MGM to release MANHUNTER Theatrical Cut - FULL SCREEN ONLY!?!?

I am simply illustrating that one reason Super 35 is employed is to make manipulation of the aspect ratio easier. There are quite a few reasons a film maker may shoot in Super 35 rather than 35mm anamorphic, and the ability to alter the aspect ratio easily at a later time is one of them.

What you are actually proposing is that you simply wish to view the film in its theatrical aspect ratio. This is different from proposing that the film only has one aspect ratio.

Plus, since films are composed using video assists, which are TV monitors, it is erroneous to assume that the film makers are only looking at the 2.35:1 widescreen area.


I simply think one should be careful in deciding what that "composed area" is. There are many compositions in Terminator 2 that look better in the 4:3 rather than the 2.35:1 version. This is primarily because Cameron chooses to frame so many sequences so close, thus constantly cropping Arnie's head in the widescreen version. This is not the case in the 4:3 version which leads one to beleive that the 4:3 format was deemed to have greater, or at least equal importance.


In the case of many early Super 35 films, the image was essentially composed for 4:3, and protected for 2.4:1. Not the other way around. In such films I do not consider the aspect ratio a fixed value, such as 2.21:1 for a 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia. Rather the use of Super 35 has made the aspect ratio a variable property of the film.

Simon,
I must say that your knowledge, while extensive, is somewhat twisted around.


Yes, for the incorrect 4x3 full-screen version. Also, if your eluding to the practice of directors later altering the original composition, as on the Robocop Criterion dvd, I do not support this practice. If the director wanted that ratio from the start, he/she should have composed for that in the first place.


If your suggesting that a film can have TWO different COMPOSED FOR ratio's, your mistaken. This is not possible, only ONE ratio is chosen before principal photography begins to be the theatrical ratio, this is the one they will compose for and this one alone.


I never said that this is the only area they looked at, I said this is the only area that is composed for. Of course they look outside the composed area, they need to insure that boom mikes, cables and other equipment do not intrude on the 4x3 area, so that the full-screen version won't display these to the consumer, this not composing, it is merely protecting. The 2.35:1 area is paramount, first and foremost.


Incorrect. Every single solitary 2.35:1 frame was done deliberately, if one feels that a shot looks better on the 4x3 version, they are applying their OWN set of ideals and preferrances, it is NOT something Cameron preferred. Of course, one could always bring up that tired point about The Abyss full-screen LD being preferred by Cameron, however he preferred that one for resolution issues, not composition issues.


If Arnie's head is cropped in the 2.35:1 AR, than it is cropped, it was done that way 100% on purpose to achieve a close up shot. That is destroyed when the matting is opened up, thus turning a close up shot into a medium shot, destroying what Cameron was trying to convey.


Absolutly! However you didn't go deep enough, I wish to not only view the film as presented in theaters, but also my absolute #1 GOAL is to bring into my home theater what the film's creator's took many hours and skill to show me. From conception, story boarding, blocking and finally to pricipal photography...one OAR.

Simon,
I feel compelled to give you a little heads up about my passion for this issue, i've been involved in MANY OAR discussions over the years, and I am like a rabid pit-bull with a bone once I get started. I just wanted you to know what your in for if you wish to engage me in this further.

It isn't twisted around at all. I am interested in how film technologies are used, and part of that involves understanding the actual production practice. Super 35 is used for many reasons, one of which is to allow for manipulating the aspect ratio of a film. This means that the aspect ratio is no longer a fixed property, it is actually intended to be manipulated.

I understand that you simply do not wish to see a version manipulated from the theatrical version. That is fine, but that is actually an opinion in itself. Because often the theatrical presentation is a compromise between other aspect ratios! You can either ignore that and pretend a Super 35 film is really Panavision, or you can understand that it is a fact of how films these days are made.



I think you are mistaken in thinking that contemporary Hollywood films are made with only one aspect ratio in mind. For example Thirteen Days and The Recruit are two films that were shot in Super 35 released theatrically 2.4:1 and on DVD in 16:9. The director on the set had the video assist monitor marked up with both aspect ratios, the 16:9 marking was taller than the 2.4:1 marking. He openly composed for both ratios simultaneously, if you think that is impossible or a dumb idea then that may be so. But it is also how films are ACTUALLY MADE. Which I reiterate is what I'm interested in. Whether or not I personally think it is desirable for a film to be composed simultaneously for 2.4:1 and 16:9 is irrelevent, because big Hollywood film makers aren't going to change just because I tell them to.



Whether you do or don't "support" directors altering the aspect ratio is meaningless. (which is funny, if someone is going to change the aspect ratio shouldn't it be the director?)


I don't think this is correct, you simply have to view 16:9 or 4:3 transfers of some Super 35 films to see that the alternate aspect ratio is often given as much consideration. Moreover, the fact so many widescreen films feature an excessive amount of close framed shots means that whether the image is 2.4:1 or 16:9 really doesn't make much of a difference. Contemporary visual style has in many ways made widescreen film making redundant, or at least much less precise. Look at a CineamScope film from 1955 and you will see that close ups were used VERY infrequently, Bus Stop (1956) features only one very close up shot and that is in the 2nd to last scene right at the emotional climax of the whole film. Director's thought that close ups in widescreen could have real impact, where as these days contemporary Hollywood films are composed almost exclusively in closer and closer shots.


