2:1 for 70mm, since the 6-track mix was a big part of the film and 6-track was only available with 70mm. Storaro himself has said that the cropped AR is due to the limitations of video.
edits: clairity and grammar
[Edited last by Aaron Reynolds on November 13, 2001 at 04:09 PM]
 

Dave Koch

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
May 13, 1999
Messages
148
Personally, I think Vittorio Storaro is one of the best (if not the best) cinematographers around. He has done such wonderful things with color and light that he truly does what most menbers of the ASC claim to do ("Paint with Light.")
I also am a big advocate of WS, and presenting films the way they were intended to be seen.
So I see both sides of the arguement.
That said, I think I side with Mr. Storaro. First off, I respect his artist vision. You look at the man's work, and it is alway beautiful and inspiring. But if you look deeper at how a cinematographer works, you gain more insight into (possibly!) why he made this decision. It is common for DP's to shoot a ton of tests with their equipment before principle photography.... to see how different lenses interact, to see how the glass may color or diffuse, many different reasons. I do not know for a fact, but it figures that someone like Vittorio has probably also done an extensive amount of tests to see how different formats reproduce on a TV, and how this different format of presentation changes his original intent.
And there is something I think a lot of members of this forum have missed: the Home DVD market is not the format of presentation AN or Tucker was shot for! Film CAN be shown in a variety of formats, but home video will always be shown on something 4:3 or 16:9. There is no other way! Yes, it was shot 2.4:1.... but that was when the ultimate product was to be a film screen (and perhaps, in 1976, with no thought at all to the home market). The DP has a perfect right to reconsider Aspect Ratio when the form or presentaion alters. No matter what anyone spent on their DVD players and WS projection screens, the object is always to make it look more like film; but the fact remains, it is NOT film, and never will be.
So it is not beyond the realm of reasoning to beleive that Mr. Storaro found that to get the most out of his original images, and to get the best (in HIS opinion) presentation in this alternate format (home video) was a compsomise: a little off the sides, and a little less resolution. Probably a very hard decision to make in any case. He could loose a lot of vertical detail, and go full OAR, or go full vertical and crop more on the sides. He chose a middle ground. Obviously, not everyone agrees he made (what they consider) to be the best decision... but it was not our decision to make: it was his. For his own reasoning, the vertical resolution is as important to Mr. Storaro as the sides; the 2.0:1 final AR seems to be the compromise to both he finds most acceptable.
And lets face it: 16:9 screens are still a rarity. On a 4:3 screen, you DO loose a lot of resolution when you show a full 2.35:1
Now I am not an apologist for Mr. Storaro, and I do not claim to speak for him. But I think we must realize he is much closer to this than ANY of us. And I think we all need to realize he did not do this arbitraraly. We may not agree, but oh well.
Finally, a comment Robert George made kind of stuck with me. I respect Obi a lot... he knows a lot more about this than I ever will. But it seemed like a strange thing to say:
Storaro has specifically stated he preferred altering the 2.35:1 scope frame to about 2:1 as a compromise between pan & scan and the limited resolution of video. I don't consider that his call to make.
Robert: if not his, whose? You may not agree with the call, but I think (for the above stated reason) it was definitely his call, and his obligation to make the call. I am sure you have no problem with a DP color timing a transfer. As I stated above, when the product goes to a different media, with different strenghth and weaknesses to reproduction, a (good!) DP MUST take those into account when making the transfer, to make the best transfer for the new medium.
OK, used enough bandwith... and I am probably gonna get flamed. Oh well... just my opinion. And.... I WOULD prefer a 2.35:1 transfer. But I'll take 2.0:1.
dk
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
Thank goodness I didn't participate in this thread or my head would have exploded by now!
Carl my man, and I say this to you because I care, but you are simply clueless about what anamorphic 2.40:1 means.
------------------
To the men and women of the N.Y. police and fire department
God bless you.
To the victims and their families
God keep you.
To the dirtbags who caused all this
God help you!!!
[Edited last by John Williamson on November 13, 2001 at 06:25 PM]
 

