unmatted vs. pan and scan (1 Viewer)

[Michael Reuben]

Can you name some movies that were shot with "1.85 flat"

Give me a list of 1.85:1 movies you're familiar with, and I'll tell you which ones were shot "flat".

M.

 

[Kevin Korom]

1.85 flat simply means that it is shot on a normal 35mm film (not Super35), using conventional lenses. The image is exposed onto the film exactly as you would see it, no optical distortions ala anamorphic- thus it is shot "flat". Don't ask me why, probably some cameraman said it that way once & it stuck...

Examples? Virtually anything shot 1.37/1.66/1.85, up until Super35 became popular.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Panavision, Super-35, and normal flat films are all shot on the same 35mm film. (Of course, different formulas for emulsion depending on the fil, but that's not the point.)

Panavision uses an anamorphic lens and the frame is not used where the soundtrack would be overlaid. Super-35 uses the ENTIRE space on 35mm film. Flat uses no lens and can use plates to hard-matte.

One point...

Often for effect shots in films, the filmmakers will use VistaVision cameras. You get twice the area than normal 35mm, plus it stays spherical.

www.widescreenmuseum.com is a site EVERYONE must see at least once. It's good for the soul.

 

[David Von Pein]

Just curious.....Why does the supposedly much better-looking Anamorphic image (bottom) look MUCH worse in these screenshots (re. color)? Does it really look this bleached-out on a 16:9 monitor?? :frowning:

 

[Ian Hay]

Panavision, Super-35, and normal flat films are all shot on the same 35mm film.

Panavision uses an anamorphic lens and the frame is not used where the soundtrack would be overlaid. Super-35 uses the ENTIRE space on 35mm film. Flat uses no lens and can use plates to hard-matte.

I'm sorry, my understanding is that the first part above is not quite true, or at least needs some clarification. [The following is not directed mainly at you, Patrick, though there appears to be a common misunderstanding that super35 as just another form of "open matte", without a clear understanding of the consequences of using the whole 35mm frame including that part ordinarily reserved for the audio track.]

Yes, 2.35:1 anamorphic (scope) films are shot on normal (roughly) 4:3 film, using a lens to squeeze the image onto the narrower frame. 1.85:1 films are also typically shot on the same 4:3 film, with the top and bottom matted out when projected to achieve the intended ratio.

However, my impression was that Super-35 films are not shot on normal 4:3 35mm film - that's the whole point. They are shot with a different film stock that has the low-quality and typically unused audio tracks on the side of the film removed, resulting in an aspect ratio of about 1.6:1 (hence the "super" in 35mm. Without stepping on the landmine (in this forum) about which process is better, this is a more efficient way to create a flat 2.35:1 image without (a) using an anamorphic lens (for better or worse - no opinion expressed here), and (b) without the tremendous waste of film and resolution that would be involved in matting out a 2.35 image from a 4:3 35mm exposure.

Because projectors cannot show films in this manner, the resulting print needs to be on standard 4:3 film, so the print is typically a blown-up 2.35:1 anamorphic image on 35mm film.

When a 4:3 home video transfer needs to be made, Super35 involves a compromise between "open matte" and "pan and scan": 'opening' the 'mattes' will only get you so far (1.6:1 or so), which is still a bit too wide for a 4:3 image, so some panning and scanning is still required on the remainder. I.e., gain a bit at the top and bottom, lose a bit at the sides.

See section 2.4 of the following page for a good explanation:

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/

The explanations of Super35 on the following (otherwise excellent sites) are just wrong in appearing to present home-video transfers of these films as simply a severe form of open matte:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...eenorama2.html

http://www.hometheateradvice.com/sto...screen#super35

Again, Patrick, you may know all this already, but it seemed a good opportunity to clarify the point, as I've seen many posts that indicate that this 'ratio' aspect of the Super35 process is not clearly understood.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Super-35 is like normal 35 mm film, but the optical audio tracks (that are of low quality anyway) have given away to a somewhat wider picture with an aspect ratio of roughly 1.6:1.

As you've noted, however, the camera aperture is different in Super35.

M.

 

[Ian Hay]

Sorry, but your impression is incorrect. The stock is the same. This point was made very forcefully in one of the prior discussions on this topic by a professional cameraman:

Thanks - I had assumed that some modification was required to the film stock to adapt the audio area to visual exposure: bad Ian.

However, my remaining discussion about the process employed in using Super35 (which is really a different issue) is more or less correct, correct?

 

[Michael Reuben]

Looks right. And how did this turn into another Super35 thread?

M.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Just curious.....Why does the supposedly much better-looking Anamorphic image (bottom) look MUCH worse in these screenshots (re. color)? Does it really look this bleached-out on a 16:9 monitor??

Criterion's DVD was supervised by Robert Harris. He had the image adjusted to match the color levels of the Technicolor dye-transfer prints.

Kubrick supposedly had the color muted slightly for the dye-transfer prints.