Incorrect. Just compare some shots from 4:3 and 2.35:1 transfers. There are many shots that are compromised in favour of looser framings acheived in the 4:3 aspect ratio. This again also relates to the tendencies of contemporary Hollywood cinema to frame shots so close, these types of problems were not an issue in the 50's and 60's, but now with such tight framings widescreen compositions suffer. The use of Super 35 is a way to resolve these issues by creating looser compositions.



It doesn't turn it into a medium shot at all. It just demonstrates that in some shots a compromise was made in favour of creating a tighter close up on Furlong's face at the expense of having to crop part of Arnie's head off. Of course, there wasn't a compromise made in the 4:3 version, both their faces are framed properly, with no cropping.

Also, I wouldn't really take what James Cameron says very seriously, he often contradicts himself, particularly with relation to his use of Super 35. You only have to compare the transfers of his films to understand what format he was really interested in protecting for.


But you simply wish to ignore that films today aren't photographed with a single aspect ratio in mind. I have no problem with you wishing to view a film in its theatrical aspect ratio, but don't ignore the fact that film makers are aware that theatrical revenues aren't really that important, they simply provide a rough clue to how much the film will sell on DVD. It is the alternate exhibition venues (and ancillary sales) that really determine how profitable a film is, and hence that is kept in mind when films are actually made. Hence Cameron was concious to compose a film like Terminator 2 for television as much as he desired to use the 2.4:1 theatrical aspect ratio.

I also think it is funny you mention the term blocking. Most Hollywood films these days feature the actors in very static positions just delivering lines, there is much more camera movement than actor movement in contemporary film making. Uusally when actors say lines they are on screen and photographed either a medium-close or full close up. The consistent use of close framings is making widescreen film making more and more redundant, which again means whether a film is 2.4:1 or 16:9 quite meaningless.

Is this something that concerns me? Certainly, widescreen films from the 50's, 60's and 70's are some of my favourite films. Yet I am interested in how films are made and part of that is being aware that contemporary production practices and the resulting film style of Hollywood films are making aspect ratios rather redundant, because shots are framed too close to make much of a difference.

Actually, Thirteen Days was shot as standard spherical 35mm and exhibited at 1.85:1 theatrically.

DJ

This isn't really an original aspect ratio debate. Because many film makers use technologies such as Super 35 to create a compromise system regarding aspect ratios. If the cinematographer,and director do not perceive the aspect ratio to be fixed then I think it is quite erroneous for the audience to consider it as such.

Also, I don't think it is wrong to prefer a 2.4:1 widescreen image, but I think it is silly to assume that the 2.4:1 aspect ratio is some how sacred when the actual people who made the film do not think the same thing.

If they really cared, then they would film in Panavision, and insist that wherever the film was shown that it would be letterboxed. But we all know that these days film makers are much more pragmatic than that, and hence people like Cameron shoot in Super 35.

Yes that's right. But my comments are still valid for The Recruit.

This comparison of several versions of Manhunter might be of interest to many of you:

http://website.lineone.net/~manhunter5/differ.html

Jeff

Simon,
I don't even know where to start with that mammoth post, except to say that alot of it is a product of skewed reasoning IMO, that's the only way to say it. It is a prime example of what I said earlier, your letting the technology, and worse, Hollywood politics, which have no bearing here, cloud what is important.

Yes, Super 35 can be manipulated, but so what, when a director begins shooting his/her film, he/she chose long before a single frame was committed to film what AR they wanted to compose for, they shoot FIRST AND FOREMOST with the THEATRICAL AR in mind, hence the term original aspect ratio, the ORIGINAL composition.

Anything else outside of this composition area is merely protected for the altered 4x3 version, but for the OAR purist, it's meaningless junk, not to be given consideration.

I'll say it again, nothing, and I mean NOTHING else outside of the original composition matters, in the least. I am not interested in anything else done to the film after the OAR has been chosen and committed to film, and any attempt to alter the film after the fact (The Recruit) will only ruin what was composed for originally.

It is known here that Roger Donaldson made a big mistake by doing this with that film, he effectively alienated many OAR purists like myself when he did that and many (myself included) avoided the title as a result. Hell, their was an entire thread on it right here in the forum! It may still be archived, look it up and check it out for yourself.

You may be interested in such matters, and that's great, it's good to be curious, but don't claim that just because Super 35 can be manipulated that this somehow makes it alright to alter what was originally intended by the filmmakers...it most certaintly does not.

This is how it is, Simon, 2.35:1 is chosen, 2.35:1 is composed for, 2.35:1 is presented in theaters, 2.35:1 is IT, their is nothing else after that IMMOVABLE fact.

Let me ask you this, do you support OAR? If you do than why are you pursuing this? It's only causing you to come accross as someone who doesn't mind open matting films as long as they look "better", in referrance to your comments about Terminator 2 ealier.

Now, you can certaintly watch a film however you'd like, standing on your head while under water, it's your choice, but I am here to uphold the value of original artistic intent and I am unwaivering in this respect. This is a pro-OAR site, it's in our mission statement, and I have learned a great portion of my values regarding OAR right here in this forum and they have served me well.

Now, you and I can go back and forth until the end of time, but it still will not change the fact that I have a mad burning hatred for open matting and pan and scan, and it also will not change the fact that I would rather eat dog shit than buy a title that isn't presented in it's correct AR.

I mean, let's not kid ourselves here, is their any chance my posts will alter your perception? Probably not. And, in turn, their is no chance your posts will alter mine, so what are we doing here?

