"Apocalypse Now Redux" Framing (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

And how exactly do you film in anamorphic WITHOUT using anamorphic lenses!? That just makes no sense.

not to presume Scott H's answer, but he never said it was possible to film anamorphic without using anamorphic lenses. he said it was possible to film anamorphic without using Panavision lenses (" you need not use Panavision cameras or lenses to shoot anamorphic ~2.40:1 of course.").
DJ

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Anamorphic lenses provided by someone else other than Panavision? I suspected that for awhile but dismissed it. Just curious, but who else besides Panavision makes anamorphic lenses? I've always wanted to know this. Well Jerry, it looks like we were right about that after all.
Scott, I in turn retract MY statement regarding that, sorry.
------------------
To the men and women of the N.Y. police and fire department
God bless you.
To the victims and their families
God keep you.
To the dirtbags who caused all this
God help you!!!
[Edited last by John Williamson on November 14, 2001 at 01:48 AM]

 

[Hendrik]

"Just curious, but who else besides Panavision makes anamorphic lenses? "
...ahh... well... it all started, of course, with Bausch & Lomb lenses - as prominently announced in the Main Credits of such early 20th Century Fox CinemaScope movies as The Robe and How To Marry a Millionnaire ...
...don't rightly know who actually manufactured the anamorphic lenses used for early Warner Bros. 2.35:1 movies filmed in WarnerScope ... and let's not forget MetroScope and Ultrascope (the latter being the poor man's anamorphic process, I suppose)...
...also, during the 1950s and 1960s there were - e.g. - French 2.20:1 and 2.35:1 movies filmed in Franscope, Italian ones filmed in Dyaliscope, Soviet movies filmed in Sovscope, Japanese ones filmed in Tohoscope or Daeiscope... I'd lay bets that none of the lenses used to make those films were made by Panavision...
. . . (signed) Passing Pedant

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Hendrik, thanks a bunch for the info! Wow, it's amazing how many manufacturer's their are of anamorphic lenses. But here's my problem...
I first thought something was odd when I saw the film 'Father's Day', you know that aweful Billy Crystal and Robin Williams movie, anyway it's obviously anamorphic, and when the credits ended, I expected to see 'Filmed in Panavision', but instead it said 'Filmed with Panavision Cameras and Lenses'. At first I thought it was a mistake, but then I thought that the filmmakers wouldn't have made a mistake like that, so I came to the conclusion that someone else must have provided the anamorphic lenses for that film, but who?
So my question is, does anyone know witch one provided the lenses for that film? Probably not, but it's a shot.
Are the ones you mention Hendrik, even still being made and used in film's made today?
------------------
To the men and women of the N.Y. police and fire department
God bless you.
To the victims and their families
God keep you.
To the dirtbags who caused all this
God help you!!!
[Edited last by John Williamson on November 14, 2001 at 08:58 AM]

 

[Jerry Gracia]

Well Jerry, it looks like we were right about that after all.

Leave me out of it Jon!

I'll never learn to "not bother" with these discussions.
Ah well...
We're only human.
------------------
LuvLBX

 

[Michael Reuben]

when the credits ended, I expected to see 'Filmed in Panavision', but instead it said 'Filmed with Panavision Cameras and Lenses'. At first I thought it was a mistake, but then I thought that the filmmakers wouldn't have made a mistake like that

John, mistakes like that in end credits are so common that I've learned never to rely on them. To take one famous example: If you believe the end credits, Silence of the Lambs was "Filmed in Panavision".
M.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

ahhh, So it WAS a mistake! That's a pretty blaring mistake to make though, I mean, how can you get the format you shot your movie in listed wrong in the credits!?

So, just to clearify, 'Father's Day' was most likely 'Filmed in Panavision', they just screwed up the listing in the credits?
------------------
To the men and women of the N.Y. police and fire department
God bless you.
To the victims and their families
God keep you.
To the dirtbags who caused all this
God help you!!!
[Edited last by John Williamson on November 14, 2001 at 09:15 AM]
[Edited last by John Williamson on November 14, 2001 at 09:18 AM]

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Just because Storaro is a good DP doesn't insulate him from having bad ideas about video transfers. At least in the case of Tucker, I recall compositions being off and characters cut off the sides when speaking. This is intolerable and shows to me that Storaro really didn't pay any attention to the transfer. If he had, he might have gone back to the proper AR.
------------------
"This movie has warped my fragile little mind."

