Could Full Screen be BETTER for these movies?

Discussion in 'DVD' started by David Ruiz, Oct 20, 2001.

  1. David Ruiz

    David Ruiz Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2001
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi Guys,
    I have a question to ask. I just recently learned about Super 35 film, and I realized that it is NOT pan & scan, but full screen. Then when the movies are shown in theaters, they are shown matted, but werent meant to be.
    For example: Aliens, Titanic, Independence Day, The Abyss, Terminater 2, were all shot in Super 35. I have heard that James Cameron actually PERFERS these movies in FULL SCREEN because that's the way that they were filmed. A full screen movie like Titanic shown in 2.35:1 could actually mean that we are missing out on a whole lot of picture.
    Please forgive me if I am mistaken, but I have seen pictures of how much picture we are REALLY missing out on, and on Super 35 movies (Like Titanic) we are missing out on a LOT of important picture information. In the pictures that I have seen, there is no information extra on the sides (left and right) like a real widescreen movie would show...it's basically a full screen image with huge black bars on the top and bottom covering important stuff.
    So, could FULL screen be the only way to go on these movies, or do the widescreen ones offer something that the Full Screen ones don't? Please, if anyone even understood what I was saying, please correct me if I am wrong in any of my thinking.
     
  2. Tom-G

    Tom-G Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2000
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Real Name:
    Tom G
    Yes, James Cameron did recommend watching the pan and scan versions of movies filmed in Super 35 millimeter(most of his movies). If one wants to watch movie in that fashion, so be it, but I prefer the original aspect ratio. Always. There is no reason to chop up movies, which are forms of art, to placate the people who just don't "those black bars."
     
  3. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm sorry, but you're misinformed about Super35. Converting it for 4:3 display involves cropping some information off the sides in every shot (and more in special effects shots). It's easier to show than to explain, so I suggest you look at the Super35 explanation on the Terminator 2: Ultimate Edition disc. It includes a side-by-side comparison the same scene extracted from a Super35 negative for both 2.35:1 and 4:3.
     
  4. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,566
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    The 2.35:1 version of T-2 looks more natural than the 1.33:1 literal pan&scan version.
    1.33:1 versions of Super-35 films look really awkward and unnatural in framing.
    ------------------
    Visit my DVD review site, 24 fps DVD Reviews @ http://cztoondb.tripod.com/DVD/
    and
    The Colorized Cartoon Database @ http://cztoondb.tripod.com/
     
  5. AaronMK

    AaronMK Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 1999
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Real Name:
    Aaron Karp
    Unless they wish to shoot a movie twice, they can only compose for one aspect ratio. Otherwise, they would have to do a lot of rearranging of set pieces and character locations. Even if a film is completely open matte, it ruins this composition, and gives shots a completely different feel.
    The aspect ratio that shots are composed for is the aspect ratio in which the film should be viewed.
    As if that is not a good enough reason...
    Many times, it also reveals things that you are not supposed to see. For example, if people are reacting to someone being naked in the wrong place, how does it play out if the open the frame and you see shorts on the character? It could also reveal boom mikes, stage crew, etc. Many times they will crop shots instead of opening the matte to prevent such things from being revealed.
    When composing shots, they many times either don't look for such things, or don't feel it is worth the effort to correct such flaws becuase they will be matted out anyway.
    ------------------
    My DVD's
    If a movie is not available in OAR, than it might as well not be available at all.
    [Edited last by AaronMK on October 20, 2001 at 03:46 PM]
     
  6. PhilipG

    PhilipG Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2000
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I like threads that I can answer straight away from the title. No!
    (Reading the details my suspicions were confirmed. Still No!)
     
  7. HenrikTull

    HenrikTull Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2000
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  8. Rob Gillespie

    Rob Gillespie Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 1998
    Messages:
    3,632
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Aliens was shot 1.85:1 spherical, not Super35.
     
  9. Brian Lawrence

    Brian Lawrence Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1998
    Messages:
    3,634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Real Name:
    Brian
    In addition to what Rob stated ALIENS was also a hard matted film and not a soft matte. Meaning that the mattes are part of the film itself and can not be removed to reveal extra detail. The pan & Scan version cuts image off the sides and does not add any extra information across the top and bottom.
    Besides, Films should be seen in their proper aspect ratio regardless of the filming process used. In my opinion, Sometimes uncovering unwanted picture information at the top and bottom can sometimes ruin a films composition just as bad as cutting image off the sides.
    However there are a few rare examples of super 35 films like SHOWGIRLS where I think I would prefer the fullframe [​IMG]
     