Simon,
I really hope that you feel no ill will towards me, as I hold none towards you, you simply believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe. I realize that I can come off as a little intense and for this I apologize, but this is afterall just a debate, it's not life or death.

I don't have skewed reasoning at all. I have done some research about how Super 35 is actually used by film makers, rather than just assuming that the theoretical application of the technology is what actually occurs.


This is excellent theory, but contemporary film practice is different. The 2.4:1 theatrical aspect ratio may be used for a range of reasons. For example, the fact that it produces the largest theatrical image is important because cinemas have consistently declined in size since the late 1960s.

Plus, my point is that Super 35 allows for manipulation of the aspect ratio, thus it isn't a fixed "original" value. It is only "original" in the sense films are shown first theatrically, then later on other formats such as TV and DVD.



It wasn't a "big mistake" it was a decision made by a person who actually makes films. Whether or not you agree with it is meaningless, it represents an application of a particular film technology for a desired result. If you wish to ignore contemporary production practice then that is OK I guess, but don't pretend that it isn't a legitimate use of a film technology.



The original intention of Roger Donaldson, a film maker, was to release a film theatrically with a 2.4:1 aspect ratio, and 16:9 on DVD. This was his creative decision. When Lawrence of Arabia is released on DVD letterboxed 2.21:1 we assume this is preserving the original aspect ratio (which I agree with!). Why is it different when a director actively chooses to release a film in two different aspect ratios?


I'm simply pointing out that films are actually made by people who apply technologies in various ways for desired results. One can not assume on a Super 35 film that the 2.4:1 aspect ratio was the only one given consideration, because this often isn't the case.


But when Roger Donaldson wanted to release a film in 2.4:1 theatrically, and 16:9 on DVD then you somehow think that is wrong, even though that was his original intent? Likewise James Cameron, and also Kubrick, who released films in 1.85:1, but open matte on laser disc and DVD. I repeat that it is fine for you to prefer the theatrical aspect ratio, but be aware that this isn't even considered by many film makers to be the only format that received consideration during production.


I never mentioned pan and scan.

What you mean is you will never purchase a title that isn't presented in its theatrical aspect ratio, which is different from original aspect ratio. They aren't necessarily the same thing.


I was just explaining how films these days are actually made. I have been demonstrating that in contemporary Hollywood cinema for many film makers the aspect ratio is not considered fixed, and is indeed open for manipulation. This is done for a range of primarily economic reasons - to ensure films play well on alternate exhibition venues such as TV and DVD etc. Remember, the U.S. is still the land of pan and scan (or rather open matte) DVD. It is actually very hard to find a 4:3 transfer of a new film in Australia, however that is not the case in the U.S. There is still a significant market for such transfers.

Whether I or you or anyone else think that is a good or bad thing is just an opinion. I have previously said that some of my favourite films are those of the 50's, 60's and 70's. During these periods the different style of Hollywood cinema accentuated the use of widescreen, and made it something special in itself. However, the contemporary film aesthetic of rapid editing, extensive camera movement and particularly a reliance on extensive close up framings has in large part made widescreen rendundant. This is demonstrated by the fact that about 50% of films are shown theatrically in 2.41:1 (which simply ensures the film uses up as much of a small theatre screen as possible) Everyone shoots in widescreen now, even though in many, but not all, films it wouldn't make a difference of they were 1.85:1. They only use the format to do tighter close ups anyway!


No offense taken.

I just watched a story on 60 Minutes showing George Lucas at work on the last Star Wars film, he was sitting in front of a computer running back and forth over a section of the film. Even though all the previous Star Wars films have been presented theatrically 2.4:1, and I assume this will be the case for the last one. The editing display was very clearly showing a 16:9 image. Which means even in post production Lucas hasn't even entirely figured out where exactly the widescreen mask will go, and can be altered even on a shot by shot basis to 'fix' certain compositional problems.

You, and I may consider it sad, but in contemporary film making, using Super 35, the aspect ratio of the image is considered something open to manipulation.

In regards to the first part of that statement, no, it isn't, and for the second part, sure it is.

In my entire 6 years here, I have never encountered this line of reasoning that you are claiming to be well known. The bottom line here is, a filmmaker must choose ONE ratio for theatrical exhibition, that is the one that OAR purists want, all of that other information, that accounts for about 95% of your posts is, I believe, irrealavant to most of us here.

Sure they film in Super 35 because they have other venues in mind, dvd, vhs, or what have you for the 4x3 version, that's obvious, but what you can't seem to understand is that when the original 2.35:1 AR is opened up to 4x3, the film's theatrical composition, which IS what was in mind first, is destroyed.


No sir, not to me, and not to a good majority of this forum's members either. They uphold the original theatrical aspect ratio, the one, the ONLY one that matter's, and so do I.

With Donaldson, I AM against what he did, absolutly, he took his original 2.35:1 composition and opened it up to 1.78:1, many of us never understood what on Earth possesed him to do such a thing, he ruined that film, plain and simple. If he wanted the film to be 1.78:1, he should have composed for that in the first place and not went back later and second guessed himself the way he did.

It's bad when a room full of telecine operators open matte a film and destroy it's OAR, it's doubly bad when the film's own director does it himself.

I don't know what the deal was with that 60 Min episode, but considering that the new Star Wars film will be 2.35:1 like the others, I believe what you saw was George zooming in to get a closer look at something, it could have been anything, really. And rest assured, no matting will be involved here, the film will be strictly created in 2.35:1, which of course means when the 4x3 version comes out for the un-enlightened folk, it will be a panned and scanned hack job all the way.

