|
|
 |
03-23-2003, 10:34 PM
|
#1 of 22 
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Local Date: 10-06-2008
Posts: 3,940
|
Anomorphic Filming - Dying?
I was a bit curious about something, I am not trying to start another Super 35 debate. But it seems like so many more 2.35:1 films are being done in Super 35 and not so much anomorphically anymore. I know that there are reasons to use Super 35, but it seems like anamorphic is slowly dying. Anyone have any insight into this?
|
|
|
|
03-23-2003, 11:05 PM
|
#2 of 22
|
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Local Date: 10-06-2008
Posts: 5,000
|
Well, I think things are changing on some fronts...documentaries are becoming more prominent and virtually all of them are shot digitally. A lot of them are done in the Academy ratio (4:3) and a few in 16x9.
Could cost or perceived easier handling of non-anamorphic cameras be the reason?
Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath. This made him...a super-callused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.
Gameshow host: "Is taking Viagra kosher during Passover dinner?"
Whoopee Goldberg: "Not if it leads to pork."
Kermit the Frog: "Hey, that's my line!"
|
|
|
|
03-23-2003, 11:16 PM
|
#3 of 22
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Local Date: 10-06-2008
Posts: 3,940
|
I don't know, I'm really looking to get some insight. I know there are reasons that Super 35 is necessary nowadays, but one could argue that it really is fake widescreen, not that it matters so much I guess. But I would be a bit saddened if Everything went to Super 35
|
|
|
|
|
03-24-2003, 12:15 AM
|
#4 of 22
|
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Local Date: 10-06-2008
Posts: 419
|
This seems to be the case. Nowadays, more often than not movies are shot for 1.85:1. 2.35:1 movies are usually Super35, so it does seem that anamorphic formats like Panavision are going the way of the Dodo.
Of all the films nominated for major Academy Awards this year, only Pedro Almodovar's Talk To Her and Phillip Noyce's The Quiet American are anamorphic scope films.
|
|
|
|
|
03-24-2003, 08:50 AM
|
#5 of 22
|
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Local Date: 10-06-2008
Posts: 3,995
|
Perhaps 65mm should make a revival. One can have greater depth of focus with it, if that's a concern.
|
|
|
|
|
03-24-2003, 08:58 AM
|
#6 of 22
|
|
Michael Reuben
Administrator
Location: New York City, Lehman Bros. was here
Join Date: Feb 1998
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Local Date: 10-06-2008
Posts: 19,562
|
If Michael Coate is lurking, he may have some statistics on this, because he actually keeps track of such things. My own impression is that there are just as many scope films as always, but there are more 2.35:1 films, so the scope films represent a smaller percentage.
M.
"Most people never have to face the fact that, at the right time and the right place, they're capable of anything." -- Chinatown
"What kind of movies would there be if everyone in them had to do what we thought they should do?" -- Roger Ebert
HTF Beginner's Primer and FAQ
|
|
|
|
|
03-24-2003, 09:07 AM
|
#7 of 22
|
|
John Co
Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Local Date: 10-06-2008
Posts: 3,630
|
Quote:
|
Nowadays, more often than not movies are shot for 1.85:1.
|
I wouldn't mind that one bit. This way I could fill my 16x9 screen whether it is anamorphically enhanced or not. |
|
|
|
|
03-24-2003, 03:55 PM
|
#8 of 22
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Local Date: 10-06-2008
Posts: 3,940
|
"My own impression is that there are just as many scope films as always, but there are more 2.35:1 films, so the scope films represent a smaller percentage."
I'm not sure I'm following what you are trying to say
|
|
|
|
|
03-24-2003, 04:11 PM
|
#9 of 22
|
|
Member
Location: BritCol. North of a Black Hole and West of The Centre of the Universe
Join Date: Aug 2000
Local Time: 05:27 PM
Local Date: 10-06-2008
Posts: 3,543
|
He seems to be saying that the number of films shot using anamorphic lenses isn't falling; the number of films using a 2.35:1 aspect ratio is rising. It gives the appearance that filming in scope is falling in popularity, when it really isn't.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
03-24-2003, 04:14 PM
|
#10 of 22
|
|
Michael Reuben
Administrator
Location: New York City, Lehman Bros. was here
Join Date: Feb 1998
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Local Date: 10-06-2008
Posts: 19,562
|
That's not what I "seem" to be saying; it's what I said. 
Again, I have no hard statistics, but my impression is:
1. There are just as many (if not more) films being shot with scope lenses today as there were, say, 15 years ago.
2. Today, however, there are many more films being framed for 2.35:1 using Super 35 that, in the past, might well have been framed for 1.85:1, because budgetary or technical constraints would have dictated against the use of anamorphic lenses. This is most noticeable among independent and low budget productions, but it can also affect big studio films (James Cameron is the most famous example, but there are others, including Scorsese).
3. Accordingly, the total number of films framed for 2.35:1 is greater than it used to be. But the number of such films shot with anamorphic lenses hasn't seen a similar increase.
M.
"Most people never have to face the fact that, at the right time and the right place, they're capable of anything." -- Chinatown
"What kind of movies would there be if everyone in them had to do what we thought they should do?" -- Roger Ebert
HTF Beginner's Primer and FAQ
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
03-24-2003, 10:41 PM
|
#11 of 22
|
|
