2.35:1 movies reframed at 1.33:1/1.78:1 on DVD (1 Viewer)

[WillG]

Must go back in time and knock out Allen Daviau and get a different D.P. in there

Turning Spielberg on to 1.85:1 has got to be the cinematic equivalent of selling crack.

 

[GerardoHP]

I gotta figure out how to put this line on my license plate.

 

[Gary Palmer]

At a 'Studio Days' here in L.A. several years ago, I asked a New Line rep about the 1.78 transfer of this 2.35 pic. He did indeed say the cropping was done at the director's request and at a time before NL had more strongly codified/developed their DVD policy. It was only a couple of years after the disc came out and he said, "We wouldn't do that now."

Unfortunately, New Line has done exactly that with BRIGHT YOUNG THINGS, cropped to 1.78 on DVD in the US, while the rest of the world gets it in the correct 2.35 ratio. I'd love to know the reason behind that one...

 

[Simon Howson]

I don't like it in the Joe Johnston interview when he says this:
Sure he states on "rare occassions", but if he really feels that panning and scanning can somehow improve a widescreen composition, then it says to me that widescreen composition was made rather carelessly in the first place, and is itself flawed.

The art of widescreen cinematography and direction is to be able to direct and divert the viewer's attention to various areas of the frame during shots without having to constantly cut. To me that is what differentiates great widescreen films from non-widescreen films, or bad widescreen films of any particular era.

 

[Gary Palmer]

Perhaps he's only referring to the DVD/TV version? In which case, he might be concerned that the (inevitably) smaller image - whether viewed in pan-scan or letterboxed to the OAR - may cause viewers to miss something that would be blatantly obvious in a theatrical setting. I'm just guessing, mind - Johnston isn't entirely clear on this point. Interesting observation, Simon.

 

[Gary Palmer]

Just read the following over at the cinematography.com forums, posted by DP extraordinaire David Mullen a couple of days ago:

"Heard tonight at the ASC some exciting news, that Panavision is now making a set of anamorphic lenses with a 1.34X squeeze, to fit a 2.39 scope image onto the 16x9 Genesis and onto 3-perf Super-35 film cameras. They said that since the 1.34X squeeze is less severe optically than the standard 2X squeeze, they've been able to make a good rear anamorphic element for all the lenses, which has kept the size of the lenses down compared to a front anamorphic element design."

There may be several good reasons why a DP would forego the inherently superior image quality of 4-perf for 3-perf anamorphic, but even if these new lenses prove effective and popular, there's still no guarantee filmmakers will use them in a true 'widescreen' manner. Nor does it mean spherical S35 is going away anytime soon, unfortunately. But if the industry is heading toward the widescale adoption of 3-perf, at least the development of these new lenses means anamorphic photography remains a viable option. It'll be interesting to see how this one develops over the long-term...

 

[Tim Moore]

 

[MarcusUdeh]

 

[Gary Palmer]

Another 2.35:1 movie hits the shelves reframed at 1.78/1.85: Buena Vista have released TRUE BLUE (1996) in the States under the title MIRACLE AT OXFORD, and - yep! - it's reframed at the lesser ratio (from the Super 35 original). The UK version is the same, so I *had* hoped this new disc would be a step up, but sadly... no chance.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

That Italian guy is clearly babbling. Where in the world is 5:3 considered "full frame"? And I cannot see how the compositional difference between 5:3 and 11:6 would change the visual impact of a film significantly. If Kubrick ignored bad edits which were only visible outside the 11:6 frame, it's prety clear he was composing for 11:6.
Anyway... what I really want to know is why a "2:1 squeeze" onto a 4:3 frame yields a 7:3 frame. That makes no sense whatsoever. Oh well, here's hoping that the next generation of 16:9 displays has 4:3 and 7:3 modes.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Because the 2x anamorphic lens isn't affecting a 4x3 area, it's affecting a 1.2:1 area. The scope aperture is 1.2:1. With the 2x squeeze, this becomes 2.4:1. It is trimmed to ~2:39:1 for projection.

DJ

 

[Tim Moore]

Right, further from Vitali on "what Stanley wanted". Worth pointing out again that Vitali isn't just a nobody, he was Stanley's assistant for 25 years.

Taken from thedigitalbits (sorry, don't have enough posts to post the URL, but it's in the Interviews section under FAQ & Archives)...

 

[Vincent_P]

Since DOGMA was brought up in this thread, I should point out that I was on the set of both DOGMA and Kevin Smith's follow-up film, JAY & SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK, which was also Super-35. In both cases, Kevin had his video tap monitor taped off with black masking tape so that he could ONLY see the 'Scope frame during shooting. He never looked at the "full frame" image on either set, during dailies projection, of editing (the Betacam tapes of the dailies were all letterboxed ). I'm not even sure if he's seen the full-frame versions on video (Scott Mosier supervised much of the DOGMA full-frame transfer working with DP Robert Yeoman). I still have some clips from the Super-35 DOGMA workprint, including a strip of the set-up frame with the framing chart.