Your not gonna fight me on that too, are you?

And to the membership, can I please get some back-up here? I know your out there reading all of this, don't be afraid to speak up.

No insult intended to anyone but this is a dumb argument that no one will ever win. It's useless to say more about a subject that no one will chnage their POV on.

Like I said, no offense intended though.

Travis,
dude, where the hell do you get the nerve...being right!?

Seriously, I agree 100%.

Back to the Manhunter discs- I have the 1 disc Anchor
Bay version, and I was going to upgrade to the director's
version with Mann's commentary. Is it worth it for the
different cut of the film, picture transfer, or the
commentary track? Thanks.

But what if the theatrical composition was simply a compromise made in order to release the film on an anamorphic print - so that the theatrical image would be as big as possible. Yet this composition was simply a protection to release the film 16:9 on DVD.

Again you have a go at Roger Donaldson for making an artistic decision for his own film. You just don't seem to understand this is how a lot of Super 35 films are made!

The use of multiple cameras which are constantly moving has made contemporary Hollywood film making a very imprecise science. Images are not composed with precision, and they don't appear on the screen for that long anyway. This is a new type of film making that doesn't rely on specific composotional arrangements, part of that is the reduction in importance of the aspect ratio.

Read early American Cinematographer articles on the use of Super 35. The directors and cinematographers are simply protecting a 4:3 composition for 2.4:1, not the other way around.



The Sony HDW-950 cameras that Lucas used on the new Star Wars films photograph a HD image with an aspect ratio of 16:9. They do not natively shoot a 2.35:1 image, this is acheived by cropping the image at the top and the bottom, in the process sacrificing some resoltion, but giving Lucas the ability to alter the composition on a shot by shot basis.

The source material for the whole film is 16:9, only at a later time (it seems much later) will this material be cropped down to 2.35:1. He was not zooming in on anything, rather he was watching the full image as recorded by the camera, plus overlayed with various CGI elements, exactly where the widescreen mask will go can be determined later. Just like a Super 35 film, film the last two Star Wars films were not "created" in 2.35:1 at all.

Simon,
virtually everything your asking me to believe goes against everything i've ever been taught or even heard about. I would think that at some point I would have heard about this information your offering me, but I haven't.

I refuse to believe that the theatrical composition is simply some sort of compromise, I don't buy it, i'm sorry. Even if I did, it doesn't matter anyway, I want the film at home the way it was presented in theaters, which I still believe to be the intended form.

I have seen many open matte 4x3 transfers in my lifetime, and they all looked bad. I have yet to see a single one that looks appropriate when opened up from it's theatrical exhibition format. In addition to taking the emphesis off of the principal action, there is too much dead space above and below the image.

As for the George Lucas issue, i'm afraid that I can't speak intelligently enough about the HD filming process, i'm still a bit fuzzy on it as it is still new, so i'll take your word for it. But what I do know is the film will be 2.35:1 when it is released as intended by Lucas.

Listen, I am growing weary of this tit for tat, I want what was shown in theaters, that's it, end of story. I only hope that come Monday when the forum sees more activity, others will chime in as I am rarely alone in my stance regarding OAR here.

Well, I'm telling it to you now.

Films are made for rather pragmatic reasons. Theatrical revenues are much less important these days. Films make more money when released on DVD or TV. Cinema (screen) sizes have been in decline for the last 30 years, which makes the 2.4:1 theatrical aspect ratio desirable simply because it ensures the image will be as BIG as possible. Plus it ensures that the film won't be masked incorrectly, as can happen on flat prints. This is different from employing the aspect ratio in order to create elaborate lateral compositions - which is rarely the case in contemporary Hollywood cinema, given it is a cinema that is so biased towards using so many close ups.


This is interesting, because if you look at films from the 30's or 40's the fact films then were staged from the waist up, rather then in close ups meant that there was more head room. At that time having even 1/3 of the space above an actors head "empty" during master shots was the NORMAL style of the time. It has only been in the last 20 - 30 years that framing every shot so close us become the predominate style.

I saw Eyes Wide Shut theatrically 1.85:1, yet it is a film that also plays well open matte 4:3, and the reasoning for this is simple. Kubrick framed things for 4:3 and protected for 1.85:1. Does this make the 4:3 composition seem "loose" or dare I say "old fashioned", yes certainly, but hey, given Kubrick's admiration for the styles of Welles, Renoir and even Griffith, you can not say that it wasn't intentional.

Bob Rafelson is another director who composes his films for 4:3, but it is no longer standard practice to project a film 4:3, essentially there are two options; 1.85:1 or 2.4:1. So what does Rafelson do? He composes for 4:3, and protects for 1.85:1. That is his preference, but it doesn't necessarily make the theatrical ratio the preferred one.

Incidently, if you own the Collector's edition DVD of Seven, well then you aren't seeing the theatrical image. The reasoning is that when the element was scanned, Fincher had them scan the whole Super 35 frame so even though he was presenting the DVD in widescreen, he could manipulate the frame line in order to adjust certain shots more to his liking. This couldn't be acheived via optical printing when the film prints were made.


I am not disputing that the film will be released theatrically as 2.35:1, I am simply pointing out that the footage acquired for the film was shot in 16:9, because that is the format that the Sony camera shoots in. Lucas tried to get Panavision to develop anamorphic lenses, but he was not happy with what they produced (problems associated with soft focus I beleive).


