Damin J Toell
Senior HTF Member
One person even suggested that the director INTENTIONALLY RUIN SHOTS in Super35!I didn't.
DJ
One person even suggested that the director INTENTIONALLY RUIN SHOTS in Super35!I didn't.
DJ
What about Citizen Kane?The "O" in "OAR" stands for "original", i.e., the form in which the film was created for presentation in theaters. That's why the mission statement doesn't say anything about widescreen vs. fullscreen.
Kubrick's films are indeed a special case, which has inspired pages of debate. The unusual factor with Kubrick's films is the director's insistence on a presenting many of them for home video in a 4:3 format (or in the case of Strangelove, a hybrid format).
No such factor exists here. There's been nothing cited to indicate that Chris Columbus wanted Harry Potter presented in fullframe for home viewing. (If he did, there'd presumably be no widescreen version, as is the case with many Kubrick films.) The issue that's been raised here -- a spurious one, IMO -- arises solely from a declared preference for a fullscreen presentation by people who had nothing to do with making the film.
M.
Speaking as one of thse members you are speaking of, I implore some of these posters - a couple of whom still don't seem to "get it" after your post - to stop arguing for what seems to be just the sake of arguement!technical said:Quote:
I don't know if that's what happened or not. I was bringing it up as a possibility.Isn't that the kind of thing that got us into this debate in the first place?
M.
This is the Home THEATER Forum. I joined up because I found a place where others believed like I did: that movies should be seen in the HOME in the *exact* same presentation that was seen in the THEATER.I don't think anyone has made such an argument in this thread, unless I'm misreading something. If you're referring to Martin Teller, I took his point as being that Super35 isn't bad in and of itself merely because of the fact that, when shooting for 2.4:1 acquisition, it simultaneously creates a 4x3-friendly version. I agree with that sentiment. I took Martin as directly responding to certain members who claimed that the possible simultaneous creation of a 4x3-friendly version (which doesn't always occur anyway, given that many directors & DPs don't even monitor the 4x3 frame during filming) was "evil," as if there are no other possible peritent reasons for a director choosing to use Super35 for 2.4:1 acquisition. In the current home video and television broadcast marketplace, 4x3 versions of films will be produced at some point no matter what the filming process or OAR of a film is. Super35 for 2.4:1 acquisition neither hurts nor promotes this practice. I took that to be Martin's point, anyway....
DJ
With the lack of cultural diversity in many releases, I can't support any release that crops the few minorities that do appear in the film.I realized that, but I'd have said the full frame was a better picture, for this shot, even if the last kid was white.
I believe the same thing happened with Ron Howard on Apollo 13.Let us not forget that the fact that Mr. Howard shot Super35 is the reason why Apollo 13's IMAX re-release will be PAN & SCAN!
(No, they can't rerender the effects. Several friends in the FX industry said to me it would take roughly 3 months just to dig up the software involved ASSUMING it would still work on current systems)
Let us not forget that the fact that Mr. Howard shot Super35 is the reason why Apollo 13's IMAX re-release will be PAN & SCAN!I'm not sure what you're getting at. Wouldn't they also have to P&S it if he had shot it in 2.35:1 scope, that most holy of filming processes? So what's Super35 got to do with it?
DJ
IMAX does show films in OAR, when a print is made available. Beauty and the Beast was presented in 1.85:1. I suspect we'll see the Lion King in the same format.So then I still don't understand what Super35 has to do with Imax's choice of presentation.
DJ
"OAR"?Nope. Not by a long shot.
The "original" in "Original Aspect Ratio" refers to the framing of the film as it appeared first in movie theaters. Note the word "first" in that last sentence. It was the "first" and therefore "original" aspect ratio. You can't have two different things be the original.
My hope when I watch a movie on my home theater is that I will be able to recreate, as closely as possible, the experience of seeing the film as it appeared in theaters. Any presentation in an MAR format will not deliver this experience. Hence, the widescreen version of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is the one for me and the vast majority of the members here.
So then I still don't understand what Super35 has to do with Imax's choice of presentation.The regular aspect ratio of an IMAX film is 1.44:1, but they can "letterbox" the image to maintain the OAR. Since Apollo 13 is actually being blown up to the IMAX-size film, though, they might decide not to go with the 2.35:1 ratio. If so, they can open up the non-F/X shots a little, resulting in less P&S. However, the F/X shots were most likely shot in widescreen, so they will have to pan&scan them if they want to keep the ratio opened up.
Personally, I hope they go with 2.35:1, but I guess we'll see.
It was the "first" and therefore "original" aspect ratio.It would seem to me that the "first" AR would be either the one that the filmmakers wanted or the one that appeared as the AR in the camera during filming. The theatrical exhibition isn't "first" at all.
DJ