MGM to release MANHUNTER Theatrical Cut - FULL SCREEN ONLY!?!? (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

No insult intended to anyone but this is a dumb argument that no one will ever win. It's useless to say more about a subject that no one will chnage their POV on.

Like I said, no offense intended though.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Travis,
dude, where the hell do you get the nerve...being right!?

Seriously, I agree 100%.

 

[Jeff D Han]

Back to the Manhunter discs- I have the 1 disc Anchor
Bay version, and I was going to upgrade to the director's
version with Mann's commentary. Is it worth it for the
different cut of the film, picture transfer, or the
commentary track? Thanks.

 

[Simon Howson]

The Sony HDW-950 cameras that Lucas used on the new Star Wars films photograph a HD image with an aspect ratio of 16:9. They do not natively shoot a 2.35:1 image, this is acheived by cropping the image at the top and the bottom, in the process sacrificing some resoltion, but giving Lucas the ability to alter the composition on a shot by shot basis.

The source material for the whole film is 16:9, only at a later time (it seems much later) will this material be cropped down to 2.35:1. He was not zooming in on anything, rather he was watching the full image as recorded by the camera, plus overlayed with various CGI elements, exactly where the widescreen mask will go can be determined later. Just like a Super 35 film, film the last two Star Wars films were not "created" in 2.35:1 at all.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Simon,
virtually everything your asking me to believe goes against everything i've ever been taught or even heard about. I would think that at some point I would have heard about this information your offering me, but I haven't.

I refuse to believe that the theatrical composition is simply some sort of compromise, I don't buy it, i'm sorry. Even if I did, it doesn't matter anyway, I want the film at home the way it was presented in theaters, which I still believe to be the intended form.

I have seen many open matte 4x3 transfers in my lifetime, and they all looked bad. I have yet to see a single one that looks appropriate when opened up from it's theatrical exhibition format. In addition to taking the emphesis off of the principal action, there is too much dead space above and below the image.

As for the George Lucas issue, i'm afraid that I can't speak intelligently enough about the HD filming process, i'm still a bit fuzzy on it as it is still new, so i'll take your word for it. But what I do know is the film will be 2.35:1 when it is released as intended by Lucas.

Listen, I am growing weary of this tit for tat, I want what was shown in theaters, that's it, end of story. I only hope that come Monday when the forum sees more activity, others will chime in as I am rarely alone in my stance regarding OAR here.

 

[Simon Howson]

Your preference for the theatrical aspect ratio is fine. Yet you must understand that many contemporary film makers don't see this as the primary ratio that they compose for, often it is 16:9, or even 4:3. (Gus Van Sant composed Elephant for 4:3, even though I suspect most cinemas in the world would've projected it at 1.85:1) Even Scorsese suggested that he liked the open matte transfer of Age of Inncense as much as the 2.4:1 theatrical version!

 

[Damin J Toell]

Of course, that's because Elephant was originally shot for HBO broadcast. The DVD contains both the original 4x3 version and the 1.85:1 that was shown theatrically. Van Sant probably protected for 16x9 due to the likelihood of HD broadcast.

DJ

 

[Rob P S]

 

[Vincent_P]

DJ:

There's an interesting interview with ELEPHANT cinematographer Harris Savides that I read on-line where he talks about ELEPHANT. Basically, he says they shot it for 1.33:1, but also kept the 1.85:1 markings in the ground glass because they liked the added headroom in the 1.33:1 image when they "protected" for 1.85:1. I'll try and track down that interview and find the link for it. Savides specifically referenced an artist that inspired him to compose it that way.

Vincent

EDIT: I've found the interview, here's the relevant portion:

"JAMIE STUART: Elephant was shot in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio – the high image instead of the wide image. How’d you come to that decision?

HARRIS SAVIDES: I just liked how majestic it was when I first saw it projected. Like the image went up, to me. It just blew me away! It was just different. It was special. I hadn’t seen anything projected like that in a long time. I don’t even know what the last thing I saw projected in 1.33 was. It just had an effect on me. I think Gus was excited by it too. We just said, we have to do it this way. It was his idea. He wanted to do it in 1.33. It was also his idea to have a 1.85 ground glass in the camera and set for 1.33, so that our action is in the center of the frame. Which I like a lot. It sometimes looks like a Diane Arbus picture."