Your preference for the theatrical aspect ratio is fine. Yet you must understand that many contemporary film makers don't see this as the primary ratio that they compose for, often it is 16:9, or even 4:3. (Gus Van Sant composed Elephant for 4:3, even though I suspect most cinemas in the world would've projected it at 1.85:1) Even Scorsese suggested that he liked the open matte transfer of Age of Inncense as much as the 2.4:1 theatrical version!

Of course, that's because Elephant was originally shot for HBO broadcast. The DVD contains both the original 4x3 version and the 1.85:1 that was shown theatrically. Van Sant probably protected for 16x9 due to the likelihood of HD broadcast.

DJ

DJ:

There's an interesting interview with ELEPHANT cinematographer Harris Savides that I read on-line where he talks about ELEPHANT. Basically, he says they shot it for 1.33:1, but also kept the 1.85:1 markings in the ground glass because they liked the added headroom in the 1.33:1 image when they "protected" for 1.85:1. I'll try and track down that interview and find the link for it. Savides specifically referenced an artist that inspired him to compose it that way.

Vincent

EDIT: I've found the interview, here's the relevant portion:

"JAMIE STUART: Elephant was shot in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio – the high image instead of the wide image. How’d you come to that decision?

HARRIS SAVIDES: I just liked how majestic it was when I first saw it projected. Like the image went up, to me. It just blew me away! It was just different. It was special. I hadn’t seen anything projected like that in a long time. I don’t even know what the last thing I saw projected in 1.33 was. It just had an effect on me. I think Gus was excited by it too. We just said, we have to do it this way. It was his idea. He wanted to do it in 1.33. It was also his idea to have a 1.85 ground glass in the camera and set for 1.33, so that our action is in the center of the frame. Which I like a lot. It sometimes looks like a Diane Arbus picture."

The complete interview can be found here:

http://www.movienavigator.org/harris.htm

That's not true at all. You can reframe a film shot-to-shot all you want via optical printing. It's time consuming, sure, but it can be done.

Vincent

I wasn't saying it can't be done, I am saying it wasn't done for Seven. The whole negative was optically printed to create an anamorphic interpositive. But this was not done on a shot by shot basis. It was performed on the whole conformed negative.

Recomposing shots via an optical printer is usually only done when there was a massive screw up of some sort, because it isn't just time consuming, it also creates additional post production expenses, and results in quality degradation.

Once the whole Super 35 frame is scanned into the digital realm this isn't an issue, the widescreen frame line can be put where ever they want it.

This makes sense, I saw it projected 1.85:1 and the framing was a little too tight (very close in on actor's heads in many shots).

The point is though, the proper aspect ratio for the film is 4:3, not 1.85:1 even though if you saw it in a cinema it would more than likely be projected 1.85:1.

While it's true that the Sony cameras used by Lucas acheive a wide image via matting like Super-35, the compositions aren't "altered shot by shot" in post-production to accomadate this. The ground-glass in the camera has markings for the 2.35:1 frame, and the image was composed for that aspect ratio from the get-go.


Just because that small clip you saw features Lucas looking at unmasked footage doesn't mean Lucas "hasn't entirely figured out where the widescreen mask will go" at all. It just means he happened to be watching unmasked footage at that time. As I've pointed out above, the Sony cameras have markings for the 2.35:1 extraction area, and the shots for the film would've been composed within that area during principal photography.


Again, it's not figured out "much later" at all. It's figured out during shooting, since the Sony cameras have 2.35:1 ground glass markings.

Also, ATTACK OF THE CLONES at least was ONLY finished in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. There was a lot of controversy when it screened blown up to IMAX, because the image was literally cropped at the sides and panned-and-scanned to a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. If a 16:9 version existed, they'd have used it for the IMAX showings. Perhaps Lucas may be creating an "open matte" version of REVENGE OF THE SITH, but ATTACK OF THE CLONES *ONLY* exists as a 2.35:1 film. The extra material above-and-below the 2.35:1 area on those original HD tapes only exists on those original production tapes.

Vincent

The fact the material is recorded in 16:9 gives Lucas maximum flexibility to manipulate the aspect ratio later on, much in the manner of how Super 35 is often used. Increasingly post production is being used as the period to refine composition, and this is certainly the case on a film like Star Wars where post production consumes more time than principle photography. Shooting in 16:9 actually helps Lucas in this respect making compositional issues more flexible.



I'm not disputing the release format of the film. I'm just demonstrating even deep in post production what is actually being looked at is 16:9 footage. This doesn't surprise me, the fact films are edited on relatively small screens is probably another reason why films these days are so reliant on close ups. A close up has more impact on a relatively small monitor, or small projector than watching rushes projected on film from anamorphic prints.

Also, the fact they are constantly viewing 16:9 footage will just influence them into recomposing shots. It isn't as if he shot the film in 35mm anamorphic, so if there were any screw ups he just had to live with it (or do reshoots). If the composition is a bit off or not exactly as intended you can sure as hell bet that he will just alter the placement of the widescreen mask.

This seems to be a pretty dominant philosophy, shoot fast in Super 35, if the widescreen composition slightly crops someone's head, don't worry about it, just fix it during the digital intermediate step. I mean who are we kidding, mise-en-scene died years ago.


