Is 2.35:1 being overused? (1 Viewer)

[Adam_S]

It all depends really on the subject matter, the amount of characters, and ultimately the director's and dps artistic tastes and decisions. For instance, films with a child as the main character work best in 1.85 because their faces and bodies will fill up a greater portion of the frame in closeups and two shots respectively, framing works better when there's less dead background space (unless that space is being actively used for mise en scene purposes, see Rushmore and Royal Tenenbaums). But if it is an ensemmble piece then a wider ratio would probably be a preferable choice because there will be more shots requiring more people (see Dogma, Goonies, Gosford Park, LOTR), a wider frame in this instance means less unecessary panning of the camera.
Spielberg's movies are an excellent example of the different aspect ratios. I would never want to see Jaws filmed at 1.85 because the scenes at brodie's dinner table and the scar discussion. the composition of these to scenes are in my opinion as perfect as things can get.
Likewise CE3k makes excellent use of the full 2.35 frame.
But his most beautiful films are all in 1.85. Empire of the Sun has utterly gorgeous cinematgraphy and it along with AI are excellent examples of why this ratio is preferential when dealing with a small number of children.
Even Jurassic Park is very careful in it's placement of characters, I don't believe anyone was ever exactly centered in the frame when they were alone in shot (centering people in the frame as they look slightly away from the camera while talking to someone else is always visually offputting to me). The flea circus,/eating icecream scene comes to mind, where Hammond is framed slightly off center with JP toys/display behind him.
Minority report I think benefitted from the 2.35 frame because of all the background things constantly occuring, it showed the scope of the world without being blatent about it.
Many martial arts films work well in 2.35 it gives you a good grasp of what's happening from many different camera distances, where's you can't get very close on a martial arts fight with a 1.85 frame and still have good framing or clarity of action.
imho
Adam

 

[Patrick McCart]

So, Patrick, are you saying that Gladiator did merely open up the mattes (except for CGI shots) for the HBO showing?

I haven't seen Gladiator in its entirety either on DVD or fullframe. From the few scenes I've seen from both, it looks like the frame was opened up as much as it could. The CGI shots looked cropped, however.

I'm not supporting any panning & scanning...I'm just trying to get the word accross of how Super-35 can and is transferred in correct and incorrect aspect ratios.

Most CGI now for flat (1.85:1 and Super-35 2.35:1) is actually done at 1.78:1. When CGI was just getting started and was much more difficult to render (like for T-2), the CGI sequences would be hard matted. The CGI in T-2 is 2:1, while 1.85:1 films have CGI around 1.66:1 to 1.78:1.

 

[DeeF]

I haven't seen Gladiator in its entirety either on DVD or fullframe. From the few scenes I've seen from both, it looks like the frame was opened up as much as it could. The CGI shots looked cropped, however.

Funny you should say this, I haven't been able to watch the whole thing, either.

LOL

 

[Esten]

I thought most effects shots were done in either 65mm or vistavision?

 

[DeeF]

I haven't seen Gladiator in its entirety either on DVD or fullframe. From the few scenes I've seen from both, it looks like the frame was opened up as much as it could. The CGI shots looked cropped, however.

I'm not supporting any panning & scanning...I'm just trying to get the word accross of how Super-35 can and is transferred in correct and incorrect aspect ratios.

Most CGI now for flat (1.85:1 and Super-35 2.35:1) is actually done at 1.78:1. When CGI was just getting started and was much more difficult to render (like for T-2), the CGI sequences would be hard matted. The CGI in T-2 is 2:1, while 1.85:1 films have CGI around 1.66:1 to 1.78:1.

I'm reading into your informative post that the CGI effects for Gladiator were done at 1.78:1.

Which would mean, when it was shown on HBO at 1.78:1, the mattes were opened from the original scope ratio, and nothing was lost, or recompositioned in the process.

This is the only thing I thought I was requesting. I wouldn't request opening the mattes up to 1.33:1. It's too much.

But having two different ratios, 2.35:1 for the theater, and 1.78:1 for the video, doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I recognize that some movies are SHOT anamorphic, and wouldn't have extra information available, no "mattes" to be opened. These should stay in their original scope ratio.

Perhaps a television could be developed to instantly add black mattes, top and bottom, if a person wanted to see the scope ratio as it was shown originally in the theater. But they could be removed, too.

Just an idea. Once again, I don't advocate changing anything already made.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Dee, the problem is that the framing is not constant, wouldn't work

 

[Michael Reuben]

I recognize that some movies are SHOT anamorphic, and wouldn't have extra information available, no "mattes" to be opened. These should stay in their original scope ratio.

It would be nice if HBO made that distinction, but they don't. Their example is a practical demonstration of what tends to happen when your "theory" is applied. Once one accepts the notion that it's OK to alter the theatrical OAR, the results are good only for those who stubbornly insist that films be altered to fill their TV screen, whatever shape it may be.

And you shouldn't assume that Gladiator isn't cropped for viewing at 1.78:1. I've watched bits of it on the HBO HD channel, and it's most definitely cropped. (Unlike Patrick, I've seen the whole movie.)

M.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

As an aside, Harry Potter (a Super 35 film) had it's special effects hard-matted to 1.78:1. That's why you have the extra special FX information on the P&S DVD, a point of some controversy a while back.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Effects are now done on regular 35mm, some VistaVision, and extremely sparse on 65mm (Contact was the last film to use 65mm for effects...).
I spot VistaVision credits in some newer films from time to time, but it really is only needed for opticals. When using digital compositing, the film isn't subjected to dozens of passes.
Not that I wouldn't mind seeing VistaVision used for more than just effects...