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

[AaronMK]

Scott,
Again, thanks for all the info. It is great curiosity food.
About these lenses you talk of that adapt the film for different aspect ratios, could they or something like them be used with digital cameras as well, or are the unique to Super 35? Wouldn't this be beneficial to Lucas if he is shooting a 2.40:1 film on a 16:9 media, so he could get the best quality possible?
Also, I was just curious as to what aspect of film production you are involved with, and with what studio.
------------------
My DVD's
If a movie is not available in OAR, than it might as well not be available at all.

 

[Michael Reuben]

So I guess I may have posted such a thing as too much info

You had no choice, Scott. The same thing happens with every Super35 thread: In all innocence, someone asks a question that requires a brief explanation of the format as commonly used to acquire films intended for display at 2.40:1. Within ten messages or so, we're deep into technical detail sufficiently dense to make your average moviegoer run shrieking in the other direction.
The great thing about your participation in these threads is that, now when we reach that point, we have the benefit of accurate technical detail.
I've pretty much given up trying to explain Super35. It's too hard to do effectively with words and much easier with pictures. That's why I always refer people to the supplements on T2:UE.
M.

 

[Jerry Gracia]

quote: And "OTAR" will mean less and less.[/quote]
I will gladly turn in my Home Theater Enthusiast license when this happens. Home Theater is about emulating the Movie Theater experience, not the home video experience.
IMO, only an idiot director would try the impossible of composing for two aspect ratios simultaniously, it can't be done. Just becuase a camera has an eye piece with a 2.35 and 1.33 frame etched into it doesn't mean squat. The 1.33 boarder is merely monitored to exclude production equipment for the 1.33 video tranfer. You can not compose a shot of a scene in two different aspect ratios at the same time. The scene would have to be shot twice in order to achieve this.
There are certain things that go into composing a photograph, what you want and DON'T want in a shot and wether or not your shooting a close-up, medium or long shot. Please explain how this could be done for two totally differnt aspect ratios at once.
Short answer,
It's impossible.
------------------
LuvLBX
[Edited last by Jerry Gracia on October 22, 2001 at 10:04 AM]

 

[Patrick McCart]

The original theatrical aspect ratio is the best for a film...
------------------
Visit my DVD review site, 24 fps DVD Reviews @ http://cztoondb.tripod.com/DVD/
and
The Colorized Cartoon Database @ http://cztoondb.tripod.com/

 

[Scott H]

Quote:

There are innumerable things that go into composing shots, though the designation of CUs, MCUs, etc. don't necessarily change in this situation, but of course the compositional meaning and other inclusions or ommisions can be greatly diff. I believe I have explained how this can be done, and it's not difficult to imagine. For the 2.40:1/1.33:1 example, specifically for Super35, typically both frames share a common top border/common headroom. The 1.33:1 frame is otherwise centered and extends below the 2.40:1 frame. The 1.33:1 frame goes from near the top to the bottom edges of the aperture and the 2.40:1 frame goes from near the left and right edges and the top edge of the aperture but does not include the approximate lower quarter of the entire aperture. Another way to respond to how this is done would be to say with concession and compromise, in my opinion.
In any event, it is not impossible. However, I think most of us would agree it is not ideal, and we may more fervently oppose it.
------------------
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.
[Edited last by Scott H on October 22, 2001 at 10:48 AM]

 

[Eugene Hsieh]

All this talk about Super 35 just reinforces my desire to have BOTH the open matte version and the OAR version in the same package. It makes for some interesting comparative viewing.
I'm surprised nobody has recommended the open matte DVD plus self-cardboard matting of TV method yet though.

------------------
Eugene Hsieh, VisorCentral FAQ Editor
1000 km on a tank of gas??? Check out the Prius and drive the future now!
Check out my switched Dual Boot DVD Player Hack.

 

[Scott H]

I think the only lenses I referenced were anamorphic lenses. They horizontally compress the image that they acquire by a ratio of 2:1, and are used to achieve the 2.35:1 aspect ratio on 35mm film on a conventional camera (not optically realigned for Super35). The system used by Lucas for SWE2, which I too have used, is the Panavision 24P HD camera, developed jointly by Sony and Panavision and much to Lucas' urging. The highlight of the system is the development of the Panavision Primo Digital lenses, similar to the acclaimed line of cine lenses and sharing the same housings. There are no anamorphic lenses in this system, and I've been told none are in development this time. So, for Lucas to shoot 2.40:1 he could only extract that from within the 1.78:1 frame, effectively matting it off.
For an example of a framing leader for 1.85:1 use/extraction in this exact system, here are some crude images of mine: http://home.earthlink.net/~harrisfil...LeaderFull.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~harrisfil...aderCenter.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~harrisfil...meLeaderLR.jpg
There are anamorphic lens attachments for video cameras, including consumer DV ones. For instance, most consumer DV cameras, including the popular XL-1 and PD-150, have a 16:9 mode, but it is simply making the CCD, so you are sacrificing lines of resolution to get that AR. You can, however, but and anamorphic attachment from Century Optics which will 'expose' the entire CCD aperture and achive 16:9 using all lines of resolution. The image must be horizontally expanded in a post production process though, or by a capable monitor.
------------------
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.

