is Lord of the Rings done in super 35? (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

One thing about LOTR...

It looks like the film's negative (after effects and color grading) is 1.78:1. The comparison shots I saw indicated that when you add the width of the matted version to the height of the fullscreen version, it looks like the most exposed frame could be 1.78:1.

 

[John_Berger]

But you do with Super35, because the exposed frame is wider than the 1.33:1 TV frame. The theatrical release uses the extra width and lose from the top and/or bottom.

You could say that the use of Super35 is a lose-lose situation all around. You lose part of the image on pan-and-scan; you lose part of the image in widescreen.
So, basically if you support Super35, you support nothing but losers who have a lot to lose by filming in Super35!
(That's a JOKE, Scott H! Don't get that debate going again, please! Jeff Kleist, behave yourself!)

 

[Esten]

http://www.cinedie.com/formatting.htm

 

[Josh Lowe]

the problem with super35 is that it's misused.

the air force one still is a good example. the shot is set up as if the full frame is what will be seen in the theater, but the section that is actually displayed is cropped. it loses impact.

peter jackson did a much better job with his use of super35 on lotr. they framed shots with the theatrical display in mind, not by framing things based on how much space there was on the film.

 

[Patrick McCart]

One minor thing...
The screenshots on the widescreen.org page are the faked ones...
The real examples can be found @ Link Removed

 

[Damin J Toell]

the problem with super35 is that it's misused.

the air force one still is a good example. the shot is set up as if the full frame is what will be seen in the theater, but the section that is actually displayed is cropped. it loses impact.

peter jackson did a much better job with his use of super35 on lotr. they framed shots with the theatrical display in mind, not by framing things based on how much space there was on the film.

Are you implying that other filmmakers, such as Wolfgang Petersen (whose film you noted), who shoot using Super35 for ~2.4:1 exhibition frame things based on "how much space there was on the film" instead of what the theatrical framing is? Do you have an actual source for this information, or are you fabricating it?

DJ

 

[Josh Lowe]

Are you implying that other filmmakers, such as Wolfgang Petersen (whose film you noted), who shoot using Super35 for ~2.4:1 exhibition frame things based on "how much space there was on the film" instead of what the theatrical framing is? Do you have an actual source for this information, or are you fabricating it?

My source is my common sense, see for yourself. Unless of course Petersen's intent was to deliver a somewhat vague and cropped looking "exhibition frame" vs. the full frame. I didn't account for that.
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...eenorama2.html
It just looks to me like widescreen came second in the framing of that shot.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Quote:

It doesn't look that way to me. Perhaps I lack common sense? Anyhow, your inference is possible, but fairly doubtful, given that Petersen was creating a film primarily for ~2.4:1 theatrical exhibition. I haven't seen him say anything further to indicate that the 2.4:1 framing isn't the preferred/intended/primary AR for which the project was acquired. It seems to me a pretty large and shaky conclusion to reach that Petersen composed for 1.33:1 because of your personal reaction to a single shot in the film. While you're certainly entitled to have your opinion, it does no one any good to treat that opinion as fact and spread baseless information about the "misuse" of a filming process.
DJ

 

[Daniel J]

It seems to me a pretty large and shaky conclusion to reach that Petersen composed for 1.33:1 because of your personal reaction to a single shot in the film.

I didn't make the post in question, But I will add that the question isn't whether Mr. peterson composed the entire film for a particular AR; but rather "Why would a director frame a shot so that most of the scene is vertically cropped?
I would appreciate any release of a super35 film that allowed me to see the entire space on the negative; not because it's "better", but because I like seeing as much of something as I can. OAR may be the default AR, but it's not the only one that exists. The question is further aggrivated by the fact that I watch on a 4:3 monitor; If there's a version available that allows me to see more of the set/scenery and actors, why aren't I watching that? I agree that many shots are composed by the DP for widescreen, and look stupid in non-OAR, but many aren't composed explicitly for widescreen, and I'd like to have an option for those shots. The Drector/DP isn't God, folks; he's just someone trying to show us a picture of a story.

 

[Damin J Toell]

OAR may be the default AR, but it's not the only one that exists. The question is further aggrivated by the fact that I watch on a 4:3 monitor; If there's a version available that allows me to see more of the set/scenery and actors, why aren't I watching that? I agree that many shots are composed by the DP for widescreen, and look stupid in non-OAR, but many aren't composed explicitly for widescreen, and I'd like to have an option for those shots. The Drector/DP isn't God, folks; he's just someone trying to show us a picture of a story.

