*Whew* So many wrong assumptions, so little time.
Quote:
|
Aren't most 2.35:1 movies made from 70mm film and the top and bottom "cut off" for that extra wide 2.35:1 shape? E.g Terminator 2 Full screen and widescreen versions...
|
In a word, "no".
Most 2.35:1 movies are either shot on 70mm large format film or on 35mm film with anamorphic ("shape distorting") lenses that "squeeze" the image horizontally to fit the film frame. The resulting negative can either be used to produce an undistorted 70mm print or an anamorphic 35mm print which will have to be projected with a special lens to correct the distortion.
The two films you cite were not shot in 70mm but were done using a process called Super 35mm, where a portion of the film frame usually reserved for the optical soundtrack on release print is used for the film image. Super35 allows for the director to extract various aspect ratios from the same frame, albeit with reduced resolution and increased visible grain at wider ratios, since the image has to be blown up to be projected that way. Super35 became popular in the 80s because it allowed a 1.33:1 image to be created for TV and home video with a minimum of panning and scanning, and therefore did less violence to the original compositon. Directors could simultaneously compose - or at least "protect" - for both their intended ratio (anything from 1.78:1 to 2.35:1) and for the all-important "TV/airline" ratio.
Even with Super35 there is often some panning and scanning for the 1.33:1 version as SFX shots are generally created for the final theatrical ratio using large format film to retain the best possible resolution.
Super35 is used in many filmed television shows these days, as it easily accomodates HD widescreen and standard-def versions of the same footage.
With widescreen TVs gradually taking over thanks to the mandated move to digital broadcasting, I think Super35 is going to be used less and less in both theatrical and television applications.
Quote:
|
The source material isn't anamorphic enhanced but matted.
|
Although the same term is used and the underlying concepts are the same, "anamorphic" as it applies to shooting a film and "anamorphic" as it applies to mastering a DVD really have nothing at all to do with one another. An anamorphic DVD can be made from any widescreen film source, regardless of whether it was shot "flat" with a spherical lens or "anamorphic" with a distorting lens. Similarly a non-anamorphic disc can (and in the early days often was) made from an anamorphic film source.
Quote:
|
So if 1080p is very close to how a 1.78:1 film source looks like and if the 2.35:1 movie is simply a 77mm film source with some of the top and bottom cut then wouldn't 1080p still be very close to how a 2.35:1 film source looks like?
|
1) A 1080p frame looks damned good, but
no consumer video system looks "very close" to what actual film looks like. Video has improved by leaps and bounds, true. But let's not kid ourselves about how far we've come.
2) In a way, in spite of everything, you're almost right.
On a 1.77:1 TV screen a 2.35:1 source will look almost as film-like as a 1.77:1 source if both are presented in 1080p. But DaViD is right that on a 2.35:1 screen in a constant height arrangement, you'd get a better image if you had
more lines of resolution availble for such a screen. Which practically nobody has and which I don't see very many people getting in, say, the next 10 years. 20 years from now we'll probably be dealing with multistandard displays that adjust on the fly and follow us from room to room. (Forget that "pause live TV" nonsesne. I want a TV that will come
with me to the kitchen while I get a drink or make a sandwich, or to the bathroom if I have to make a pit-stop during the Big Game.
)
Regards,
Joe