Patrick McCart

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
8,196
Location
Georgia (the state)
Real Name
Patrick McCart
Guys...stop whining!
Zoetrope Studios did the DVD authoring, so they must have a DAMN good reason to put out the movie in 2:1!!!
If Coppola wanted the movie to be 2.35:1 on DVD, he sure as hell could put it on DVD at 2.35:1!
I think Zoetrope would be the better authority on the correct home video ratio than us.
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
Zoetrope Studios did the DVD authoring, so they must have a DAMN good reason to put out the movie in 2:1!!!
If Coppola wanted the movie to be 2.35:1 on DVD, he sure as hell could put it on DVD at 2.35:1!
you're not really arguing against anyone on this point. those who dislike the ~2:1 transfer know quite well that Coppola made the decision, they just think he was wrong to do so.
DJ
 

Robert George

Screenwriter
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
1,174
To Dave Koch,
What I mean by my comment that cropping the frame of this film was not Storaro's call to make is this. The job of the DP is to light the film, and along with the director, to compose shots. These things Vittorio Storaro does better than most. I agree with you (as I already stated), Storaro is simply one of the best cinematographers ever. Of course I would want a DP of Storaro's talent supervising the color correction of a video transfer, but that is as far as it should go.
My point is that Storaro lit and photographed AN a particular way and he should not be allowed to compromise that based on some personal opinion of the video format. I feel a filmmaker owes the fans of a film the opportunity to view it as close to the intended vision as possible. We are well aware of the limitations of video. The vast majority of those that count themselves film buffs have made the decision that we prefer as accurate a presentation as possible despite the inherent limitations of the presentation format. We made our choice for OAR even on video. We didn't ask for someone to make a different choice for us.
 

cafink

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
3,044
Real Name
Carl Fink
quote: Carl my man, and I say this to you because I care, but you are simply clueless about what anamorphic 2.40:1 means.[/quote]
Then help me learn.
I'm under the impression that it essentially means shooting on standared 35mm film, which has an aspect ratio of 1.37:1, using a special lens that distorts the image (compresses it horizontally, making everything tall and skinny) such that a wide 2.40:1 image is captured on the 1.37:1 film. When you project the image using another lens that stretches the picture back out to correct proportions, you get the 2.40:1 picture as seen in the theater.
If my information is incorrect in any regard, then please educate me. The last thing I want to do is spread misinformation.
[Edited last by Carl Fink on November 13, 2001 at 08:42 PM]
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
My point is that Storaro lit and photographed AN a particular way and he should not be allowed to compromise that based on some personal opinion of the video format.
wasn't his lighting and photography of AN based on some personal opinion of the film format? so why do his personal opinions not count when he is transferring from one format to another?
maybe i'm nuts, but i kind of like it when filmmakers make choices based on their personal opinions.
quote: The vast majority of those that count themselves film buffs have made the decision that we prefer as accurate a presentation as possible despite the inherent limitations of the presentation format. We made our choice for OAR even on video. We didn't ask for someone to make a different choice for us.
but again, the questions are: why does "our" choice count? doesn't the filmmaker have a say in balancing the various considerations in a video presentation? doesn't his or her opinion on the best way to make the necessary compromises have some (if not complete) weight? the bottom line is: why should anyone ever get to force a filmmaker to make a choice her or she doesn't like? because you want something else? so whose desires should "count" more? the audience's? or the people actually making these things, who have been making such decisions at every step of the way in the filmmaking process? why should audience preferences ever override those of the filmmaker? is the goal of filmmaking to please an audience or to attempt to best effectuate the desires of the filmmakers? and you say that you didn't ask for someone else to make the choice for you? are you seeing someone else's movie or your own? if you're seeing someone else's movie, you asked for someone to make lots of choices for you.
"we" made a choice, sure. but "our" choice shouldn't constrict the freedom of filmmakers to do what they want with their product. when it does, we're no longer supporting those who make films, we're only supporting our own selfish desires. could such a person correctly be called a film buff? it seems to me that the goal of a film buff should be to support filmmakers' desires, not their own. filmmaking shouldn't be a committee process by which "film buffs" are polled for their opinions, whether they are those of the "vast majority" or not. it doesn't seem to matter to me whether the "vast majority" of film buffs want a certain thing; the "vast majority" didn't make the movie. the filmmakers did. artistic freedom ends when the "vast majority" makes decisions for the artists instead of the other way around.
maybe it's just me, but i'm much happier when a filmmaker gets his way at every step in the process of creation and release. i want to see his movie, not mine.
DJ
[Edited last by Damin J Toell on November 13, 2001 at 09:33 PM]
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,971
Location
Albany, NY
quote: The "artist" has a right to go back and forth on their work, but I don't have to like it or respect it, and that doesn't lose me any moral legitimacy.[/quote]Well, isn't that the argument that Joe Sixpacks use? "I don't like the fact that the director and D.P. want an aspect ratio that doesn't show what I want it to show or doesn't fill up the screen the way I want it filled." I'll leave you to you're wants... you're free to them. However, personally, I want to see the movies as the creators' intend me to see them. You can still with TAR, but I find that that differs from time to time from OAR. And I'll stick with OAR every time. If 2:1 is the best home presentation according to the D.P. and director, I'll take their word for it. If 2:1 is what Walmart or the studio wanted the AR to be, I'd boycott the release same as everyone else.
------------------
My DVD Collection
My Preorders
My Wishlist
Potter is coming...
[Edited last by Adam Lenhardt on November 13, 2001 at 09:44 PM]
 

