"Apocalypse Now Redux" Framing (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

quote: Aaron, would it be fair to say that this film you mentioned 'King of the Hill' is the exception and not the rule?[/quote]
the point is that there is no "rule." just because most filmmakers do a certain thing, it doesn't make it a "rule" of what anamorphic filming is "supposed to be." a filmmaker employing an AR different than 2.4:1 when shooting with anamorphic lenses, he isn't breaking any "rule." he's simply making the film he wants to make.
DJ
[Edited last by Damin J Toell on November 14, 2001 at 02:54 PM]

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Of course, it's the exception and not the rule.
But because it exists, one cannot say "That never happens", because it has.
I'd still much rather have a 2.2:1 disc of Apocalypse Now...

 

[Scott H]

Quote:

That is no more applicable to anamorphically acquired ~2.40:1 than any other cinematic method.
Additionally, your last sentence in this post contradicts your first sentence in this post

Regards
------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Damin, then why is it that every example i've ever seen, every article i've ever read, and every dvd i've ever seen all been in 2.35:1 when using anamorphic lenses?
I'll admit that what you guys are saying is seductive, and i'm actually starting to believe you, but why is this the first i'm hearing of it?
Keep talkin, you've got my attention now.
------------------
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]

quote: Damin, then why is it that every example i've ever seen, every article i've ever read, and every dvd i've ever seen all been in 2.35:1 when using anamorphic lenses?[/quote]
what you're noticing can be described as the difference between convention and a rule. "convention" is what most people do, a "rule" is what they "have to" or are "supposed to" do. in sum, what you're seeing is a pure convention of theatrical projection, not a hard and fast rule of filming with anamorphic lenses. most American theatres project at either 1.85:1 or ~2.4:1 (and, someone would say, far too many simply project everything at ~2:1). given the practice of American theatres, the vast majority of filmmakers conform their AR to what will be projected in American movie houses. therefore, just about everything out there filmed with anamorphic lenses has an AR of ~2.4:1. but this is a convention designed to best take advantage of American theatres, not a rule of using a certain lens. most filmmakers do it, but they don't have to. see the difference?
DJ
[Edited last by Damin J Toell on November 14, 2001 at 03:04 PM]

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

O.k. guys, consider me convinced. After taking into consideration what you guys have said, and you really seem to be in-the-know, it makes perfect sense to me!
WOW! This is read letter date in my knowledge of OAR!
Thank you for that!
I'm just sorry I had to make a complete ass out of myself to learn it!
I WAS getting "covention" confused with "rule", but surly you can't blame me, "convention" evidence is all I was ever given, until now.
And to Carl, I suppose I owe you both an apology AND a vote of thanks, sorry for trying to mislead you, and thanks for making me pursue this thread further.
If it's one thing i've learned when dealing with OAR, it's ALWAYS stay sharp, and keep an open mind!
Thanks again guy's.
Nw, if you'll please excuse me, i've got to go over all my information with a fine tooth comb!
------------------
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 03:10 PM]
[Edited last by John Williamson on November 14, 2001 at 03:15 PM]
[Edited last by John Williamson on November 14, 2001 at 03:18 PM]

 

[cafink]

And to Carl, I suppose I owe you both an apology AND a vote of thanks, sorry for trying to mislead you, and thanks for making me pursue this thread further.

You are quite welcome.
An apology is not necessary.
Take care!

 

[Damin J Toell]

I WAS getting "covention" confused with "rule", but surly you can't blame me, "convention" evidence is all I was ever given, until now.

i don't blame you; no one is born knowing this stuff. i'm glad i could help.
DJ

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Just let me just review with you guy's all of the major points here just so I can get it all straight in my head...
You CAN compose for other ratios within an anamorphic 2.40:1 frame.
Filmmakers Usually film in 2.40:1 because U.S. theaters are equipped to handle this particular ratio, AND they use this ratio artistically as well, we can't forget that.
Am I 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!!!
[Edited last by John Williamson on November 14, 2001 at 04:53 PM]

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

You got it.
And for the record, King of the Hill was composed for 2:1 inside the 2.4:1 frame because of the likelihood of the film being cropped when presented in theatres. Brutal, huh? Thankfully I've only ever experienced a theatrical presentation that was badly cropped like that once -- at a $2 cinema where apparently they had dropped and broken the correct lens, they were showing "One Fine Day" with a lens obviously meant for a theatre with the screen further away...cropping the image on all sides!
We howled with laughter when they explained why they were showing the film that way, then asked for our money back. We were the only people in that theatre, too. Ow.

 

[Douglas R]

I've just received Apocalypse Now Redux and it includes the theatrical Redux trailer in the correct ratio of 2.35:1. A strange thing to do because it only serves to draw viewers' attention to the fact that the actual framing of the film at 2.0 is different to the theatrical version. Picture and sound quality are superb but I don't have the original Apocalypse Now DVD so I don't know how it compares.
------------------

 

[Thomas T]

Unfortunately, the proper aspect ratio framing intended by the director and/or cinematographer is often not exhibited correctly in theatres much less home video.
During the first run engagements of Ian McKellan's Richard III that I saw, the title credit sequence read Richard II and in L.A. Confidential, some of the opening credits were on the far side of the screen which caused the first letter of the credit to be eliminated.
In my younger days, I would have complained to management but I fear these days that multiplexes are more concerned with the profits on their concession stands than proper presentation of the film so I said nothing.