Couldn't the whole P&S vs OAR debate be resolved if all films were shot in Super 35? (1 Viewer)

[Michael Reuben]

Jerry, I bet we're both thinking of the same Cameron interview. I guess it just depends on which part of the interview you read; Cameron see advantages to Super35 on a lot of fronts.

Oh God, here we go again!

As new people join HTF, it's inevitable that they'll raise issues that, unbeknownst to them, have been covered extensively before. There's nothing wrong with it, as long as the long-time members respond temperately and informatively. That's generally been happening in this thread, and there's no reason why it can't continue that way.
M.

 

[Nick Graham]

Well, it seems I've kind of reopened old wounds around here.

Let me clarify my case. Do I have any desire to see DVD go the way of VHS and become a medium where 99% of releases are full frame? Not in the least bit. My main concern is that with the troubling precedents set by Blockbuster and other retailers, I don't want a future where my only means to view one of my favorite films is pan and scan....I already had that problem before there was DVD and all I had was VHS (and yes, sue me, but before DVD was released, I was in high school, and you'll be hard pressed to find a high schooler who can fund a nice LD setup). My main beef with pan and scan is what is lost with all the chopping and cropping inherent in it. My personal preference, if I ran Hollywood, would be that everything was shot in 2:35:1 scope, as it just seems more cinematic and grand to me....I love it, whether I'm watching on a 19" TV or a 55" TV. But I don't run Hollywood, people who listen to J6P and ignore us run Hollywood. And if it goes back to square 1, where everything is full frame again, I'd like minimal picture loss. I will do everything in my power, sign every petition, complain till I can't speak anymore, to keep that from happening, but if it does, well, Super 35 is a better choice than P&S butchery....if only as he lesser of two evils.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Super 35 is a better choice than P&S butchery....if only as he lesser of two evils.

Not as much as you may think, Nick. As noted above, effects shots are usually hard-matted; this means they have to be panned and scanned as severely as any 2:35:1 frame acquired through an anamorphic lens. In today's world of CGI, effects shots are very common, even in films where you wouldn't expect it. (For example, nearly every shot in O Brother Where Are Thou? has some CGI in it.)

Super35 is like any other filming format: It has technical advantages and limitations that different individuals assess differently. (Michael Bay hates it; David Fincher likes it; Ridley Scott hated it, then started using it again, etc. etc.) But, IMO, the mistake commonly made on HTF is to assume that the format is all about OAR vs. P&S. It's really about lighting requirements, film grain, depth of field, size and weight of camera rigs, and various other details that filmmakers have to think about and viewers usually don't.

M.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Super35 is like any other filming format: It has technical advantages and limitations that different individuals assess differently. (Michael Bay hates it; David Fincher likes it; Ridley Scott hated it, then started using it again, etc. etc.) But, IMO, the mistake commonly made on HTF is to assume that the format is all about OAR vs. P&S. It's really about lighting requirements, film grain, depth of field, size and weight of camera rigs, and various other details that filmmakers have to think about and viewers usually don't.

Exactly!

That's the problem with this suggestion, the photography process is chosen on a variety of issues- and to expect everyone MAKING FILMS to abandon personal taste to compromise for home video is a bad idea.

More importantly, films shot Super 35 and intended for 2.35:1 means the center portion of the negative is blown up rather drastcially, resulting in a very sharp increase in grain. This was pretty obvious on a few recent films I've seen, I recall "The Patriot" has a few nightime scenes that were so grainy they looked like it was raining.

I think, and will continue to think that the best resolution is to allow the directors to select their own photo process, AR, film stocks-- and respect these decisions when transferring film for home video. And educational approach to Widescreen is the only hope- and unless more studios get on the bandwagon and include a widescreen explaination on EVERY DVD SOLD- well OAR is probably doomed.

-Vince

 

[Michael Reuben]

well OAR is probably doomed

I was with you right up to that point, Vince.
I agree that OAR advocacy and education continue to be top priorities, but I just can't share the pessimism that seems to have descended on so many this holiday season. As I said in another thread, I've been collecting software-on-disc for over ten years now, and the one unmistakeable trend during that whole time has been the continuing expansion of the availability of OAR, which is beyond anything I ever dreamed possible when I started. Yes, there are powerful forces pushing P&S. But there are also powerful forces pushing the other way, or we wouldn't be where we are today.
M.

 

[Esten]

If the movie shot Super35 has say a CGI effect every few minutes throughout the entire film... when is transferred to fit a 4:3 screen the whole movie would essentially be true pan&scan.

If i'm not mistaken.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Esten, yes your right, but what many don't seem to realize is that even non effects shots are often heavily modified as I stated in my first post.
Again, look at the widescreen and fullframe example on the 'T2 UE', they use a non effects shot for this example, with the fullframe version they do all sorts of modifying to the image, they zoom in to maintain close ups, they zoom out, they even have the freedom to move up and down. Keep your eye on that example and you'll notice that the 4x3 "window" gets bigger, smaller, back to large again to suit their needs.
As mentioned, it's not as simple as removing the mattes.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

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.

Rolando, I like you
Plain and simple, Super35 is evil, and needs to be stopped. Watch the opening of Harry Potter for example, check out the grain MAGNIFIED by the fact that the film has been blown up from basically a 4:3 letterbox transfer. BAD BAD BAD BAD! Now if it was shot anamorphically (and with a competant lighting technition) it would look 10x better.
Degrades the theatrical presentation, and makes the eventual DVD not look as good. Bad bad format.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Geez, Jeff, what took you so long? I've been waiting . . .

M.

