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

[Simon Howson]

The 2.35:1 version of T-2 looks more natural than the 1.33:1 literal pan&scan version.

I diagree. The open matte 4:3 version contains some compositions that look better than the 2.4:1 letterboxed DVD. Problems arose because of the radical height difference between Arnie and Furlong, and I feel that on some occassions Cameron opted to compose these better for the 4:3 version, creating partial cropping of Arnie's head in the 2.4:1 version, in order to keep Furlong's face in frame.

 

[Simon Howson]

The aspect ratio that shots are composed for is the aspect ratio in which the film should be viewed.

Yes, however, Super 35 complicates this, because it facilitates composing for two different aspect ratios on the same negative. I agree that it means that both compositions are effectively compromised, but that is how things are done. Comparing screen shots of T2 illustrates that a lot of compromising has gone on.

I feel that a major reason that so many films are released on anamorphic prints isn't necessarily because a director is making full use of a wider frame, it is simply because the average size of cinemas screens has been in decline for the last 30 years. The way films are projected essentially there are two options 2.4:1 or 1.85:1, 2.4:1 ensures that the film is using as much screen area as possible, it means the image is "bigger" it doesn't mean the film is going to actually make use of the widescreen.

 

[Simon Howson]

If a movie is presented in widescreen in the theaters, then it is absolutely meant to be shown that way. In fact, directors compose shots specifically with the widescreen frame in mind.

Generally this is true, but there are exceptions - Eyes Wide Shut looks beautiful at both 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 full frame.

Also, Super 35 has prompted some film makers to release films theatrically 2.4:1 but on DVD as 16:9 which confuses things some what, because the alteration is not panning and scanning but open matting (revealing more image top and bottom relative to the 2.4:1 composition).

 

[Simon Howson]

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.

I recently wrote a short thesis on Super 35, and in my research Panavision disclosed that they were developing an optical system to shoot a 2.4:1 A.R. image on 16:9 CCDs. This would be some sort of 1.33 X anamorphic optical system - exactly how it worked they did not disclose.

The Viper Filmstream system uses subpixels so there are other digital based approaches to this problem too.

They did experiment with such a system previously, however the prism based imaging system (that splits the light into blue, red, green for each of the CCDs) caused critical focussing problems and thus was scrapped.

 

[Simon Howson]

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.

Film makers get around the problem of using Super 35 for multiple aspect ratios essentially be erring towards closer framings.

A close up or medium close up can appear almost the same if matted for either 2.4:1 or 16:9 aspect ratios. I am not saying this is ideal, but it is the way films are shot now. In some contemporary films the amount of extreme widescreen compositions can be counted on a single hand. This is not the case for the average widescreen film made in the 50's or 60's.

 

[Simon Howson]

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

Yes, that is the main advantage of Super 35 it provides an additional degree of flexibility.

Director Bryan Singer and DOP Newton Thomas Siegel shot Apt Pupil in Super 35, and a VHS copy I have is a completely open matte transfer which reduces each shot by a scale - close ups become mediums etc. But that is rare, generally they are altered on a shot by shot basis.

 

[Ryan Wong]

Do you think someday, they will release some of these movies in its original Super 35 form, which show every part of the frame in the future? DVD or HD? I am thinking of a new feature for HD-DVD or Blu-ray, which store the movie in Super 35 form in HD. Then the player will pan-and-scan the picture and show it in either theatrical widescreen, down-scaled 4:3 pan-and-scan or Super 35 frame. Nice feature huh? so that you don't have to fight for which one is better.

I just hope I can get a chance to see Harry Potter series in its full Super 35 frame.

Aren't all the movies like Spider-Man 2, Harry Potter POA, and Matrix showing in IMAX in its full Super 35 form?

 

[Simon Howson]

Do you think someday, they will release some of these movies in its original Super 35 form,

I don't think so, because Super 35 doesn't imply the 4:3 aspect ratio of the silent aperture negative. Super 35 is simply a method for acheiving one aspect ratio via another.

As I have stated, what I think needs consideration is a broader analysis of the 2.4:1 widescreen aesthetic. It is not used to facilitate complex lateral staging, it is increasingly used to create a bigger image. The way 2.4:1 is used in contemporary film making minimises its difference to 1.85:1 and 16:9. Where as in the 50's and 60's a CinemaScope or Panavision film then was aesthetically vastly different to a film composed for 1.85:1 or 1.66:1. In fact, to me it feels that the 1.66:1 aspect ratio was selected when a film maker wanted to adhere as closely as possible to the 1.33:1 frame.

This is simply a complex way of saying that Super 35 essentially offers an array of advantages related to the use of spherical rather than anamorphic lenses, whilst facilitating the creation of prints that project as the largest theatrical image possible.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Other than a few clips for demonstration purposes, why would you want to see a Super-35 movie without mattes... on purpose?

It's like asking for a version of a movie with all the trims of shots edited back in. Just because it was shot, it doesn't exactly make for an interesting watch.

Besides, Super-35 is going to be used more for 1.78:1 and 2.35:1 dual ratio. 1.33:1 is going to be gone as a P&S ratio very soon.

Also, the IMAX versions of the Super-35 movies mentioned are shown at 2.20:1 (mattes slightly raised).

 

[Cees Alons]

Simon,

Welcome to the forum as a (we do hope) more regular poster.

Please be advised that we frown upon multiple posts by the same poster in a row. If you want to start a post inside a thread, please take a quick look what was posted just before. It will help seeing in what direction the thread went and/or help avoid double info.

And if you yourself happen to be the previous poster still, rather edit your previous post, to add the new information, than add another post. This is a service to your fellow readers that we consider of value in our specific type of forum etiquette.