Then why on earth was he sitting at a computer displaying his film in 16:9? It is great to pretend that 2.35:1 is some compositional holy grail, but (perhaps sadly) films simply aren't made that way anymore if the camera acquires footage in 16:9, and there is a small compositional problem that can be fixed by manipulating the widescreen mask, then sure as hell Lucas will take advantage of it. The fact he didn't change to native 2.35:1 cameras (the Thomson Viper Filmstream has a quasi 2.37:1 mode) for the final film is another clue that he perhaps appreciates the additional flexibility afforded by shooting in 16:9, then recomposing later.


So George Lucas had absolutely no problem reconfiguring the film from 2.4:1 to a 1.66:1 aspect ratio - this simply supports my point, that in contemporary film practice many film makers do not consider the aspect ratio of a film fixed, but rather something open to manipulation.

If it is true that films like Elephant are composed for 1.33:1 and then matted to 1.85:1 (i've heard of this practice before), then it is the 1.33:1 version that I want to see. A film's OAR is a film's OAR.

Simon,
i've just gone back and re-read all of our exchanges, and it seems that your running theme, as it were, is that no film made in todays Hollywood that is shot in Super 35, and also the fact that cinema screens are becoming smaller (which I tend to believe considering the large multi-plex theaters wanting to cram as many screens into one building as possible), are composed for theatrical aspect ratio's alone? Do I have this right?

Assuming this is true, and I cannot believe that it is regarding the composition portion of your argument, then virtually everyone here in not only this forum, but others like it, have gotten it all wrong for years and we are asking for something on dvd that may not have even been intended by the filmmakers ultimatly.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this proposition, Simon. I mean do you realize what your implying here!? Your saying that when it comes to Super 35, the dvd's that most of us have and that we assumed contained the director's intended composition are, in reality, wrongly presented.

If this is true, then I will effectively stop buying films shot in Super 35 on dvd as I can't trust the God dammned ratio it's being presented in! That was sarcasm, BTW.

My point with this post, Simon, is that your asking us to buy A LOT here, and take a leap of faith that calls into question everything we've come to hold in high regard. You've pulled the rug out from under everything, or you've at least tried, don't be surprised if more people offer you a challenge on this.

As for me, I still stand strong in the beliefe that a films theatrical composition is the one intended by the filmmakers for me to see, your not going to change that for me. So, Simon, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, you may as well not even waste your time addressing me on this subject any longer.

I mean come on let's face it, one of us has to stop or we'll be here forever! It's been fun and interesting, but ultimatly fruitless. Peace.

I'll leave this thread now to the membership, and to whatever conclusion is reached.

Excellent, as I've been pointing out, the intended aspect ratio is often different from the theatrical aspect ratio, a point you've just conceeded.

Go to any run of the mill Megaplex and ask them how many films they exhibit in 1.37:1 - Academy aspect ratio. Many of them probably don't even project any films these days in that aspect ratio, and given that is the case, they wouldn't be prepared to show Elephant as you agree wasintended.


I'm not asking one to buy anything. I am simply demonstrating by reference to film style and technology that composition in contemporary Hollywood has become very imprecise. The reasons relate to a reliance on; extensive camera movement, rapid cutting and very close framings. You could also argue that Hollywood is much more reliant on long lenses, which again are more difficult to be precise with because the camera is situated far away from the action. Which leads into the fact many cinematographers shoot in Super 35 because they can simply use zoom lenses, which isn't really possible in Panavision because they are so big and 'slow'.

Also add that many Hollywood films made now either delay, or omit establishing shots. Such shots are the widest shots that give the viewer an over all idea of spatial relations. You'd think that these would be simplified in widescreen, yet some films these days start scenes in very close framings, and may only revert to an establishing shot late in the scene. There are some sequences in one of the X-Men films where the establishing shot is the last shot in the scene, and is just used to show actors exiting.

Also, actors don't move, cameras do. It is much more economic to cover a scene with 3 or 4 or more cameras, and then just select the best shots later during computer based editing. If a camera moved too much and lost someone's head, then if the film was shot in Super 35 that can be corrected for in post production, no reshoots necessary.

The cinematographer on The Gladiator used up to 7 cameras at a time, in the American Cinematographer (May 2000) article he stated "I was thinking, ’Someone has got to be getting something good.". Sure he is a big shot cinematographer, and I'm not. But to me, that doesn't sound like someone who is interested in very precise framing! Rather, he knows that films these days are made in the cutting room from thousands of feet of film that are conveniently loaded onto a computer. If there is a take that runs 10 seconds, and it is screwed up after the first 4 seconds, then that is no problem. Just cut to a different angle.

For someone interested in widescreen aesthetics I find this trend rather sad, but that is the case. Call me old fashioned, but when I watch A Star Is Born (1954) and see Judy Garland actually wave her arm outside the top of the CinemaScope frame line I actually realise that many films today are composed so close that it is hard to tell exactly what aspect ratio was in mnd when they were shot.

Yet back then film style was different, shots were framed further a way, films were not cut as rapidly. Some directors such as Cukor on A Star Is Born pushed CinemaScope by shooting lots of sequences in long takes. That is not the case today, rather than needing to be very precise with framings it is cheaper, and faster to film as quickly as possible, and fix things up in post if need be.

Call me a sucker who goes back on his word to stay away, but I need to reply here, and I will say this, WHAT A DIFFERENCE ONE POST MAKES!.

Simon,
I am beginning to see your point to some extent and I am very disturbed to say the least! Your last post was clearer to the point than your others to me for some reason. I am also man enough to admit this, yours may possibly be the most enlightening posts regarding Super 35 that I have read here!