Perhaps you should review the pro-OAR policy of this forum.

DJ

 

[Josh Lowe]

I haven't seen Air Force One in its entirety on any home video format, but I did see it theatrically. It certainly didn't look "vague and cropped" to me.

So the still I posted the link to doesn't look cropped in widescreen vs. fullscreen? Is what what you're saying? And you think the widescreen section is well-framed?

 

[Rob Gillespie]

In fact, isn't that what widescreen essentially ends up being when using super35?

No, unless you want to start splitting hairs and arguing for the sake of it.

Unless the director says otherwise, the theatrical presentation is the OAR - period.

 

[John_Berger]

The screenshots on the widescreen.org page are the faked ones...

BULLSHIT!!
The widescreen images were taken from my DVD using WinDVD and SnagIt; the pan-and-scan were taken from a rented VHS version from Blockbuster using my old Snappy video capture device.
ALL of my images are TRUE from their original sources. The only "modifications" that are done is the removal of the black on widescreen versions to show exactly what imagery is lost which is the focus of my comparisons.
"Faked", my ass!

Okay, John. Breathe. Easy now. In the nose... Out the mouth... It's just someone else trying to take yet another pot shot at you... Breathe... That's it.

 

[Josh Lowe]

Unless the director says otherwise, the theatrical presentation is the OAR - period.

so where does that leave it when someone like james cameron expresses a preference for the full frame versions of films he's shot in super35? rather than get mired in "oar vs. mar" isn't the issue really 4:3 P&S/Squeeze vs. Anamorphic widescreen? We all know P&S sucks and that widescreen really is "the only way".. what i don't get is why a director, when using super35, would frame a shot so that it ends up being badly cropped on the big screen. And apparently I've insulted the honor of Wolfgang Petersen by saying so..

 

[Ricardo C]

John is correct. I own both versions of LOTR (the OAR got into the country a week after the P&S, and I was too impatient :b), and the P&S images are accurate. Notice the additional picture at the top and bottom. There ARE fakes screenshots out there, but not on his site.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

what i don't get is why a director, when using super35, would frame a shot so that it ends up being badly cropped on the big screen.

You're still assuming that the 4:3 version is 'correct' and that the version shown at cinemas is 'wrong'. Just because the 4:3 shows more image does not mean that it was really intended to part of the shot composition.

 

[John_Berger]

There ARE fakes screenshots out there, but not on his site.

THANK YOU!
It took a couple of guys at work to tear me off the ceiling and get that elephant tranquilizer into me, but I'm okay now. Just a few side effects remain. I know that grass is not actually purple but it will probably take a few hours before the grass looks green again. Hey, this is cool! The sun is mauve! Groovy, man! Is that "Freedom Rock"?

 

[Michael Reuben]

Since the aspect ratio is modified when using super35, isn't that MAR, by definition?

You're assuming that what's on the negative is the OAR. It isn't. That's true with Super35 as well as with films shot flat for 1.85:1 projection.

M.

 

[John_Berger]

You're assuming that what's on the negative is the OAR. It isn't. That's true with Super35 as well as with films shot flat for 1.85:1 projection.

Then it would also be true for anamorphic movies. After all, even 2.35:1 movies are filed onto a 1.33:1 frame. If what's on the negative is OAR, then all movies must be 1.33:1 except for S35 which would be slightly wider at 1.37:1 IIRC.
OAR is defined by how the filmmaker intended the movie to be seen AFAIC.
"Lord of the Rings" was filmed for 2.35:1. Just look at the NOT FAKED examples and you'll see that the framing was not for a TV set. Therefore, 2.35:1 is the OAR.
"Eyes Wide Shut" was shown theatrically at 1.85:1 but Kubrick wanted it to be 1.33:1; therefore, 1.33:1 is the OAR.
"Terminator 2"? Well, I have little to no respect for Cameron, and since he doesn't seem to have made up his mind himself I have no idea what the OAR for T2 is!

 

[Michael Reuben]

I'm afraid, John, that in addition to seeing purple, you're also misreading my post. Try it again, focusing on the words in bold.

Quote:

It's 2.35:1. And I challenge anyone to come up with a single reliable source where Cameron says he prefers any other framing. The notion that Cameron prefers 4:3 versions of his films for home video in all circumstances is an internet urban legend, which Rob Gillespie has already effectively debunked.
M.