GerardoHP

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 10, 2001
Messages
798
Location
Los Angeles, California
Real Name
Gerardo Paron
Well, isn't that the argument that Joe Sixpacks use?
No, J6P's want to see movies in an AR that has no relation whatsoever to what was shown in theaters as long as it fills their TV screens.
This is getting so old.
rolleyes.gif

------------------
Gerardo
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
quote: I suppose my "problem" is that, being well informed about the technical specifications of the films I see, I do believe my opinion should count. [/quote]
it seems odd to me that the technical specifications of a film's theatrical exhibition should take precedence over the desires of the filmmakers. films are made by people, not technical specifications.
No, J6P's want to see movies in an AR that has no relation whatsoever to what was shown in theaters as long as it fills their TV screens.
and you apparently what to see movies in an AR that may have little or not relation to what the filmmakers want you to see on home video as long as it's the same as (one of) the theatrical exhibition AR(s). i'm not sure i see either as being very true to the goals of the filmmakers. neither "i want it to fill up my TV" or "i want what was shown in the theatres" necessarily comes close to "i want what the filmmakers want."
DJ
[Edited last by Damin J Toell on November 13, 2001 at 10:41 PM]
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
Carl, you've got the explanation down cold, but what I got from your other posts is that your under the immpression that one can extract other ratios when filming in the anamorphic format, you can't. 2.40:1 is pretty much the very DEFINITION of Panavision anamorphic, when you film using that format, your intention is clear, you wish the film you are making to be seen in theater's at 2.40:1, nothing more, nothing less.
If you want to film in one ratio with the intention of extracting other ratio's, Super 35, or flat is what you would use.
'Apocalypse Now' WAS indeed intended by Coppola and co to be 2.40:1.
------------------
To the men and women of the N.Y. police and fire department
God bless you.
To the victims and their families
God keep you.
To the dirtbags who caused all this
God help you!!!
 

Joseph Goodman

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Messages
206
Quote:Name a film that was shot in anamorphic 'scope' format that was originally intended to be shown in any ratio other than 2.35 - 2.40.
The early 2.55:1 Cinemascope features, for one. I suppose Technirama features would fall under the category, too (horizontal 35mm negative with a 1.5x squeeze for a 2.21:1 70mm print).
[Edited last by Joseph Goodman on November 14, 2001 at 12:29 AM]
 

