Search results

LOL! :D Good point!

And doesn't realise that the aspect ratio of The Last Supper is 1.91:1, not 2:1 as he thinks it is. :D

If it is pan and scanned as you suggest, then I think that makes Storaro's claim that it was intended to be 2:1 even more dubious. Cinematographers have too much work to do on a film, there is no time to consider how to pan and scan the frame.

When you say "reframing", do you mean that it has actually been pan and scanned, with the 2:1 frame moving side to side depending on the shots? Or have they just taken the middle 2:1 from the 2.4:1 frame for every single shot?

Hahhahah whatever. I wasn't actually referring to my money specifically. I was just suggesting that Criterion released the DVD the way they thought it should be released, anyone who doesn't think they made the right decision doesn't have to buy it. But I'm actually pretty sure that Criterion...

True, because the consumer always has the option of not buying it.

See, sometimes 'non-filmmaker approved' is good!

Storaro also proposes changing the projector pull down to three perfs, rather than four, even though it has been 4 for 100+ years. He really hasn't thought things through very well.

It's three perf. But even some of his Univisum films aren't 2:1 on DVD, such as Renny Harlin's Exorcist Prequel. It is 2.4:1, like a regular Super 35 film.

I respect what he does with a film camera as well. He just shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the video transfers for the films he photographed. Get the director in to do it instead.

No you didn't err. It was released 2.4:1 on 35mm prints, and slightly cropped on the sides to 2.21:1 for 70mm prints. If you look at the un-cropped image, it looks like Storaro was protecting for the 2.21:1 70mm format, because such prints would've been used for the film's premiere. I just...

Criterion could've re-issued Last Tango in Paris instead. Having said that, I have some vague recollection that MGM were going to release a Special Edition version.

Well how good would a 2 disc Criterion version of Last Tango in Paris be? The Current MGM DVD is horrendous. SURELY Criterion could do a better version of that. They could've gone all out - new I.P. off the negative. Get Storaro to time it however he wants. But DON'T crop it from 1.85:1 to...

There is ONE important thing we can do. DON'T BUY IT. Because if the films keep selling, then Storaro is going to keep cropping them.

I thought it was quite a cordial discussion. It wasn't based on personal attacks, just evidence and examples.

So in those 35 years she wasn't watching films closely enough! I understand that it is difficult to study and learn about the construction of classical Hollywood films. I think this is because they are (generally) constructed in a very clean classical style that prioritises story telling. It...

Option 1: Insist that the film be released at a 2.21:1 ratio, preserving the 70mm release format Option 2: Not bother releasing the film. There are thousands of other films they could've released.

If people are really into films and watch a lot of them, those alternate levels of pleasure become more and more apparent, and they will be able to explain WHY a certain shot or sequence creates an additional - non-narrative - effect. The primary function of narrative films is to tell...

I'm not sure that ALL 70mm prints of Ben Hur were anamorphic. I believe that some were 2.21:1 prints, because not all cinemas with 70mm projectors had access to the ultra panavision projector lenses. Maybe they were all anamorphic in the U.S., but I don't know if that was the case...

Quote: Originally Posted by Douglas Monce Artistically, its the director's film to do with what he wants. I don't think it's anyone else's place to tell the director that any choice he has made is wrong. I see many choices in films that as a director that I wouldn't make, the least of...

Well yeah. Let's say (temporarily) that it is true he composed the film for 2:1. If that is the case then it would have to be the MIDDLE 2:1 of the 2.4:1 frame. i.e. NO readjusting on a shot for shot basis. The idea that he was magically panning and scanning the frame in his head will...

I totally forgot about that. Surely it is a deliberate joke? Of course there is a great "Last Supper" inspired sequence in MASH.

LOL! But only for scenes where a group of actors are lined up on one side of a long table.

Gary Tooze on DVDBeaver points out that The Last Supper, Storaro's supposed inspiration for the 2:1 aspect ratio, doesn't actually have a 2:1 aspect ratio, it is 880 cm x 460 cm, which equals a 1.91:1 aspect ratio. Maybe Storaro should just stick to shooting films at 1.85:1?

Sure we can now see the shoulders of extras on the sides, but that simply continues the symmetrical arrangement, and gives the image a greater impression of depth (by emphasising another plane closer to the camera). So what would make an extremely symmetrical 2.21:1 image, looks silly cropped...

This we can agree on! :D

There were fast stocks in 1987. I don't know what stock Storaro's 1987 films were shot on, but Kodak 5295 and 5297 were introduced in 1986 which were 400 and 250 speed respectively. This really just cancels out anyway. There will be less depth of field with anamorphic, so you have to stop...

I thought about it, but can't see how it is vandalism.

This is why I think shooting anamorphic, and cropping to 2:1 is pointless (forgive me for my metric figures, I live in a metric country): If you shoot in Super 35 for a 2.00:1 aspect ratio the intended camera aperture will be 24mm x 12mm = 288mm2 (that's squared) for each frame. (I understand...

I can confirm that Apocalypse Now: Redux looked fine at 2.35:1 in the Megaplex I saw it in (playing on the biggest screen in the Megaplex I may add). :D