Could Full Screen be BETTER for these movies? (1 Viewer)

[David Ruiz]

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.

 

[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."

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

That is irrelevant. It's not the way it was presented in the theaters. Maintaining the original composition of the movie is priority number one.
You wouldn't cut a framed picture down to fit your wall, would you? Of course not. The same concept applies for movies as well.
------------------
As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day. --Roger Ebert on The Phantom Menace
AIM: Aureus91 / DVDs / ICQ: 58566493
[Edited last by Tom_G on October 20, 2001 at 03:15 PM]

 

[Michael Reuben]

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.

In a move which will probably be considered more radical by purists, we are offering the film in both pan&scan and letterbox formats, despite the fact that it is a 'collectors' edition"-type product. I am quite proud of the pan&scan transfer of the film, and believe it to be superior in many ways to the letterbox, due to the poor resolving power of NTSC video. The film was shot in the Super-35 process to allow for improved video transfer, and the result is that the the pan&scan transfer does not suffer from many of the horrible cropping losses normally associated with a widescreen film. I feel it is the most dramatically involving and effective version of the film in the current low-res video medium.

Note the emphasis on the "current" video medium. These comments are no longer applicable with the advent of DVD (especially anamorphic DVD), and that is why you don't see pan&scan DVD versions of Cameron's films, only widescreen.
M.

 

[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/

 

[AaronMK]

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]

 

[PhilipG]

I like threads that I can answer straight away from the title. No!
(Reading the details my suspicions were confirmed. Still No!)

 

[HenrikTull]

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.

This is not entirely true. The director's who shoots in Super35 always frame the shots in Scope. However they also have the entire 4:3 frame on display, with the 2.35:1 frame in the middle of the 4:3 frame. They always look mainly at the 2.35:1 proportion though.
------------------
A Little Slice of Heaven

 

[Rob Gillespie]

Aliens was shot 1.85:1 spherical, not Super35.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

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

 

[Damin J Toell]

The director's who shoots in Super35 always frame the shots in Scope. However they also have the entire 4:3 frame on display, with the 2.35:1 frame in the middle of the 4:3 frame. They always look mainly at the 2.35:1 proportion though.

for an example of this, check out the documentary on the Titus DVD. the director and DP are watching the filming on monitors that are matted to 2.35:1. it doesn't matter how it was shot, that's the only proper AR for the film.
DJ

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

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?

Nope. The filmmakers shoot their movies with the widescreen image in mind from the get go. Removing the mattes from the negative is no better than P&S, because it alters the original composition of the film, a big no-no for HT/film enthusiasts.
------------------
-J.Fo
"Why do I always get a warped one?"

 

[David Lambert]

for an example of this, check out the documentary on the Titus DVD. the director and DP are watching the filming on monitors that are matted to 2.35:1. it doesn't matter how it was shot, that's the only proper AR for the film.

Let's pick a documentary on a disc that more people have. Check out "The Beginning" on The Phantom Menace. It clearly shows a shoot where Queen Amidala is being looked at through a camera monitor, framed in widescreen.
Okay, let's demonstrate for David Ruiz why it's not better to show a film "shot full screen" without it's mattes, whether the process was "Super 35" or anything else.
Get the MGM DVD for A Fish Called Wanda. Go on, get it. If you don't have it, go buy it. I'll wait.
It's a great movie, and only $9.99 at Best Buy and most other stores. I never see it for more than $12.99 these days. It comes with both "Standard" (FullFrame) on one side and Widescreen on the other side.
Go to Chapter 22, specifically to the time index of 1:22:09 and freeze frame it.
During this scene, John Cleese has started in his briefs and peeled them off while dancing around the room. He has demonstrated to be totally naked. A family, the Johnsons, has walked in on him, and surprised him. He covers up his nudity with a picture...of Mrs. Johnson!
In the widescreen version, at the time index I gave you, you see that John Cleese is shown from the back as he tells the family that they're "in the wrong flat" (flat = apt., for you non-Brit-speaking people). He appears from the waist up, and still appears naked as a jaybird, which - for the intent of the story - his character is supposed to be.

However, in the FullFrame version on the opposite side, the mattes are off and you can see more on the top and bottom of the shot. Yes, John Cleese's head is no longer chopped off at the top. HOWEVER, you see something that the director never, EVER intended you to see: John Cleese's pants!

Apparently, for the camera-work that day, John was not needed to be completely naked any more, as they were shooting him from the waist up. Maybe they were just concerned for the kids in the shot not seeing John's thingie. But the director never intended for John's pants to be in the shot, either...yet there it is, plain as day on the current DVD!
Another example: Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory has a scene where one of the girls on the tour gets turned into a blueberry. In the FullFrame version of the shot, you can see - between the girl's legs - the cables that run up under her clothes that pump the air into her dress, to create the illusion that she's "ripening". In the proper Widescreen version of the film, that the director intended you to see, the area of the floor between Violet's legs where the cable lie is cut off in the shot, and never seen by the viewer.
Movie magic...destroyed by taking off the black bars.

This is why I'll only watch OAR, despite the fact that I don't - yet - have a Widescreen TV. Yes, the picture is smaller on my 30" TV when the black bars are present:

...However, the ONLY way to watch a film is the way it was meant to be seen in theaters. Period.
NO OAR = NO SALE
------------------
DAVE/Memphis

MORE TV ON DVD, PLEASE!

 

[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

.
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.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Let's pick a documentary on a disc that more people have. Check out "The Beginning" on The Phantom Menace. It clearly shows a shoot where Queen Amidala is being looked at through a camera monitor, framed in widescreen.

was TPM filmed in Super35? the point of my use of Titus was to show that when shooting in Super35, the 2.35:1 AR is usually the primary one and often the only one considered by the filmmakers. examples from other films may be useful for the general discussion, but i was trying to dispell a common Super35 myth.
DJ

 

[Brad Cook]

Every time I think I pretty much understand aspect ratios, someone comes along to teach me even more.
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

 

[Adam Tyner]

Damin: The IMDb says TPM was shot anamorphic.
------------------
My DVD list | My personal site

 

[Douglas Bailey]

...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.

But it's not important picture information. If it was, the director would have included it in the theatrical framing of the shot, and it would be present on the widescreen version of the disc.
You're not "missing out on" anything that you didn't already miss out on in the cinemas.
doug
------------------
"How can it be the same movie if they've changed my character from a
tightly-wound convenience-store clerk to a jittery Eskimo
firefighter?... uh huh... uh huh... uh huh. Well, that's actually a
pretty good explanation..."
--James Woods, on The Simpsons

 

[Roby Adams]

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]

 

[Mark-W]

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]

 

[AaronMK]

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).

Just curious, what reasons did he have for not having Titanic anamorphic?
------------------
My DVD's
If a movie is not available in OAR, than it might as well not be available at all.