HARRY POTTER -- comparison of WS v FS (merged thread) (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

One person even suggested that the director INTENTIONALLY RUIN SHOTS in Super35!

I didn't.

DJ

 

[Michael Reuben]

What about Citizen Kane?

The "O" in "OAR" stands for "original", i.e., the form in which the film was created for presentation in theaters. That's why the mission statement doesn't say anything about widescreen vs. fullscreen.
Kubrick's films are indeed a special case, which has inspired pages of debate. The unusual factor with Kubrick's films is the director's insistence on a presenting many of them for home video in a 4:3 format (or in the case of Strangelove, a hybrid format).
No such factor exists here. There's been nothing cited to indicate that Chris Columbus wanted Harry Potter presented in fullframe for home viewing. (If he did, there'd presumably be no widescreen version, as is the case with many Kubrick films.) The issue that's been raised here -- a spurious one, IMO -- arises solely from a declared preference for a fullscreen presentation by people who had nothing to do with making the film.
M.

 

[David Lambert]

Quote:

Speaking as one of thse members you are speaking of, I implore some of these posters - a couple of whom still don't seem to "get it" after your post - to stop arguing for what seems to be just the sake of arguement!
Please agree to disagree and move on, and let's just talk about Home Theater. If you can't live with your disagreement with the Forum's core values, maybe you're not in the right place? Here is why I say that:
I tend to agree that the studios are taking advantage of the "side benefit" of Super35 that allows them to easily change a film for a home presentation that is 1.33:1. That still represents a CHANGE. A Modification to the Aspect Ratio that was presented in the theaters.
This is the Home THEATER Forum. I joined up because I found a place where others believed like I did: that movies should be seen in the HOME in the *exact* same presentation that was seen in the THEATER.
[rant]NO changes.[/rant]
Please stop trying to persuade me, and the rest of the HTF membership, to accept otherwise. That's not what I'm (we're) here for.
Thank you.

 

[MartinTeller]

Sorry, DJ, I didn't mean to imply that I was talking about you. It just bugs me that some folks are so unwilling to examine the difficult cases, and would rather have a fullscreen with boom mikes and dolly tracks than a clean one. It boggles my mind.

I'll bow out of this conversation now, since I'm apparently some kind of a threat to some folks. I'd just like to reiterate that not everything is black & white, sometimes there are no easy answers.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Sorry, David, but I can only go by what you wrote, and it wasn't clear where you were going. I appreciate the clarification, though.

I don't know if that's what happened or not. I was bringing it up as a possibility.

Isn't that the kind of thing that got us into this debate in the first place?
M.

 

[John Berggren]

I would also thank Ron for stating what should be obvious. I would like to thank David for following up on said statement.
I come here because I respect the community values of the forum. I've always felt welcome to speak on a variety of topics, and the one that is mandatory falls in line with my pre-existing beleifs. I beleive that DVD should be a format where the original (generally widescreen) presentation should be primary. I bought into DVD because of this opportunity. It was really only after the fact that I began to appreciate higher resolution video, surround sound, chapter selection, and special features. Widescreen alone brought me into this format, and I'll not have anyone trying to change that primary benefit of DVD. I certainly don't want to read about it here.

 

[Damin J Toell]

This is the Home THEATER Forum. I joined up because I found a place where others believed like I did: that movies should be seen in the HOME in the *exact* same presentation that was seen in the THEATER.

I don't think anyone has made such an argument in this thread, unless I'm misreading something. If you're referring to Martin Teller, I took his point as being that Super35 isn't bad in and of itself merely because of the fact that, when shooting for 2.4:1 acquisition, it simultaneously creates a 4x3-friendly version. I agree with that sentiment. I took Martin as directly responding to certain members who claimed that the possible simultaneous creation of a 4x3-friendly version (which doesn't always occur anyway, given that many directors & DPs don't even monitor the 4x3 frame during filming) was "evil," as if there are no other possible peritent reasons for a director choosing to use Super35 for 2.4:1 acquisition. In the current home video and television broadcast marketplace, 4x3 versions of films will be produced at some point no matter what the filming process or OAR of a film is. Super35 for 2.4:1 acquisition neither hurts nor promotes this practice. I took that to be Martin's point, anyway....