The complete interview can be found here:

http://www.movienavigator.org/harris.htm

 

[Vincent_P]

That's not true at all. You can reframe a film shot-to-shot all you want via optical printing. It's time consuming, sure, but it can be done.

Vincent

 

[Simon Howson]

I wasn't saying it can't be done, I am saying it wasn't done for Seven. The whole negative was optically printed to create an anamorphic interpositive. But this was not done on a shot by shot basis. It was performed on the whole conformed negative.

Recomposing shots via an optical printer is usually only done when there was a massive screw up of some sort, because it isn't just time consuming, it also creates additional post production expenses, and results in quality degradation.

Once the whole Super 35 frame is scanned into the digital realm this isn't an issue, the widescreen frame line can be put where ever they want it.

 

[Simon Howson]

This makes sense, I saw it projected 1.85:1 and the framing was a little too tight (very close in on actor's heads in many shots).

The point is though, the proper aspect ratio for the film is 4:3, not 1.85:1 even though if you saw it in a cinema it would more than likely be projected 1.85:1.

 

[Vincent_P]

Again, it's not figured out "much later" at all. It's figured out during shooting, since the Sony cameras have 2.35:1 ground glass markings.

Also, ATTACK OF THE CLONES at least was ONLY finished in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. There was a lot of controversy when it screened blown up to IMAX, because the image was literally cropped at the sides and panned-and-scanned to a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. If a 16:9 version existed, they'd have used it for the IMAX showings. Perhaps Lucas may be creating an "open matte" version of REVENGE OF THE SITH, but ATTACK OF THE CLONES *ONLY* exists as a 2.35:1 film. The extra material above-and-below the 2.35:1 area on those original HD tapes only exists on those original production tapes.

Vincent

 

[Simon Howson]

So George Lucas had absolutely no problem reconfiguring the film from 2.4:1 to a 1.66:1 aspect ratio - this simply supports my point, that in contemporary film practice many film makers do not consider the aspect ratio of a film fixed, but rather something open to manipulation.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

If it is true that films like Elephant are composed for 1.33:1 and then matted to 1.85:1 (i've heard of this practice before), then it is the 1.33:1 version that I want to see. A film's OAR is a film's OAR.

Simon,
i've just gone back and re-read all of our exchanges, and it seems that your running theme, as it were, is that no film made in todays Hollywood that is shot in Super 35, and also the fact that cinema screens are becoming smaller (which I tend to believe considering the large multi-plex theaters wanting to cram as many screens into one building as possible), are composed for theatrical aspect ratio's alone? Do I have this right?

Assuming this is true, and I cannot believe that it is regarding the composition portion of your argument, then virtually everyone here in not only this forum, but others like it, have gotten it all wrong for years and we are asking for something on dvd that may not have even been intended by the filmmakers ultimatly.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this proposition, Simon. I mean do you realize what your implying here!? Your saying that when it comes to Super 35, the dvd's that most of us have and that we assumed contained the director's intended composition are, in reality, wrongly presented.

If this is true, then I will effectively stop buying films shot in Super 35 on dvd as I can't trust the God dammned ratio it's being presented in! That was sarcasm, BTW.

My point with this post, Simon, is that your asking us to buy A LOT here, and take a leap of faith that calls into question everything we've come to hold in high regard. You've pulled the rug out from under everything, or you've at least tried, don't be surprised if more people offer you a challenge on this.

As for me, I still stand strong in the beliefe that a films theatrical composition is the one intended by the filmmakers for me to see, your not going to change that for me. So, Simon, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, you may as well not even waste your time addressing me on this subject any longer.

I mean come on let's face it, one of us has to stop or we'll be here forever! It's been fun and interesting, but ultimatly fruitless. Peace.

I'll leave this thread now to the membership, and to whatever conclusion is reached.