  10. Damin J Toell

    Damin J Toell Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,762
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Real Name:
    Damin J. Toell
     
  11. Jeffrey Forner

    Jeffrey Forner Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 1999
    Messages:
    1,117
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  12. David Lambert

    David Lambert Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2001
    Messages:
    11,380
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  13. Jonathan Burk

    Jonathan Burk Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 31, 1999
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Location:
    Castaic, CA
    Real Name:
    Jonathan Burk
    I think you need to define your terms and conditions. When you say "better", what do you mean? There are many ways to experience a film. If you were to watch a film in the theater, I would say 1.33:1 wouldn't be "better". If you were to watch it on a 16x9 monitor, I would say 1.33:1 isn't "better". But if you were watching one of these films on a 13" TV off of VHS, I would say that 1.33:1 would be preferable.
    I also think that, to reasonable people, 1.33:1 framing of Super 35 films is less offensive than full frame or pan and scan transfers of 1.85:1 films, and much less offensive than pan and scan from a scope film. But it's easier to lump all of these together and blow your top in all cases [​IMG].
    I think James Cameron is a good example of someone who has a very deep understanding of movie technology, from filming on the set to watching video at home, and he has obviously set his priorities beyond just mindlessly chanting "OAR". As our friends at Paramount explained in the May visit, JC knew exactly what he was doing when he specified a non-anamorphic release of Titanic. It wasn't based on ignorance of the technology, or budget, or marketing (the cause of many other non-anamorphic discs).
    When it comes to discussion of aspect ratios and film presentation, you need to be very careful of your priorities, as the world is changing. As digital cameras and projection become more common, the lines will blur between presentation in the theater, and presentation at home. And "OTAR" will mean less and less.
     
  14. Damin J Toell

    Damin J Toell Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,762
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Real Name:
    Damin J. Toell
     
  15. Brad Cook

    Brad Cook Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2001
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Every time I think I pretty much understand aspect ratios, someone comes along to teach me even more. [​IMG]
    Good info, David. Thanks for posting that.
    BTW, what about Kubrick? My understanding is that he shot most of his films at 1.33:1, but they were matted--I assume to 1.85:1--for theatrical presentation. For example, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket are presented full frame in the Kubrick box set, which is the way he apparently wanted them shown on home video.
    However, some say that they prefer the letterboxed versions and won't buy the full frame ones.
    So how different are those films when shown letterboxed versus full frame? They look good to me when I watch them, and I have the latest box set.
    - Brad
     
  16. Adam Tyner

    Adam Tyner Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  17. Douglas Bailey

    Douglas Bailey Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 7, 2001
    Messages:
    334
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Douglas Bailey
     
  18. Roby Adams

    Roby Adams Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 1999
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The view on the Director's/Cinematographer's monitor can not be relied on as an indicator of the type of film or process used. Those monitors are basically showing a video feed from a video camera that is synched with the film camera and shoots what the camera is seeing. You may be able to see the aspect ratio but even if it shows a full 1:33 image with crop marks the camera could be shooting anamorphic.
    I saw a thing on TV one time on how this was done. Somehow the video camera shoots through the film camera lens or something. It was very interesting. They use timers that are just like the ones that allowed machine guns to shoot through propeller blades on old war planes.
    Also remeber that the director is not always the one who is working on shot composition. On some set's the director doesn't deal with that and it's all the cinematographer. Then again on some sets the director is very involved and the cinematographer is nothing more that a glorified camera operator.
    I always took Cameron's comments to mean that he prefered the 1:33 composition of The Abyss for home viewing and not as a general rule.
    ------------------
    200 and 40 dollars worth'a puddin'
    My DVDs
    [Edited last by Roby Adams on October 20, 2001 at 10:52 PM]
     
  19. Mark Walker

    Mark Walker Cinematographer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 1999
    Messages:
    2,996
    Likes Received:
    733
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    There are many cases where the pan-and-scan version
    of Super-35 films reveal information that should not
    be seen.
    As it relates to Terminator 2
    (since it has been mentioned in this thread),
    you see that the phone booth is already broken
    BEFORE Arnold busts it...oops!
    Same problems with "openning up" films that were
    soft-matted in theaters, then "open matte" on
    home video.
    For a HIGHLY informative web page on this, which
    contains EXCELLENT comparisons, go here:
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/index.html
    -Mark
    [Edited last by Mark Walker on October 20, 2001 at 10:54 PM]
     
  20. AaronMK

    AaronMK Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 1999
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Real Name:
    Aaron Karp
     

Share This Page