DJ

 

[Jack Briggs]

Martin:

You're really bordering on the antagonistic here. I strongly suggest you find another thread. You've made your point, so please quit belaboring it. Thanks.

JB

 

[Marc Alexander]

With the lack of cultural diversity in many releases, I can't support any release that crops the few minorities that do appear in the film. :rolleyes
http://plum.cream.org/HP/dvd/Big/05450.jpg

 

[Chris Bardon]

Here's the thing though-if a director wants their movie to be seen in widescreen, then why compose it so that it fits a P&S transfer? It seems like 1.85:1 is the "standard" ratio, while 2.35:1 or "scope" is a more deliberate decision. I get the feeling that Chris Columbus wanted to film the entire thing in scope, but that some harsh truths forced some of the recomposed shots. Realistically though, isn't this just feeding the opposition? Personally, I like the George Lucas approach to things-make a P&S version that's literally unwatchable to drive people to APPRECIATE the widescreen version.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

With the lack of cultural diversity in many releases, I can't support any release that crops the few minorities that do appear in the film.

I realized that, but I'd have said the full frame was a better picture, for this shot, even if the last kid was white.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I believe the same thing happened with Ron Howard on Apollo 13.

Let us not forget that the fact that Mr. Howard shot Super35 is the reason why Apollo 13's IMAX re-release will be PAN & SCAN!

(No, they can't rerender the effects. Several friends in the FX industry said to me it would take roughly 3 months just to dig up the software involved ASSUMING it would still work on current systems)

 

[Damin J Toell]

Let us not forget that the fact that Mr. Howard shot Super35 is the reason why Apollo 13's IMAX re-release will be PAN & SCAN!

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Wouldn't they also have to P&S it if he had shot it in 2.35:1 scope, that most holy of filming processes? So what's Super35 got to do with it?

DJ

 

[John Berggren]

Damin:

IMAX does show films in OAR, when a print is made available. Beauty and the Beast was presented in 1.85:1. I suspect we'll see the Lion King in the same format.

 

[Damin J Toell]

IMAX does show films in OAR, when a print is made available. Beauty and the Beast was presented in 1.85:1. I suspect we'll see the Lion King in the same format.

So then I still don't understand what Super35 has to do with Imax's choice of presentation.

DJ

 

[Sean Moon]

The wierd thing in the Harry Potter shots is that even the effects shots are revealing more on top and bottom. I thought all effects shots were P&S, as the reason was why waste valuable time and money rendering effects for the top and bottom of the frame if it wont be used theatrically. Unless WB imposed on Columbus and ILM to render the effects 1.33 just for the future home video releases.

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

"OAR"?

Nope. Not by a long shot.
The "original" in "Original Aspect Ratio" refers to the framing of the film as it appeared first in movie theaters. Note the word "first" in that last sentence. It was the "first" and therefore "original" aspect ratio. You can't have two different things be the original.
My hope when I watch a movie on my home theater is that I will be able to recreate, as closely as possible, the experience of seeing the film as it appeared in theaters. Any presentation in an MAR format will not deliver this experience. Hence, the widescreen version of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is the one for me and the vast majority of the members here.

 

[Kaima]

The head room on the P&S looks terrible. I still prefer widescreen.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

So then I still don't understand what Super35 has to do with Imax's choice of presentation.

The regular aspect ratio of an IMAX film is 1.44:1, but they can "letterbox" the image to maintain the OAR. Since Apollo 13 is actually being blown up to the IMAX-size film, though, they might decide not to go with the 2.35:1 ratio. If so, they can open up the non-F/X shots a little, resulting in less P&S. However, the F/X shots were most likely shot in widescreen, so they will have to pan&scan them if they want to keep the ratio opened up.

Personally, I hope they go with 2.35:1, but I guess we'll see.

 

[Damin J Toell]

It was the "first" and therefore "original" aspect ratio.

It would seem to me that the "first" AR would be either the one that the filmmakers wanted or the one that appeared as the AR in the camera during filming. The theatrical exhibition isn't "first" at all.

DJ