But first off, I didn't conceed to anything, i've never denied that whatever was intended by the filmmakers is what I want to see, it just goes with being an OAR purist, that's how i've always been. I wouldn't want for instance any Sanford and Son episodes in anything other than 1.33:1 because they were shot that way, that's nothing new to me.

Now, on to bigger things, realizing what your saying, it is truly devistating news to me!

I have always held the beliefe that not only did I want what was shown in theaters, that's easy to determine, but that I also want what the filmmaker wanted me to see...how are we supposed to know what that is now!?

And worse, if a film was intended to be seen in a ratio other than it's theatrical one, which you claim is the case most of the time with Super 35, it is certain that we will get the film in it's INCORRECT theatrical AR on dvd, thus completely eliminating any possibiity of me buying it! In short, according to you, most of the films in my dvd collection that were filmed in Super 35 may very well be presented wrong!

I think I AM going to cry afterall! If anything, it messes me up on a psychological level, because now whenever I watch a film that was shot using Super 35, their will be that hovering doubt that I may be seeing it in a way the filmmakers didn't REALLY intend.

Let me ask you this, does a filmmaker EVER compose for the theatrical presentation first when using Super 35!? I MUST believe that they do. I also cannot dispute the technical aspects of a theaters ability, or lack there of, to show films in 1.33:1 because your right, their are no 1.33:1 screens around in major theaters, and considering that a film will be seen more at home than in theaters, it is concievable that the filmmaker would come to a compromise and take an 'artistic hit', as it were, for the very brief time the film will spend in theaters, because that's what I would have done!

This is making more sense by the second, Simon, much to my dismay! It does however, raise this question, if a filmmaker actually wanted us to see his/her film in a ratio other than what was projected at the theater, then why does he/she allow it to be released in it's theatrical AR on home video instead of it's actual intended ratio? This is the only flaw I can find in your reasoning.

At any rate, congrats, Simon, you've managed to rattle the foundation of this forums self-proclaimed OAR snob! Go have yourself a beer. I need to think...

Think of this, if you were a Hollywood film maker in 1955 you had several options. You could shoot for 1.37:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1 (or indeed 1.75:1), or you could shoot in CinemaScope, which at the time was 2.55:1. If you were really lucky you got to shoot in Todd-AO - 2.21:1. If it was 1959 and were William Wyler you could shoot in 2.76:1.

There were so many different options ranging from an 1895 standard, up to cutting edge widescreen formats. A film maker could go back and forth between a variety of formats depending on what they thought was artistically ideal for each project. (I am setting aside the fact if you were a director at Fox you'd be forced to use CinemaScope) Like Godard during the 1960's shot colour films in widescreen (either Franscope or Techniscope) and shot his black and white films full frame - 1.37:1.

Flash forward to now - Hollywood film makers these days have two options, 1.85:1 or 2.4:1. If you want to shoot in 4:3, your only real option is 1.85:1, isn't that a compromise in itself?

I agree that there are some film makers that shoot in Super 35 for a range of reasons unrelated to aspect ratio manipulation. However there are probably more that think it is a good idea to release theatrically 2.4:1, even though when they are on the set composing shots they are paying the same amount, if not more attention to the 16:9 (HDTV) composition.

I've been watching a lot of Otto Preminger's widescreen films recently ranging from Carmen, and River of No Return up to Exodus and The Cardinal. Just watching his widescreen films for 5 minutes is a completely different experience to watching contemporary widescreen films. The way he stages action and moves the camera is completely different. He will use the full area of the widescreen to fit in more zones of action, and in doing so he can delay cutting, because the way he has positioned the actors causes your attention to shift between different areas of the frame during the take. He gives the viewer freedom to investigate alternate areas of the frame, but in doing so he can also direct your attention. So, in other words, the viewer takes some editing control of the film. Which I think is more powerful than just cutting to a new angle every 4.5 seconds.

This approach is very precise film making, where each shot and camera movement are designed for specific affects. It is the complete opposite to the Gladiator mentality of just throwing cameras at the action and hoping "someone get's something good".

In Exodus many scenes feature windows, or door frames enabling you to peer into backgrounds which are held in sharp focus. This means he is generating action both laterially, but also in depth. This simply doesn't occur in contemporary widescreen films because the action is either framed very close, or the action cut so rapidly that there isn't opportunity to develop interplay between foreground and background.

After all of this I must say I have a greater appreciation for a nicely composed widescreen film. As you can imagine I prefer anamorphic cinematography, but there are some Super 35 films I admire. For example James Gray's film Little Odessa made interesting use of zooms which would've been hard in anamorphic. I also think that a film like Seven is an excellent Super 35 film, because I like the look of it, and perhaps the consistent under exposure would've been difficult - but not impossible - to acheive in anamorphic.

Regarding anamorphic well, I think Bringing Out The Dead is astounding, along with Million Dollar Baby which was just beautiful to look at in the cinema, but probably won't have anywhere near the impact on DVD, because in a way, DVD still doesn't completely do top quality anamorphic cinematography justice, where as it makes Super 35 look better than it really is.

Movies have ALWAYS been edited on small screens, and even in this day and age of digital editing, dailies are still printed and projected for the cast and crew during shooting.


Maybe because that would've required an additional step- i.e., recording black masks onto the 16:9 original footage. As for Lucas choosing the Sony cameras over the Viper, the Viper DIDN'T EXIST when Lucas made ATTACK OF THE CLONES, and Lucas has a vested interest in using the Sony cameras because he was involved in their development.