 

[Justin T]

I don't like the look of Super35 on the big screen. The picture looks too big and there isn't too much careful composition. This is because Super35 gives a negative ratio of 1.95:1 and fills the screen easier when cropped to 2.40:1.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

The picture looks too big and there isn't too much careful composition.

I'm not sure how this could be attributed to the photo process of super35... Any give film process with any given target aspect ratio could easily be framed for and shot for properly. I can't see why 2.35:1 done anamorphic vs super 35 would change the size of the picture or the composition of the shot.

-Vince

 

[Justin T]

There is no way you can exactly match shots in Panavision and Super35.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I am anxiously awaiting the thread entitled "Couldn't the whole P&S vs OAR debate be resolved if all films were shot in 1.37:1 original academy ratio?"

P.S. No I am not serious and will not be defending the statement above. My point is simply that it is as good a suggestion as the one at the top of this thread.
Regards,

 

[Nick Graham]

I didn't start the post to be insulted, but merely for conversation fodder, and to further get info on Super 35. As for yor mock suggestion, considering the studios pretty much brought out widescreen as a marketing gimmick to differentiate themselves from TV so that TV didn't cannibalize ticket sales...maybe you have a point after all....though going to theatres with square screens and being forced to only watch full frame DVDs wouldn't be my cup of tea. I initiated this thread simply as food for thought, as, whether some elitists will accept or not, Joe 6 Pack is hijacking our beloved format, and the landscape of DVD is changing....I just made a suggestion to make the unfortunate but probably unavoidable change *slightly* more bearable.

 

[Nick Graham]

The best compromise is of course what Mike said, the old Columbia trend of OAR on one side and Pan and Scan on the other, but for some reason the studios have now started leaning towards seperate releases, for whatever reason, and seem to see no need to change.

 

[Ken Seeber]

, Joe 6 Pack is hijacking our beloved format, and the landscape of DVD is changing....I just made a suggestion to make the unfortunate but probably unavoidable change *slightly* more bearable.

I'm not sure I'm reading your post correctly, so I apologize in advance if I'm wrong.
You might want to think twice before coming to a forum that is strictly pro-OAR and calling said pro-OAR people "elitists."

 

[Nick Graham]

If I were calling those who are pro-OAR elitists, I would have to call myself an elitist. Maybe I should bottom line my thoughts on this whole issue. I am a guy who will complain without ceasing about not being able to see a film on DVD in its OAR. I actually work at a local Hastings video store as collections manager, and the store video manager now refers to me strictly as "Whiny" over my constant complaining over our store only getting pan and scan copies of The Mummy Returns, and how much I pester her on releases like JP 3 and The Grinch, which we thankfully have a few OAR copies of. Do I wish to see any movie that wasn't intended specifically for full frame (like Citizen Kane) in anything but it's OAR? No. I am a huge OAR backer, and can say that I have converted friends and family over to the OAR side of things. I am also a realist, and watching what is going on with rental chains and retailers, I think the release of DVDs in OAR is quite possibly, slowly but surely, gonna start going the way of the buffalo with the precedents being set by the companies that matter in the industry. My "elitists" slip was more directed at those who simply bury their heads in the sand and pretend the OAR vs P&S battle isn't really a battle yet, and feel that I am somehow insulting their intelligence by even thinking of a compromise of any sort SHOULD the studios and retailers dictate that it's their way or the highway, pan and scan or no disc at all, which, rather you accept it or not, could very well become the reality in the future.

 

[Ken Seeber]

Where we differ then, Nick, is in how we choose to resolve this battle.

We elitists haven't buried our heads in the sand. Quite the contrary, we've chosen to fight so-called compromises such as "open matte" transfers tooth and nail.

Our voices were heard during the "Willy Wonka" flap. We'll continue to be vocal to movie studios who view Joe Sixpacks as the only customers worth pleasing. Most casual consumers rent their movies then forget about them. We're the ones who shell out $20 - $25 to buy several DVDs per month, every month.

There is no going back. Before DVD, every major studio had already launched a widescreen VHS line because of the demand. Several rows of shelf space were devoted to widescreen VHS at Best Buy.

DVD built on that demand for widescreen. The format is the most successful launch of a home electronic product in history, all without the help of these alleged compromises.

Instead of accepting open matte transfers, I propose that we elitists continue to concentrate on education efforts. This is where the studios have really dropped the ball. Michael Bay, for example, is including an explanation of the widescreen format on the "Pearl Harbor" DVD, but only on the four-disc director's cut. What's the point of that? It's preaching to the converted. Where that education is really needed is on the VHS version, which is 1.85:1 for most of the movie, but 2.35:1 for the attack sequence.

 

[Nick Graham]

Ken, I wasn't really calling you an "elitist" whether you consider yourself one or not. I meant no insult, though my post may have had a bit of an edge due to basically being insulted in a previous post. Your idea and my idea of how DVD SHOULD be match exactly, but my pessimistic nature makes me think the future might not be so cheery.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I didn't start the post to be insulted, but merely for conversation fodder, and to further get info on Super 35. As for yor mock suggestion...

My response was not meant to be insulting, just illustrative. The fallacy in both suggestions is the underlying reliance on choice of aspect ratio not being an aesthetic decision. Composition within the frame is an important aesthetic consideration. Trying to accomodate another shaped frame involves compromise. If the filmmakers use extremely balanced compositions that are centered both horizontally and vertically, matte opening is less of a compromise, but that limits their creative choices as well.

This is why I prefer OAR presentation. It respects the decisions made by the filmmakers about composition.

Regards,