 

[GerardoHP]

Just because Storaro is a good DP doesn't insulate him from having bad ideas about video transfers.

Such true words.
------------------
Gerardo

 

[cafink]

'Apocalypse Now' WAS indeed intended by Coppola and co to be 2.40:1.

Just to be clear, I am not arguing against any of these points. Nowhere have I said that it is common or even practical to extract some other ratio from the 2.40:1 frame. But I have said that it is POSSIBLE, and you tell me I'm wrong — but you still haven't explained why. Why isn't it possible?

 

[GerardoHP]

Nowhere have I said that it is common or even practical to extract some other ratio from the 2.40:1 frame.

Actually, it is one of the most common practices when transferring scope films to 4:3, and it's been happening for almost 50 years, since the advent of CinemaScope.
------------------
Gerardo

 

[cafink]

What I meant was that it's neither common nor practical to shoot anamorphic with the INTENTION of extracting some other INTENDED aspect ratio. I hadn't even considered the idea of pan and scan (which is what you're talking about, right?).
But now that you mention is, it kind of proves my point, doesn't it? There you go — an example of a narrow picture (1.33:1) being extraced from the wide frame (2.40:1) of an anamorphically-shot film.

 

[GerardoHP]

But now that you mention is, it kind of proves my point, doesn't it?

Exactly. Which is why I said before you're not clueless.
------------------
Gerardo

 

[Dave Koch]

I am going to reply again to this, I think I have something new to add. I am hoping I can tie up the two main points of this thread (or look pretty stupid trying!)
It seems to me there are two ideas floating around here...
1) VS was "wrong" to mess with the AR for the video version.
2) Anything shot 2.4:1 was ONLY intended to be shown 2.4:1 or there abouts.
The problem VS faced was how best to present 2.4:1 on 4:3. Getting back to elementary school math, that would be fitting 7.2:3 on 4:3... nearly twice the width!
When presenting 2.4:1 on a screen MADE for 2.4:1, there is no arguement, that is the way to present it. It was shot that way to be shown that way. And while, yes, starting with that AR, you can matt it down to whatever you want; as yet, no one has seen the NEED to do that on a film screen.
But a 4:3 screen is a TOTALLY different animal. I think we can all agree no matter what you spend on a home system, it will never be a film screen. The frame rate is different, the AR is different, the contrast ratio is different... and despite AVIA and VE, the colors on every screen are probably produced differently. When one now knows the presentation system will be RADICALLY DIFFERENT that what the film was shot and intended to be shown as, is it not logical to try to make that new presentation the best possible for that new format? When it was shot in 2.4:1, could FFC and VS even concieve that it might end up on a 4:3? If it was not shot for 4:3, don't FFC and VS deserve to relook at the film, and re-evaluate the framing and other considerations when the method of presentation change this radically??? (It is not as if he was removing all the guns and replacing them with walkie-talkies!)
Getting back to basic math, and the common deniminator of ":3", you have a film that starts "7.2" wide to be shown "4" wide. the 2.0:1 gives is a "6" wide, neatly splitting the difference (actually more to the WS side...). I think it is pretty obvious that VS was trying to get the best of both worlds (WS and Vertical detail). Rather than looking at this as Bad Old VS messing with the AR, I think you can also looking at it as VS trying to get the best results on a limited medium. Most people here seem to value OAR above all else; obviously, VS takes a variety of considerations into account for the best reproduction of his images.
OK, to try to wrap up my thoughts, and getting back to those two points...
1) Whether VS was "wrong" or not is totally a matter of personal choice. None of us will change each others minds about that. But he had the power to make his choice, and right or wrong, that is what we have to live with.
2) 35 mm animorphic 2.4:1 can be matted or printed to any AR, but, at least when presented as a 35 mm film on a screen, those shot that way inevitable are shown that way. But I would point out that when the presentation medium changes, there is no "law of Hollywood" that dictates that it has to be shown 2.4:1. No one argues that it is "improper" to rematt AN from 2.4:1 to 2.2:1 for 70 mm (which is a different presentation format.) No one goes after (or suggests it is improper) for VS to reframe the AR to fit the AR of 70.... and I think reframing for 4:3 presentation is no different.
OK, I'll shut up now!
dave
PS Obi: Thanks for your clarification! Obviously, I dissagree, but that what this discussion is all about.
[Edited last by Dave Koch on November 14, 2001 at 12:32 PM]
[Edited last by Dave Koch on November 14, 2001 at 12:45 PM]
[Edited last by Dave Koch on November 14, 2001 at 12:47 PM]

