Gary Palmer
Stunt Coordinator
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 145
every widescreen video of the 1956 Don Siegel version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" has been 2:1... I'm REALLY hoping that whenever Paramount does a new DVD (when they get the Republic/Spelling catalog later this year), they release the first DVD in its intended ratio.
I understand what you mean - this creates something of a gray area (if I'm not mistaken, the same thing was done to WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS). I'd be very uneasy if the theatrical ratios of such movies were suddenly discarded, but DVD can easily accommodate both versions of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, which would be an ideal compromise.
[Univisium] is essentially a 3 perf version of SuperScope.
In other words, no different from 3-perf Super 35, except for the unnecessary difference in AR.
The only reason [EXORCIST THE BEGINNING] wasn't presented in 2.00:1 is due to studio ignorance, and this dumbed down belief that the only valid aspect ratios are 2.4:1 or 1.85:1.
'Ignorance' may be a bit harsh. After all, for the vast majority of theaters, 2.35 and 1.85 are the two fixed AR's. No one else is using the Univisium process, and no one seems interested in following Storaro's misguided lead, so I'm not sure everyone should try to accommodate a minority format that won't survive beyond Storaro's career.
However there is a film format that supports a 2.00:1 theatrical image - an anamorphic print with black bars added on the sides to protect the composition.
Yes, this would be a valid means of presenting Univisium movies in theaters which aren't equipped to deal with anything other than 1.85/2.35. But again, no one other than Storaro is interested in pursuing this AR, which renders his ongoing pursuit of this particular format quite pointless. And I think 'misguided' is the kindest word I can use to describe his decision to impose 2.00:1 on his earlier movies on DVD, those produced long before he decided 2.00:1 was the 'golden ratio'...
if that is a valid modification, then why not show all Super 35 films 1.85:1?
The likes of Roger Donaldson would like to do just that, as far as DVD is concerned. Shudder...
I think it is actually a good thing that a cinematographer wishes to innovate a new aspect ratio that would be explicitly designed to unify both theatrical and home presentation of films.
Not when the AR chosen by the cinematographer bears no relation to existing theatrical or television standards. For the purposes of 'scope' exhibition, 2.35 is the standard in most theaters (well, movies are actually projected at 2.39 for technical reasons, though the unsqueezed image on the film is still 2.35, but let's not get too trainspotter-ish!), and 16:9 is now the international television standard for both 'regular' TV and HD - 2.00:1 is not an option, nor is it ever likely to be. In fact, the next revolution in TV standards (for home theater purposes, if not for regular TV broadcast) will be 21:9, far wider than Storaro's preferred 2.00:1, for the simple reason that 21:9 can accommodate the broad range of current theatrical and TV standards.
Moreover, if this thread is about retaining the integrity of the theatrical aspect ratio, then shouldn't consideration be given to the intention of the cinematographer and director?
Yes, but not when their decision deviates so wildly from the original theatrical presentation. If a director wants to colorize your favorite black and white movie and remove the original B/W print from circulation forever - or, at least, for the forseeable future - should that be considered a good thing? Just ask all those fans who are sick to death of George Lucas constantly tampering with the STAR WARS series whilst refusing point blank to give fans what they want - the movies as they originally appeared in theaters, with none of the bells, whistles and visual additions. George's latest wheeze - he's going to turn them into 3-D extravaganzas!!...
In that case the 2.00:1 theatrical aspect ratio of Univisium should stand, because it IS a legitimate format that can be very easily accomdated even by the restricted nature of contemporary exhibition practices.
Couldn't agree more. I think Storaro is foolish to pursue this one-man crusade, but if the movies were photographed in a particular way, then the idea of pillarboxing the image within a 2.35 frame is a wholly legitimate means of presentation. I may not have made it clear in my initial post, but I think Warner was wrong to present the film at 2.35 in theaters (and on DVD), given that the film was composed for a specific ratio (unlike, say, THE RECRUIT, which was deliberately compromised to accommodate a range of AR's).
I think you identify the problem with this whole issue. I've seen many contemporary Hollywood Super 35 films where it looks like 2.4:1 was an after thought, and that the DVD could be transferred 4:3, 1.78:1 or 2.4:1 and it wouldn't make much difference. Contemporary Hollywood style is so imprecise, so wholly concerned with close ups that composition is more or less dead. The best widescreen films made in Hollywood are generally anamorphic.
Simon, we've discussed this subject several times before over at rec.arts.movies.tech, and despite the fact that I've questioned some of your assertions here, we agree much more than we disagree on this issue!
