Jack Johnson

"Man of the House" (w/TLJ, cheerleaders): Full Frame taken from Super35?

Could anyone do me the service of checking their dvd of this guilty pleasure to see if the Full Frame transfer was extracted from a Super35 negative?

I have an opportunity to watch this full-frame and just want to know what I'll be missing.

Things to look for: opened up matte lines on the top and bottom of the screen (more visual information), with only marginal cropping on the sides. ...This would suggest a Super35 negative.

...Whereas serious cropping on the sides with no vertical frame gains would suggest a panavision, pan and scan travesty. As I understand it, at any rate... I guess there might be panning and scanning in full-frame transfers made for Super35 negatives, but there's often less, since directors tend to compose their shots for both formats.


At any rate, I find myself guffawing over such an in-depth discussion on this subject spurred by, "Man of the House".


Well, thanks for checking this out for me!




--Jack

Gary Palmer

MAN OF THE HOUSE was photographed anamorphically (Panavision), so I'm afraid the 4:3 version will be hideously cropped. Not to worry, though: The way filmmakers waste the 2.35:1 frame these days (in an effort to placate the requirements of television), you won't be missing anything even remotely essential, thereby rendering the 'scope' frame entirely redundant.

Now, if you were talking REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE or THE ROBE or anything from 1953 to about 1990, that would be another story altogether...

Jack Johnson

Thanks, Gary.

Before I read your post and, laughing all the while, I managed to find a couple frame captures from different sources of the same scene and shot in this film and discovered that hideous cropping of the panavision frame you mention.

I have to agree with you about the way a lot of modern films are framed; it's gotten to the point where I often watch full-screen versions of Super35 films, apparently shot for--or covered for--4 by 3. I've done some captures, some side by side comparison and...while the director probably still insists in most cases that the 2.35:1 version is his perferred ratio...the 4 by 3 version seems viable and often feels more immersive on smaller televisions. At a time when interest in widescreen transfers has never been greater, it's ironic that for most current stuff, it's never mattered less.

As for "Man of the House" I cannot say. But I would hazard a guess that it may not suffer as much from cropping as some films might.


Maybe I'll give the FF version a run.


Thanks for checking on this!



--Jack

Gary Palmer

it's gotten to the point where I often watch full-screen versions of Super35 films, apparently shot for--or covered for--4 by 3. I've done some captures, some side by side comparison and...while the director probably still insists in most cases that the 2.35:1 version is his perferred ratio...the 4 by 3 version seems viable and often feels more immersive on smaller televisions.

Five years ago, I would have despaired of such a viewpoint, but nowadays, there's so little perceivable difference between 2.35:1 movies and their 4:3/16:9 'revisions', I can't blame you for preferring the 4:3 versions. Don't get me wrong: As poorly composed as most of these movies are (and that goes for anamorphic movies, not just Super 35), the theatrical versions represent the 'real' movie, and I would urge anyone to view them at their original AR, especially those with widescreen TV's. But honestly, so few filmmakers use the wide frame in any meaningful way, I have no idea why they bother with it at all. It's my favorite screen ratio, and it's become completely devalued...

At a time when interest in widescreen transfers has never been greater, it's ironic that for most current stuff, it's never mattered less.

You got it in one, Jack! In fact, Kerns Powers - one of the technicians who originally proposed the 16:9 TV standard - later said: "Had the SMPTE working group been aware in 1984 of the full-frame (soft matte) protection scheme [ie. Super 35], it is by no means obvious that 16:9 would have amassed the advantages over 4:3 that persuaded the working group to make that choice." In other words, a TV standard intended to bridge the gap between a multitude of theatrical aspect ratios was made redundant by the widespread adoption of a screen 'format' which is neither one AR or another...

WillG

Yeah, and I'm somewhat concerned that it's only a matter of time before more of the general population begins to figure this out as well, which may decrease the interest in OAR transfers which leads to more MAR only presentations.

You can make a better case with Panavision films even though those films often keep all the action centered as well, the zoomed in image can look horrible as well. However, it really does seem like Anamorphic is a dying format. We really do need a renaissance in the cinematography field.

Gary Palmer

Well, the likes of James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez would like to replace film with digital imagery (ie. video), thereby transforming 'cinema' into an adjunct of TV. You can still use anamorphic lenses with digital cameras, but the aforementioned filmmakers tend to prefer cropping the native 1.78:1 digital/HD image down to 2.35:1 for the release prints. In other words, television with the top and bottom cropped off.

Which is about as far removed from the spirit of CinemaScope (and genuine moviemaking) as it's possible to get...