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Well, Dave, that pretty much sums up the argument for Pan & Scan, doesn't it? You lose resolution going wider than 4:3. So are you saying AN and everything else widescreen should be 4:3 to maximize the resolution? Thanks, but no. I'd rather see the entire picture.
And FFC and Storaro certainly knew that the movie would end up on 4:3 televisions; that's been standard practice since the 1960s.
------------------
"This movie has warped my fragile little mind."

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Carl, yes you CAN modify an anamorphic 2.40:1 image, modify until your hearts content, but by doing so you are altering what anamorphic is supposed to be, and that is 2.40:1, panning and scanning to 1.33:1 is the OBVIOUS exception.
The problem here is this, Coppola and his DP are treating this film as if it were a Super 35 film, it isn't, it's anamorphic, and it wasn't designed to be change like that.
Anamorphic just doesn't handle being modified well at all, their is no room to play with, that's what Super 35 is for. When you choose to shoot in anamorphic, you leave yourself no room to change your mind later and say "Nah, I think I wanted THIS ratio instead.", too late, you've chosen anamorphic lenses, should of went with Super 35 instead.
Bottom line, and please try to understand this, altering a film shot anamorphically to any ratio other than 2.40:1 is wrong, and you are doing something to the image that it really left no room for, sure you can matte it a little more, but you'll be losing information at the top and bottom, crucial information, sure you can zoom it, but you'll be cropping the sides, again losing CRUCIAL image information, you can't win.
Once you film a movie anamorphically, that's it, you can't change your mind later, your screwed, should have filmed in Super 35 instead.
------------------
To the men and women of the N.Y. police and fire department
God bless you.
To the victims and their families
God keep you.
To the dirtbags who caused all this
God help you!!!
[Edited last by John Williamson on November 14, 2001 at 02:17 PM]
[Edited last by John Williamson on November 14, 2001 at 02:52 PM]

 

[Dave Koch]

Mark:

...that pretty much sums up the argument for Pan & Scan, doesn't it...

No, not really. Kind of, though. I mean, I see what you mean...
The arguement for P&S has little to do with maximizing picture quality, and more to do with FILLING a 4:3 with image.
Whereas my argeuement for what VS has done comes completely from maximizing picture quality.
The results are similar, I agree... but not enough for me to think that what VS has done, and what P&S are are in fact the same.
OK, for sure, films were being presented on TV at that time. But I am also as sure that the practice at that time was much different than today. Today, it is very common to shoot TV safe, or alternate TV versions of shots... there is just too much money to me made there.
But, I think in 1976, TV was much more of an afterthought. I do NOT know this for a fact. But if I were there, I would have shot for 2.4:1, and worried about other versions after I got out of the jungles and hurricanes.
As I remember, the 70 MM print was the premiere version (I may be wrong, but I did see it at the dome in Hollywood in 70 and 6-track.... still have the book!) So, whould that mean the OAR is 2.2:1? And would the 2.4:1 be an abomination?
Just having fun!
dave

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

quote: Carl, you've got the explanation down cold, but what I got from your other posts is that your under the immpression that one can extract other ratios when filming in the anamorphic format, you can't. 2.40:1 is pretty much the very DEFINITION of Panavision anamorphic, when you film using that format, your intention is clear, you wish the film you are making to be seen in theater's at 2.40:1, nothing more, nothing less.