Anamorphic photography is not only sharper, brighter and 'prettier' (as per director Stephen Sommers, who has worked in both anamorphic and S35 and prefers the former for this very reason), but it also focuses composition in a way that eludes most S35 movies. It isn't always the case, however: From 1990 onwards, most anamorphic movies 'protected' for TV, piling all relevant imagery into a specific portion of the frame to accommodate 4:3 TV presentations. Some people say this was being done as far back as the 1970's, though I'm not sure it was done to the same extent (the 1970's introduced a looser style of composition, with handheld camerawork and a 'realistic' visual style at odds with the formal gloss of 'Golden Age' Hollywood, and this freewheeling approach can be mistaken for 'TV protection'). Such films should never have been photographed at anything wider than 1.85, because the 2.35 image is simply wasted. Unfortunately, opening up the frame on a S35 negative to accommodate a range of AR's is no less destructive, because it compromises every AR, from the theatrical print to the TV version. I strongly disagree with those who say S35 is a suitable alternative to pan-scanning an anamorphic image - it's actually just as bad, if not worse.
Wasn't the original broadcast [of DUNE] done at 1.78:1? If so, the DVD accurately relfects the OAR, no matter what format was used.
I seem to recall being told that the original broadcast was actually 2.00:1, though I'm not 100% sure. On some TV's, overscan would have rendered the difference between 1.78 and 2.00:1 almost entirely inconsequential.
"Backdraft" was shown theatrically 1.85, but shot Super35 (Super 1.85). On DVD it's reframed at 2:1 using the old LaserDisc transfer, which itself was made when Universal had the policy of reframing anything Super35 at 2:1 (Dr. Giggles, etc) regardless of OAR.
I saw BACKDRAFT projected theatrically at 2.35, and the DVD is framed at around 2.10, a slight compromise. DR. GIGGLES is another Super 35 movie screened theatrically at 2.35. However, just to confuse everyone, there is a Super 1.85 process (used, as Peter says, on the likes of THE GODFATHER PART III and THE TWO JAKES), which is configured the same way as S35 except that the image is composed for 1.85 rather than 2.35. Technically-minded contributors may be able to provide the official specs, but I'm told the process uses more of the actual frame area, yielding greater detail than 'regular' 1.85. It's certainly a better use of the so-called 'Super' format than Super 35!!...
I understand what you mean - this creates something of a gray area (if I'm not mistaken, the same thing was done to WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS). I'd be very uneasy if the theatrical ratios of such movies were suddenly discarded, but DVD can easily accommodate both versions of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, which would be an ideal compromise.
[Univisium] is essentially a 3 perf version of SuperScope.
In other words, no different from 3-perf Super 35, except for the unnecessary difference in AR.
The only reason [EXORCIST THE BEGINNING] wasn't presented in 2.00:1 is due to studio ignorance, and this dumbed down belief that the only valid aspect ratios are 2.4:1 or 1.85:1.
'Ignorance' may be a bit harsh. After all, for the vast majority of theaters, 2.35 and 1.85 are the two fixed AR's. No one else is using the Univisium process, and no one seems interested in following Storaro's misguided lead, so I'm not sure everyone should try to accommodate a minority format that won't survive beyond Storaro's career.
However there is a film format that supports a 2.00:1 theatrical image - an anamorphic print with black bars added on the sides to protect the composition.
Yes, this would be a valid means of presenting Univisium movies in theaters which aren't equipped to deal with anything other than 1.85/2.35. But again, no one other than Storaro is interested in pursuing this AR, which renders his ongoing pursuit of this particular format quite pointless. And I think 'misguided' is the kindest word I can use to describe his decision to impose 2.00:1 on his earlier movies on DVD, those produced long before he decided 2.00:1 was the 'golden ratio'...
if that is a valid modification, then why not show all Super 35 films 1.85:1?
The likes of Roger Donaldson would like to do just that, as far as DVD is concerned. Shudder...
I think it is actually a good thing that a cinematographer wishes to innovate a new aspect ratio that would be explicitly designed to unify both theatrical and home presentation of films.
Not when the AR chosen by the cinematographer bears no relation to existing theatrical or television standards. For the purposes of 'scope' exhibition, 2.35 is the standard in most theaters (well, movies are actually projected at 2.39 for technical reasons, though the unsqueezed image on the film is still 2.35, but let's not get too trainspotter-ish!), and 16:9 is now the international television standard for both 'regular' TV and HD - 2.00:1 is not an option, nor is it ever likely to be. In fact, the next revolution in TV standards (for home theater purposes, if not for regular TV broadcast) will be 21:9, far wider than Storaro's preferred 2.00:1, for the simple reason that 21:9 can accommodate the broad range of current theatrical and TV standards.
