Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by GerardoHP, Jan 17, 2002.
well... if it is approved by the director of photography... I think it is OK with me.
Ahhhhhhh... memories of early DVD's as reviewed by Widescreen Review...
There were constantly knocking the incorrect OAR's of dvds as opposed to lds back in 97/98....
Accurate or not I'm not sure, but it kept me out of the DVD arena until I was rewarded with a DVD player at work...
Since then- not much choice I admit- I've been into DVD whole-hog...
How dare another cinematographer alter the way he wants his cinematography to be seen!
I think it's time we force these so-called "artists" to make these movies the way we want to see them, not how they think the framing will be better.
Sheesh, have you even stopped to wonder if the movie was shot on 70mm stock or was intended for the slightly taller picture?
2001 is 2:1:1 on DVD (the full frame of te 65mm negative) and that's what is intended.
I prefer movies to be seen the way the artists intend them to be seen on home video, not us who cannot know a movie as much as someone who shot it.
If this truly is the intent of either the director or DP, I'm cool with it as well...
Don't forget at almost every moviehouse you go to there is overscan, so even there you're not getting "the whole picture" - I don't see this in the same light as panning and scanning.
I do not know the intended OAR of this film, but I would like to make a comment on this. There are bound to be instances where films are released on DVD in an uncommon AR, which was in fact the OAR, not what was shown theatrically. I know people, on this forum particularly, associate the common theater exhibition as the intent of the filmmakers, and thus the proper home presentation. This position is flawed in that an OAR preferred by the filmmakers my not be possible in US theaters, and they adhere to their intended AR allowing it to be presented slightly different theatrically and presented properly on home video. For example, if I wished to compose a 35mm film at 2.10:1, it can't be projected on 35mm at that AR per SMPTE 195, it would be presented at either 1.85 or 2.39:1. But, I may accept this and then later release it on video in my OAR of 2.10:1.
Again, that does not necessarily apply to that film, but is a real issue and practice. There are a number of AR contradictions that are accepted, often in ignorance, by the serious OAR crowd. This is not to say they should be an issue, only that this practice - while not incredibly significant, they exist. Like many 1.85:1 OAR films being released on DVD at 1.78:1, or films like Series 7 being exhibited at 1.85:1 instead of it's 1.78:1 OAR, or films like Fight Club and others being presented properly on DVD but having been slightly cropped during theatrical exhibition (again, I know these are minor differences).
Thus, in regards to home presentations emulating theatrical exhibition, this is not a positive thing when considering aspect ratios. Fortunately, DVD and home theater fascilitates the presentation in the filmmaker's intended OAR, no matter what that is, and is not limited to the four aspect ratios that a 35mm movie theater is.
wouldn't the move from 2.39->2.1 actually be opening up the picture, rather than cropping it?
Re the Widescreen Review thing; that had made me nervous too, but then months later they came out with an apology saying they had been figuring the aspect ratios incorrectly. There's much, much less of that in WR these days, which leads me to believe that they were mistaken all along.
Of course Storaro is another piece of work altogether. :
Well, if it was shot in Super-35 with spherical lenses, then all you're getting is a taller frame with no horizontal loss at all.
This has happened before with Austin Powers: IMOM (to 2:1, opening up the frame), so I don't see the problem.
It's not as if the DP decided flippantly to change this sort of thing for home video one day - it'll be the AR of choice from the outset, however, I don't know of any cinemas capable of screening 2.1:1, so, like Kubrick, he had to make sure his compositions looked fine vertically cropped.