 

[Scott H]

Quote:

Many in this crowd already matte the matted transfers on thier TVs

------------------
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.
[Edited last by Scott H on October 22, 2001 at 11:56 AM]

 

[Jerry Gracia]

Quote:

Common top line, yes. But you still need to figure out wether the shot will be a close-up, medium or long shot. Please explain to me, in english, how this will be done simultaniously.
Don't hide your response in a cloud of technical babble, please.
Give me a simple answer.
------------------
LuvLBX
[Edited last by Jerry Gracia on October 22, 2001 at 12:24 PM]

 

[Scott H]

Quote:

Be civil and don't lace your response with pretense. I did you give you concise anwers, you choose to either disregard or misconstrue them. I am sparing much technical babble, but using the correct terminology. To do otherwise would be irresponsible and counterproductive. I suspect you wouldn't agree with anything I can say, and I have already repeated myself to you. It would be a disservice to this thread to have a pointless, redundant argument or to possibly have the thread closed.
------------------
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.
[Edited last by Scott H on October 22, 2001 at 01:31 PM]

 

[Jerry Gracia]

Best to let this one die.
You are assuming I know nothing about this subject and you are wording your responses in needless technical mumbo jumbo to make me look below you.
I've been here long enough to know when to quit.
We'll part in peace.
No hard feelings.

------------------
LuvLBX

 

[Scott H]

Oh, well...

------------------
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.
[Edited last by Scott H on October 22, 2001 at 01:58 PM]

 

[Scott H]

Jerry, I'm sorry you feel that way. I had no intentions of making you seem any way. Nor do I assume what you or anyone else knows, as I can only address comments posted. Sometimes I have to go back and address my own comments, as I am far from infallible. Additionally, as someone who's main profession is looking through film cameras I simply discuss the topic using the correct terminology, though perhaps not discussing it simply. I do not see any "needless mumbo jumbo", only additional info which may be of interest to some and passed over by others.
No hard feelings.

------------------
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.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Scott, there is no questioning your credentials, I have shot quite a few things myself, though I'm not a professional cameraman. And on one short we did, we went as far as to use a 16:9 CCD camcorder fitted with and anamorphic lens which approximated 2.35:1 when "unsquished". BUT

I'm surprised nobody has recommended the open matte DVD plus self-cardboard matting of TV method yet though.

Because it doesn't work. Watch the telecine demonstration on Se7en. They decide what part of the area will be shown in the 2.35:1 box, and it's not always the same area of the film. While a "common height" is used, you will not achieve the correct framing by just matting your screen.
Jeff Kleist

 

[Scott H]

Jeff, I could truly respect your preference for anamorphic 2.35:1 over 2.40:1 anamorphic extraction Super35, were it not for your regular hardcore bashing of Super35 or discounting it for just that reason, which I can't comprehend. There are people who claim to really dislike 1.33:1 these days, and I can make an analogy to them suddenly bashing regular 35 since it's used for that. I know, that may be a stretch, but how can a method, really a camera configuration that offers such diverse cinematic potential, be condemned for how some use it in an art that's part photographic expression? Moreover, and why I really participate in these discussions, is that there are a number of other misconceptions regarding Super35, which I hope I have addressed somewhere.
Regarding how often Super35 is used for non 2.40:1 acquisition, I couldn't possibly answer that. However, as just a sample answer I just turned to my roommate who is a very busy production coordinator, having worked on hundreds of high-end commercials and many feature films, and she believes that at least 60% of the commercials were shot 1.33:1 Super35. As a follow-up to that, she believes that the camera packages have been about 50/50 Arriflex/Panavision.
I do not own a 35mm camera package, and to be honest I don't really want one (I'm a Super16 guy), but if I did own one I would want it set up 3-perf and optically realigned for Super35.
Also, just to clarify, I didn't make the matting comment Jeff is addressing
------------------
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.
[Edited last by Scott H on October 22, 2001 at 09:07 PM]

 

[Kramer Lowry]

 

[Patrick McCart]

It seems to vary from shot to shot, from film to film.

Since unmatted Super-35 looks really awkward in shots that take advantage of the 2.35:1 framing, they probably decide to crop further to get rid of the excess space.

And some of those shots may have boom mikes where the picture would be matted. Given how tight the two P&S shots are, that's probably the case.

 

[george kaplan]

I would disagree with your description of the first example I'd call that a lot, when you lose half of the face of each guy on the end.

 

[JeremySt]

Whats your priority? Preserving the way it looked in the theater, or the maligned and always shifting composition of the full frame version? Just because there may be "more" image to see on a full frame, doesnt make it a proper presentation. I want to present the film as it was presented in theaters.

 

[Simon Howson]

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.

This may be the case for Titus, however there are examples of directors who mark up the video assist monitors for both 2.4:1 and 16:9 when shooting in Super 35 in order to have the option to create an open matte 16:9 transfer for presentation on video, without letterboxing, or panning and scanning. Roger Donaldson has done this with his last three films.

Furthermore, some directors, and DOPs do mask out the area above and below the 2.4:1 area, others leave the image above and below exposed, meaning their composotion may become compromised even without them trying.

Just compare the way 2.4:1 (Panavision and Super 35) films are framed now, compared with any Scope film you care to name made between '53 and say '63. Widescreen films are composed completely differently. All films now feature very close framings, that were just never used in the 50's. During that time the perceived benefit of CinemaScope aspect ratio(s) was to fit more in the frame. Now it is just used for tighter framing.