Moreover, if this thread is about retaining the integrity of the theatrical aspect ratio, then shouldn't consideration be given to the intention of the cinematographer and director?
Yes, but not when their decision deviates so wildly from the original theatrical presentation. If a director wants to colorize your favorite black and white movie and remove the original B/W print from circulation forever - or, at least, for the forseeable future - should that be considered a good thing? Just ask all those fans who are sick to death of George Lucas constantly tampering with the STAR WARS series whilst refusing point blank to give fans what they want - the movies as they originally appeared in theaters, with none of the bells, whistles and visual additions. George's latest wheeze - he's going to turn them into 3-D extravaganzas!!...
In that case the 2.00:1 theatrical aspect ratio of Univisium should stand, because it IS a legitimate format that can be very easily accomdated even by the restricted nature of contemporary exhibition practices.
Couldn't agree more. I think Storaro is foolish to pursue this one-man crusade, but if the movies were photographed in a particular way, then the idea of pillarboxing the image within a 2.35 frame is a wholly legitimate means of presentation. I may not have made it clear in my initial post, but I think Warner was wrong to present the film at 2.35 in theaters (and on DVD), given that the film was composed for a specific ratio (unlike, say, THE RECRUIT, which was deliberately compromised to accommodate a range of AR's).
I think you identify the problem with this whole issue. I've seen many contemporary Hollywood Super 35 films where it looks like 2.4:1 was an after thought, and that the DVD could be transferred 4:3, 1.78:1 or 2.4:1 and it wouldn't make much difference. Contemporary Hollywood style is so imprecise, so wholly concerned with close ups that composition is more or less dead. The best widescreen films made in Hollywood are generally anamorphic.
Simon, we've discussed this subject several times before over at rec.arts.movies.tech, and despite the fact that I've questioned some of your assertions here, we agree much more than we disagree on this issue!
Anamorphic photography is not only sharper, brighter and 'prettier' (as per director Stephen Sommers, who has worked in both anamorphic and S35 and prefers the former for this very reason), but it also focuses composition in a way that eludes most S35 movies. It isn't always the case, however: From 1990 onwards, most anamorphic movies 'protected' for TV, piling all relevant imagery into a specific portion of the frame to accommodate 4:3 TV presentations. Some people say this was being done as far back as the 1970's, though I'm not sure it was done to the same extent (the 1970's introduced a looser style of composition, with handheld camerawork and a 'realistic' visual style at odds with the formal gloss of 'Golden Age' Hollywood, and this freewheeling approach can be mistaken for 'TV protection'). Such films should never have been photographed at anything wider than 1.85, because the 2.35 image is simply wasted. Unfortunately, opening up the frame on a S35 negative to accommodate a range of AR's is no less destructive, because it compromises every AR, from the theatrical print to the TV version. I strongly disagree with those who say S35 is a suitable alternative to pan-scanning an anamorphic image - it's actually just as bad, if not worse.Wasn't the original broadcast [of DUNE] done at 1.78:1? If so, the DVD accurately relfects the OAR, no matter what format was used.
I seem to recall being told that the original broadcast was actually 2.00:1, though I'm not 100% sure. On some TV's, overscan would have rendered the difference between 1.78 and 2.00:1 almost entirely inconsequential.
"Backdraft" was shown theatrically 1.85, but shot Super35 (Super 1.85). On DVD it's reframed at 2:1 using the old LaserDisc transfer, which itself was made when Universal had the policy of reframing anything Super35 at 2:1 (Dr. Giggles, etc) regardless of OAR.
I saw BACKDRAFT projected theatrically at 2.35, and the DVD is framed at around 2.10, a slight compromise. DR. GIGGLES is another Super 35 movie screened theatrically at 2.35. However, just to confuse everyone, there is a Super 1.85 process (used, as Peter says, on the likes of THE GODFATHER PART III and THE TWO JAKES), which is configured the same way as S35 except that the image is composed for 1.85 rather than 2.35. Technically-minded contributors may be able to provide the official specs, but I'm told the process uses more of the actual frame area, yielding greater detail than 'regular' 1.85. It's certainly a better use of the so-called 'Super' format than Super 35!!...