Thanks!

Cees

 

[David_Blackwell]

I'm reading this thread and I remember something mentioned in the PANIC ROOM Special Edition DVD where David Fincher and his DOP film the movies in a certain way so that Fincher's vision will come across either in Pan and Scan or OAR (widescreen).

 

[Felix Martinez]

I feel that a major reason that so many films are released on anamorphic prints isn't necessarily because a director is making full use of a wider frame, it is simply because the average size of cinemas screens has been in decline for the last 30 years. The way films are projected essentially there are two options 2.4:1 or 1.85:1, 2.4:1 ensures that the film is using as much screen area as possible, it means the image is "bigger" it doesn't mean the film is going to actually make use of the widescreen.

This is no longer necessarily the case. I can't tell you how many times I've gone into a theater, and instead of the curtains opening wider to accomodate a 2.35:1 film, curtains come down from above and up from the bottom to mask the extra height. Unbelievable...
Then again, most home theaters - even most home projection set-ups - also do not use a common height set-up. Unfortunately DVDs are only encoded in 16:9 - even for 2.35:1 films - while there is a 20:9 anamorphic option in the mpeg-2 spec....
http://www.gregl.net/videophile/anamorphic.htm
Maybe this will be corrected for HD-DVD or BluRay or whatever. But then we need to get new TVs and screens
Cheers,

 

[Ryan Wong]

A 20:9 display? cool!!

Also, the IMAX versions of the Super-35 movies mentioned are shown at 2.20:1 (mattes slightly raised).

Is it? I thought IMAX screen is taller than that... No time to re-watch a movie in IMAX anyway.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Please be advised that we frown upon multiple posts by the same poster in a row. If you want to start a post inside a thread, please take a quick look what was posted just before. It will help seeing in what direction the thread went and/or help avoid double info.

Perhaps we should also frown upon resurrecting 3-year old (plus) threads containing arguments that that died back then. This could avoid the confusion that people like Simon face when presented with an entire thread of deep back-and-forth arguments from some people who aren't even forum members anymore. It would be nice if there was a way to, say, auto-lock a thread after six months of continuous non-use.

DJ

 

[Kramer Lowry]

 

[Damin J Toell]

And eliminate the search function, warnings from admins and closed topis with the same subjects. You're right, it's a great idea.

Locking a thread wouldn't eliminate the ability to have it appear in forum searches, nor would any (sane) moderator close a thread when its only dupe has already been closed 3 years ago. I've sure never seen any HTF mod do anything remotely of the sort. Anyone could do a search, find an old thread and, if they want to discuss it further, start a new thread. This would offer more than a few benefits:

- Prevent the embarassment of others, who, not realizing that they're seeing an old thread resurrected, trying to debate with someone who hasn't posted to the forum for a year.

- Prevent attacks against someone who can no longer defend themselves due to their no longer frequenting the forum (or perhaps even because they've been banned).

- Prevent the emarassment of being presented with a thread immediately full of fleshed out arguments that were posted over a longer period of time and attempting to tackle all facets of them at once.

- Prevent general confusion and frustration among forum members who, after a contentious thread has died a thankful death, suddenly must see old arguments tossed around again.

I never fail to see confusion of this sort when years-old threads are resurrected for no particular reason other than what somebody wants to post is vaguely related to the old thread. There was nothing special about the content of this thread (or the scores of other similar OAR threads) that required you to resurrect it to post some screenshot comparisons. Your post could have functioned perfectly well in its own thread and you could've saved someone a bit of embarrassment.

DJ

 

[Robert Floto]

By the way, don't miss Spider-man 2 in fullscreen because you can see more out of it.

Do you think the CG special effects are done in Super-35 frame for the recent films like Spider-man 2? Anyone knows? It was't the case like The Mask.

Speaking as a professional digital artist, I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that any CGI is created for theatrical release in a different aspect ratio than what is shown in theatres.

To keep the resolution higher, whether or not the film is open matte, most animators will create the animation in the widescreen ratio that is planned for release. If the open matte is going to be released full frame, the animated sequences will be cropped on the sides.

Go with the original theatrical aspect ratio always. Except in extremely rare cases, it is the way the film's makers wanted it seen...

 

[Lars_J]

Speaking as a professional digital artist, I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that any CGI is created for theatrical release in a different aspect ratio than what is shown in theatres.

The LOTR trilogy appear to be (at least) one exception. Analysis of Widescreen vs. "Fullscreen" DVD's has indicated that the CG was rendered in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. I assume it was done for two reasons:

1. To give the director/editor a vertical framing choice in the 2.35:1 release ratio and

2. To avoid cropping too much in a "Fullscreen" video release.

 

[Robert Floto]

The LOTR trilogy appear to be (at least) one exception. Analysis of Widescreen vs. "Fullscreen" DVD's has indicated that the CG was rendered in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. I assume it was done for two reasons:

1. To give the director/editor a vertical framing choice in the 2.35:1 release ratio and

2. To avoid cropping too much in a "Fullscreen" video release.

That may be possible, but the fullscreen version will still crop the sides, and it is still not the aspect ratio in which the images were composed.

So I stand by my original statement... If it exists on DVD, go with the original theatrical aspect ratio always.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I believe The Matrix had a lot of its CG work done at the 1.85:1 ratio as well. While unmatted version of super 35 films can look better at 4:3 than straight pan & scan presentations, the filmmakers still have to make numerous compromises and do not have the flexibility to make creative decisions that they would have if they were actually shooting for 4:3. The only real exceptions to this have been the Pixar 4:3 transfers where they could actually reposition the characters in the frame if necessary.

Regards,