...except, as I posted (and apparently everyone ignored because it didn't fit their arguments), the 2.4:1 anamorphic release prints of Soderbergh's King of the Hill were composed with safe area at both sides for cropping to 2:1.
Once again, the 2:1 ratio was not achieved by opening up the top and bottom -- it was achieved by cropping the 2.4:1 anamorphic release print. Soderbergh and his d.o.p. explain this as their intention in the small supplement on the King of the Hill LaserDisc.
Is King of the Hill not a good enough example for anyone? Expecting a 2.4:1 print of a film to be cropped to 2:1 when projected and shooting accordingly and then transferring the film to video at 2:1 has happened (though again, I don't believe this to be the case with Apocalypse Now).
I would argue, too, that to start with Super 35 and then crop the resulting 2.4:1 image to 2:1 is really a bad way to go about it compared to shooting anamorphic 2.4:1 and cropping to 2:1 because of how much resolution you're throwing away.
Apocalypse Now was shot with 70mm presentation in mind, and it would be really really dumb of them to compose for 2.4:1 when the ideal release of the film -- the one with the revoultionary and much touted six track sound mix -- would be cropped to 2.2:1. Having seen Apocalypse Now in 70mm a couple of times after having picked up the cropped LD (and having waded through this kind of flareup in alt.video.laserdisc), I saw no noticeable effects of cropping or bad compositions in 2.2:1. I believe that 2.2:1 is the intended aspect ratio of Apocalypse Now, just as 6-track sound is the intended sound mix. The filmmakers would not have been so stupid as to make it a one-or-the-other proposition, i.e. you get to see the film looking the way it should, but not hear it right, or you get to hear it right and have the picture cropped. Of course, that last option is the one we get with the current video presentation of the film...
As to the question of hard mattes and whether anyone still uses them, Out of Sight, another Soderbergh film, with the exception of I believe just one shot (the shot of the photograph of Jack in the backwards hat we see at his ex-wife's house) was hard-matted to 1.85:1. The shot of the photograph was a pickup, filmed by Soderbergh after principal photography had ended, explaining the discrepancy. I don't believe that hard-matting is very common these days because of video, but I do understand the desire to ensure correct projection by not offering any opportunity to mis-frame the print.
And just to stir up the dirt a bit -- why is it that when Apocalypse Now is cropped to more closely conform to the shape of a widescreen TV there's a great amount of unhappiness, but when the nearly-square IMAX format is cropped to 1.78:1 for the new Super Speedway disc, people are downright supportive of it? Where are the calls to boycott Super Speedway in this cropped edition? If I said that Apocalypse Now looked better cropped to 2:1 (I don't, but I do believe that it looks right at 2.2:1), I'd get flamed right off of HTF, but in the thread about the new Super Speedway disc, people posted about how it looked better cropped with no such consequences.
edit: somehow when I pasted that it turned into one giant paragraph! Sorry all. Fixed now.
[Edited last by Aaron Reynolds on November 14, 2001 at 02:30 PM]

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Aaron, would it be fair to say that this film you mentioned 'King of the Hill' is the exception and not the rule?
If this has happened, it's got to be pretty rare right?
------------------
To the men and women of the N.Y. police and fire department
God bless you.
To the victims and their families
God keep you.
To the dirtbags who caused all this
God help you!!!

 

[Damin J Toell]

Carl, yes you CAN modify an anamorphic 2.40:1 image, modify until your hearts content, but by doing so you are altering what anamorphic is supposed to be, and that is 2.40:1.

the AR of a film shot with anamorphic lenses is only "supposed to be" 2.4:1 if the filmmakers want it to be 2.4:1. the AR is "supposed to be" what the filmmakers want, not just what most filmmakers filming with anamorphic lenses usually do. there are an infinite number of ways to shoot with anamorphic lenses and achieve an aspect ratio different from 2.4:1 (matting, changing aperture, etc.). none of these is "what anamorphic is supposed to be." anamorphic is a tool used by filmmakers to achieve what they want, not what the lens itself dictates.
you might want to compose in 2.4:1 when shooting with anamorphic lenses, but to say that someone else shooting with the same lenses and composing for a different AR is somehow altering what anamorphic is "supposed to be" is pure hogwash.
ARs a function of what filmmakers want, not what lenses they use. there is no "right" AR for anamorphic filmmaking.
DJ