Couldn't the whole P&S vs OAR debate be resolved if all films were shot in Super 35?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Nick Graham, Dec 18, 2001.

  1. Nick Graham

    Nick Graham Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2001
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    0
    Going over The Digital Bit's Widescreen-O-Rama guide
    http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...reenorama.html
    I realized that something blaringly obvious had slipped right under my nose....couldn't this whole debate be solved if all of Hollywood followed the likes of Cameron and shot all major studio releases in Super 35? This would eliminate Pan and Scan completely, as all full frame releases would simply be open matte, and therefore a lot more bearable if full frame ever did take over the DVD landscape. Not saying I want that to happen, as I prefer all films to be presented in widescreen, even if they were shot in Super 35, but it would be a feasible compromise between us and Joe 6 Pack should the studios and retail chains cave to their demands.
     
  2. Mark Walker

    Mark Walker Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 1999
    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    699
    Nick-
    I could write pages and pages as to why this
    is NOT a good compromise.
    Fact is, just as much is WRONG with SUPER-35 "open matte"
    as their is with any other open matte.
    Bad compositions, loss of anamorphic enhancement,
    which, you WILL care about within the next 8 years,
    and details, like say, Oh, the phone booth is ALREADY
    broke in Terminator 2 when Arnold breaks it,
    and that this is OBVIOUS in the "open matte" version,
    which STILL looses information on the righ and left side.
    No game,
    Mark
     
  3. Seth Paxton

    Seth Paxton Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 1998
    Messages:
    7,585
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Jason Hughes

    Jason Hughes Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1998
    Messages:
    882
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    Jason Hughes
    NO.
     
  5. Ken Seeber

    Ken Seeber Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 1999
    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    2
    So-called open matte is not an acceptable compromise (and there is a whole lot more to the Super 35 format than simply removing mattes).

    The whole point of home theater is to present films the way they were meant to be seen in a theater. There is a lot more to cinematography and the art of composition than whether or not image is cut out of the frame. More is not always better.

    I think you're going to find yourself alone on this issue.
     
  6. Jeffrey Forner

    Jeffrey Forner Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 1999
    Messages:
    1,117
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the point of all this is that we want to see the films as they were originally framed and presented in theaters. And that means the Origianl Aspect Ratio or widescreen as the case may be.
    Just because you're seeing "more" picture than before doesn't mean that it's better. Photography depends on what you leave out as much as what you show, and cinematographers use this to great advantage. Removing the mattes and exposing more of the frame still alters the composition of the shot and ruins the presentation of the film as it was intended.
    Nick, I know you're intentions are good, and I see that you're new here, so I'll cut you a break. I urge everyone to go easy on him and to not rip him a new corn hole. [​IMG]
     
  7. Inspector Hammer!

    Inspector Hammer! Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 1999
    Messages:
    11,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Real Name:
    John Williamson
    Absolutly not. As others have stated, the list of cons for this idea is too long to go into, but i'll list my main two...
    1. I do not watch films in open matte or pan n scan, EVER. To me, they are in the same boat, they are not the films original composition. And as touched upon in an above post, their is far more to Super 35 than simply removing the mattes. In a typical so called open matte SUPER 35 film, they are free to move anywhere in the frame to acheive the desired effect. Just look at the example on the 'T2 UE DVD' and you'll plainly see that they don't just pan n scan the image, they zoom in, pan out, move up and down, you name it for the open matte version. This is just as unacceptable as pan n scan.
    2. I don't want to lose resolution on my dvd's. Watching an OAR version of a film shot in Super 35, is grainier than a film shot anamorphically. Compare the OAR version of 'T2' which was shot in Super 35, to the OAR version of a film like 'Swordfish' which was shot anamorphically, and you can plainly see that 'T2' has significantly more apparent grain than 'Swordfish'.
    I can tolerate this, but not if EVERY film was shot in Super 35.
     
  8. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,555
    Likes Received:
    186
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    Yes, T-2 is clearly panned & scanned, but that's not what happens to most open matte films.

    Super-35 is ok for effects-heavy films and also films with a lot of complex lighting.

    I would use 70mm, of course, but that's me.
     
  9. Michael Henry

    Michael Henry Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Real Name:
    J. Michael Henry
    I think a solution is to offer BOTH P&S and OAR in the same package - what the heck is wrong with this???
    -Mike
     
  10. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    2
     
  11. Richard Kim

    Richard Kim Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    0
    In Super35 and matted films, special effects shots are hard matted to the theatrical aspect ratio, so they end up being cropped for 4:3.
     
  12. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    2
     
  13. CharlesD

    CharlesD Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just say "NO" to P&S AND Super 35. Many Super 35 films I have seen have noticable grain, and don't look anwhere as good as an anamorphicaly shot movie. Its a horrible compromise IMO.
    There are some good technicaly reasons not to shoot some movie with an anamorphic lense and Super35 does give film makers the option of shooting in 2.35 where otherwise they would have to shoot 1.85, but frankly if they are not up to the task technicaly I think they should find another line of work!
     
  14. Michael Henry

    Michael Henry Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Real Name:
    J. Michael Henry
    If a double sided DVD is used - both versions can be on every DVD - don't get me wrong, I am a HUGE advocate of OAR...but compromises can be made to make everyone happy...
    Just my opinion...
    -Mike
     
  15. Jerry Gracia

    Jerry Gracia Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 1998
    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Home Theater Enthusiasts of the world prefer to watch movies in their original intended theatrical aspect ratio.

    The casual movie enthusiasts don't care.

    Some directors, notably James Cameron, sympathies with these people and shoots his films in a manner that allows a more "composition friendly" transfer for 4:3 home video.

    What I don't understand and never will understand is why directors use this excuse to shoot in Super 35...I know there are many technical reasons for the use of Super 35...but those who use it for making "better" home video versions don't seem to realize that Joe Blow isn’t going to notice a PAN AND SCAN transfer from an OPEN-MATTE transfer anyway...so what's the point?

    I really don't like it when movies are shot in Super 35. I recently become more observant and notice more film grain associated with films shot in Super 35 vs. Anamorphic.
     
  16. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    2
     
  17. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    2
     
  18. Rolando

    Rolando Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2001
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    4
    Buddy, Super 35 is evil. I think J6P is confused enough. On the contrary we should be campaigning to elimanate the use of it not more of it.
     
  19. Jerry Gracia

    Jerry Gracia Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 1998
    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michael,

    James Cameron has also gone on record saying that he doesn't like the idea of "throwing away" half of the photography when transferring to 4:3.
     
  20. Dan Hitchman

    Dan Hitchman Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 1999
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh God, here we go again!

    Dan
     

Share This Page