Vincent

 

[Vincent_P]

Why would the 4-perf anamorphic image be "inherently superior", Gary? The 3-perf Super-35 "anamorphic" image will have MORE negative area in the horizontal domain (approx. 24mm vs. 21mm for 4-perf anamorphic), plus with the anamorphic element only imposing a 1.34X squeeze vs. a 2X squeeze, you'll probably gain there, too, with the ability to focus a sharper image with less distortion than more extreme 2X anamorphics.

Yes, 4-perf will have a bit more in OVERALL negative area, but a 3-perf Super-35 frame comes VERY close, plus gains in the horizontal domain in terms of negative area. I think in terms or grain structure, the two formats (4-perf "standard" anamorphic vs. 3-perf Super-35 anamorphic) would be virtually identical, with the 3-perf version winning out in terms of horiztonal detail and sharpness, and economically to boot by cutting film-stock and developing costs 25%*.

Vincent

* Or you could shoot 25% more footage at the same cost as shooting 4-perf.

 

[Gary Palmer]

Why would the 4-perf anamorphic image be "inherently superior", Gary? The 3-perf Super-35 "anamorphic" image will have MORE negative area in the horizontal domain

Aha - I'm foiled again! You expose my ignorance of these tiny - but crucial!! - technical details! You're quite right - what you lose in the vertical domain (from 4-perf 35mm) you gain in the horizontal domain, because S35 uses the area normally occupied by the soundtrack, so you'd be using almost the same amount of negative area in anamorphic format, whether shooting in 4- or 3-perf. This is an excellent point, Vincent, and I'm happy to stand corrected. It also reassures me that anamorphic cinematography can survive in an era when Super 35 seems to dominate everything in sight (not just in American filmmaking circles, but on a global scale), and that it can retain all - or most - of the resolution and quality typical of 4-perf origination.

Good to hear from you again, Vincent. As I recall, we discussed the subject of the dreaded S35 several times at the Mobius boards. If anything, I'm even MORE opposed to this godawful 'widescreen' format than ever before. Which is one of the reasons I started this thread in the first place...

 

[Gary Palmer]

By the way, what on earth will we call this new breed of anamorphic S35? As it involves genuine scope photography, can we still call it 'Panavision' or 'Technovision', etc., depending on whatever cameras/lenses are used, as we do with regular 4-perf anamorphic? Or should we call it Anamorphic Super 35, or some other such name? The latter doesn't sound quite right to me...

Oh, and I promise to stop bitching about how 'awful' S35 is, once filmmakers start using the anamorphic version. But I will continue bitching about how godawful the compositions are, and how they're all squashed into tight areas of the screen for 1.33/1.78 TV's...

No change there, then.

 

[SteveJKo]

I saw "The Wiz" theatrically upon it's release back in '78. Absolutely beautiful stereophonic sound. No idea what the sound presentation format was... dolby stereo, 4 track magnetic..., but the picture was most definitely 35mm flat 1.85:1.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Vincent:


I'm sure whoever develops it will come up with a name for the process. 3-perf 1.34x anamorphic is succinct enough, isn't it?

 

[Gary Palmer]

First - there was Cinerama!

Then - there was CinemaScope!

Followed by - VistaVision! Todd-AO! The glories of Super Technirama 70 and Ultra Panavision 70!

Now! The new wonder of The Cinematic Age! All-new brilliance! All-new resolution! All-new miracle screen process!

(BIG drumroll) Ladies and gentlemen, Hollywood is proud to present the one, the only:

'3-PERF 1.34x ANAMORPHIC'!!!




Damin, I hate to break it to ya, but whatever way you slice it, that name just doesn't do very much for me...

 

[Vincent_P]

Damin:

I wouldn't be surprised if it was paired with the use of a Digital Intermediate. Think about it- shoot 3-perf Super-35 with the 1.34X anamorphic squeeze, do a 4K scan for the DI color timing, and then convert it in the digital domain to 4-perf anamorphic dimensions for projection. That way, you get the benefits of doing a DI, plus the benefits of using the entire 3-perf Super-35 negative area for the final projection. Thus, there's no need to change the projection specs, you just need some new software to convert a 1.34X squeeze to a 2X squeeze in the DI stage, which I'm sure is as easy as pie

For those who can't afford a DI, standard optical printing should be able to handle it quite easily.

As for a name for the new format, how about Super Panavision 35?

Vincent