Joseph Goodman

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Messages
206
Quote:I'm under the impression that it essentially means shooting on standared 35mm film, which has an aspect ratio of 1.37:1, using a special lens that distorts the image (compresses it horizontally, making everything tall and skinny) such that a wide 2.40:1 image is captured on the 1.37:1 film.
Actually, the anamorphic frame of modern films is a little taller than 1.37:1 Academy. The frame that the 'scope image is captured in has an aspect ratio of about 1.18:1, which is cropped to 1.2:1 by the projector's aperture (to better hide splices), and expanded to twice its width on projection, hence the 2.4:1 aspect ratio of current scope films.
Early Cinemascope was arranged a little differently, but the differences are hard to explain without illustrations... which can be found at www.widescreenmuseum.com
 

Scott H

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2000
Messages
693
Not so. Is a 1.85:1 film not an example of 'extracting' other ratios? 1.85:1 theatrical feature films are composed within a 1.37:1 camera aperture on conventional 35mm film, rarely hard-matted. My friend just shot an OAR 1.85:1 film on regular 16mm, I even have a Cinema Products16mm camera here that has native 1.85:1 markings on it's ground glass. Super16 acquisition for HD broadcast is occuring every day with OARs of both 1.33:1 and 1.78:1 (in the case of sitcoms) though the exposed aperture is 1.66:1.
One can't cite theatrical presentation ARs as representative of OAR or intentions. SMPTE Standard 195 limits 35mm presentation to 2.39; 1.85; 1.66; and 1.37:1, yet films may be composed for any AR one desires and transferred to video accordingly. That means that technically, films with 2.35:1 OARs are not presented properly, and neither would a 1.78:1 OAR film, or a 2.20:1 if composed as such...
Anyway, a point I make ad nauseum around these parts, and applicable here again, is that AR extraction or open-matte or similar is no more applicable to Super35 than regular 35. That is myth and misunderstanding.
------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
Yes, but I think we're talking more along the lines of films shot in the past 30 years or so.
Those anamorphic ratio's wider than 2.40:1 were not lost on me, but they are no longer in use.
------------------
To the men and women of the N.Y. police and fire department
God bless you.
To the victims and their families
God keep you.
To the dirtbags who caused all this
God help you!!!
 

Scott H

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2000
Messages
693
John, I must apologize... I just realized that you said "or flat", and I responded above as though you were limiting the comment to Super35. If you meant one can extract various ARs from regular 35 as well as S35 then my explanation was not required, sorry.
:)
------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
Scott, I have never heard of a film, shot anamorphically, being intended to be seen any other way than 2.40:1, not counting of course films like 'Ben Hur' witch are anamorphic but are Much wider than 2.40:1, but as you know they no longer shoot that wide now, but I would love it if they did. And how exactly do you film in anamorphic WITHOUT using anamorphic lenses!? That just makes no sense to me. If you want to get technical, yes even films shot in Super 35 are anamorphically squeezed onto the film prints that go to theaters for projection, but to film in anamorphic, one needs anamorphic lenses.
If your saying that you can take an anamorphic 2.35:1 image and matte it, zoom it, and modify it as you please, then I would say of course you can, I can take the Mona Lisa and matte it if I like, it would be wrong, but I could. However, from the inception, at the start, in it's raw form, the intended theatrical ratio, of films shot today, is anamorphic 2.40:1. 'Apocalyse Now' is simply presented wrong on dvd, that's the issue here.
And yes, I am very aware that 1.85:1 films are shot on film of 1.37:1, and then composed for the intended 1.85:1 ratio within that, that is the 'Flat' matting process. I can think of no film that has been 'Hard matted' either, does anyone even do that anymore? I think I heard that 'The Fifth Element' was shot Super 35 'Hard matte', am I right?
------------------
To the men and women of the N.Y. police and fire department
God bless you.
To the victims and their families
God keep you.
To the dirtbags who caused all this
God help you!!!
[Edited last by John Williamson on November 14, 2001 at 01:34 AM]
[Edited last by John Williamson on November 14, 2001 at 01:38 AM]
[Edited last by John Williamson on November 14, 2001 at 02:04 AM]
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
No sweat Scott, happens to me all the time.
wink.gif

------------------
To the men and women of the N.Y. police and fire department
God bless you.
To the victims and their families
God keep you.
To the dirtbags who caused all this
God help you!!!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,813
Messages
5,123,610
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top