That's an absurd argument. Martin Scorsese personally supervised the pan-and-scan transfer of his anamorphically-shot CAPE FEAR, and Quentin Tarantino did the same for PULP FICTION. By your logic, would you claim that those pan-and-scan transfers somehow invalidate the format the films were shot in?

If Lucas had "opened up" the ATTACK OF THE CLONES framing for the IMAX showings, then your use of him as an example to support your point would be justified, but the fact that the IMAX AotC is panned-and-scanned shows that the final film was completed and meant to be seen in one way only- 2.35:1. The IMAX version was one of the first standard-format to IMAX blow-ups, and for later blow-ups they happily abandoned the reframing and IMAX presentations of the MATRIX sequels, HARRY POTTER 3, and SPIDER-MAN 2 were all "letterboxed", retaining the 2.35:1 aspect ratio within the IMAX frame.


Vilmos Zsigmond shoots almost exclusively in anamorphic Panavision, and he uses almost exclusively Panavision's anamorphic zoom lenses. I was on the set of JERSEY GIRL and saw him in action, and the lighting set-ups didn't take particularily longer than I've seen them take on Super-35 productions I've visited the sets of, nor were the Panavision zooms particularily "huge".

Dario Argento's low-budget thriller from 1992, TRAUMA, was also largely shot with anamorphic zooms, so your comment that shooting in anamorphic using zooms is "not possible" is simply untrue.

Vincent

A lot of the films project dailies digitally on relatively small screens. So not only is it small, but it isn't even on film. There was an American Cinematographer article last year dealing with this whole issue, of course cinematographers want to see film dailies, but digital is much cheaper, and producers are always looking at ways to cut costs.

On the King Kong remake Peter Jackson waxes lyrical about how convenient it is for him to watch dailies from DVD on a laptop! So not only is that on a small screen and not film, it isn't even HD! All of the takes on that film are scanned at 2K as soon as printed, it is just more managable to deal with all the footage as digital files.

Regarding editing, I simply point out that the film is viewed more and more as a time line in an editing programme which displays the image on a relatively small monitor. This is different to the procedure when a film would be edited on a flat bed, but then once the work print was finished an answer print would be made which would be projected in a screening room or standard cinema. That is totally different to all the manipulations being made on a small monitor. Plus, it isn't a straight forward process projecting Super 35 film anyway, either a special silent aperture projector is used, but this means that the widescreen area intended to be shown appears very small, even on a standard screen.


I was refering to the up coming film Revenge of the Sith. Surely in the three years between releasing Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith Lucas could've found, developed and/or paid for, a camera that natively records 2.35:1. I simply don't think he wanted to - he enjoys the ability to reframe the widescreen image in post.


I have not been discussing panning and scanning at all. My comments have been directed at the use of Super 35, and the fact it is so popular because it makes it easier to compromise between aspect ratios. That fact your two examples are both anamorphic films just demonstrates one reason why Super 35 is so popular, it is easier to reframe the image in a way that makes the best of a bad situation.


No, the fact Lucas was willing to reframe a film from 2.35:1 to 1.66:1 simply supports my point, that in contemporary film making many film makers consider the aspect ratio of a film open to manipulation, and not a fixed value. Or are you suggesting that the film was released that way in IMAX against Lucas' best wishes?


Firstly, Zsigmond is a very experienced cinematographer, who has worked in anamorphic a lot. He was shooting some of the best anamorphic films at the absolute height of its popularity - the early 1970's. He is in particular very familiar with using anamorphic zooms, just look at the Altman films he worked on like McCabe & Mrs Miller and The Long Goodbye. Almost every shot in those films is a zoom, so he has had a lot of time to learn how to work in the format with those lenses.

Even though it is something that he does, and is good at, it is far more common for D.O.P.s shooting in Super 35 to stick exclusively to zooms. It is mentioned in the Gladiator ASC article, plus also the one for Master and Commander. I am not disputing that certain cinematographers prefer anamorphic, although they are a dying breed. I am just saying the standard production process these days is to use Super 35 in order to stick with spherical lenses, and often zooms.

(That's another thing about contemporary Hollywood film style, films feature wild extreme uses of focal lengths, a single film may feature both a 10mm and 500mm lens, this simply wasn't the case 40 or 50 years ago when most films would be shot with a few lenses ranging from about 25mm to 75mm, I mean Hitchcock would shoot a whole film with a 50mm lens, that is just unheard of these days. Yet the fact so many films are shot with zoom lenses just makes it very easy for the director or D.O.P. to use a wide variety of focal lengths even within a single scene.)

The main problem with anamorphic zooms is that they are slower, of course this can be compensated for using more light or faster film, but what cinematographers desire these days is flexibility to help them work as quickly as possible.

Another issue is the fact that if a film is to include a lot of CGI then often the CGI artists desire the image to shot within a limited lens apertures, on a restricted range of film stocks. It is much easier for a cinematographer to use slower stocks better suited for the inclusion of CGI elements in Super 35 because spherical lenses are faster, and exhibit more depth of field than anamorphic lenses when set close to wide open. Hence most CGI heavy films are more likely to shoot in Super 35.

If a young D.O.P. has just come out of shooting music videos and Coke commercials they don't want to deal with lenses that are a full stop slower, and weigh twice as much as what they are used to, hence most young D.O.P.s shoot in Super 35.