 

[Simon Howson]

I'm not asking one to buy anything. I am simply demonstrating by reference to film style and technology that composition in contemporary Hollywood has become very imprecise. The reasons relate to a reliance on; extensive camera movement, rapid cutting and very close framings. You could also argue that Hollywood is much more reliant on long lenses, which again are more difficult to be precise with because the camera is situated far away from the action. Which leads into the fact many cinematographers shoot in Super 35 because they can simply use zoom lenses, which isn't really possible in Panavision because they are so big and 'slow'.

Also add that many Hollywood films made now either delay, or omit establishing shots. Such shots are the widest shots that give the viewer an over all idea of spatial relations. You'd think that these would be simplified in widescreen, yet some films these days start scenes in very close framings, and may only revert to an establishing shot late in the scene. There are some sequences in one of the X-Men films where the establishing shot is the last shot in the scene, and is just used to show actors exiting.

Also, actors don't move, cameras do. It is much more economic to cover a scene with 3 or 4 or more cameras, and then just select the best shots later during computer based editing. If a camera moved too much and lost someone's head, then if the film was shot in Super 35 that can be corrected for in post production, no reshoots necessary.

The cinematographer on The Gladiator used up to 7 cameras at a time, in the American Cinematographer (May 2000) article he stated "I was thinking, ’Someone has got to be getting something good.". Sure he is a big shot cinematographer, and I'm not. But to me, that doesn't sound like someone who is interested in very precise framing! Rather, he knows that films these days are made in the cutting room from thousands of feet of film that are conveniently loaded onto a computer. If there is a take that runs 10 seconds, and it is screwed up after the first 4 seconds, then that is no problem. Just cut to a different angle.

For someone interested in widescreen aesthetics I find this trend rather sad, but that is the case. Call me old fashioned, but when I watch A Star Is Born (1954) and see Judy Garland actually wave her arm outside the top of the CinemaScope frame line I actually realise that many films today are composed so close that it is hard to tell exactly what aspect ratio was in mnd when they were shot.

Yet back then film style was different, shots were framed further a way, films were not cut as rapidly. Some directors such as Cukor on A Star Is Born pushed CinemaScope by shooting lots of sequences in long takes. That is not the case today, rather than needing to be very precise with framings it is cheaper, and faster to film as quickly as possible, and fix things up in post if need be.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Call me a sucker who goes back on his word to stay away, but I need to reply here, and I will say this, WHAT A DIFFERENCE ONE POST MAKES!.

Simon,
I am beginning to see your point to some extent and I am very disturbed to say the least! Your last post was clearer to the point than your others to me for some reason. I am also man enough to admit this, yours may possibly be the most enlightening posts regarding Super 35 that I have read here!

But first off, I didn't conceed to anything, i've never denied that whatever was intended by the filmmakers is what I want to see, it just goes with being an OAR purist, that's how i've always been. I wouldn't want for instance any Sanford and Son episodes in anything other than 1.33:1 because they were shot that way, that's nothing new to me.

Now, on to bigger things, realizing what your saying, it is truly devistating news to me!

I have always held the beliefe that not only did I want what was shown in theaters, that's easy to determine, but that I also want what the filmmaker wanted me to see...how are we supposed to know what that is now!?

And worse, if a film was intended to be seen in a ratio other than it's theatrical one, which you claim is the case most of the time with Super 35, it is certain that we will get the film in it's INCORRECT theatrical AR on dvd, thus completely eliminating any possibiity of me buying it! In short, according to you, most of the films in my dvd collection that were filmed in Super 35 may very well be presented wrong!

I think I AM going to cry afterall! :frowning: If anything, it messes me up on a psychological level, because now whenever I watch a film that was shot using Super 35, their will be that hovering doubt that I may be seeing it in a way the filmmakers didn't REALLY intend.

Let me ask you this, does a filmmaker EVER compose for the theatrical presentation first when using Super 35!? I MUST believe that they do. I also cannot dispute the technical aspects of a theaters ability, or lack there of, to show films in 1.33:1 because your right, their are no 1.33:1 screens around in major theaters, and considering that a film will be seen more at home than in theaters, it is concievable that the filmmaker would come to a compromise and take an 'artistic hit', as it were, for the very brief time the film will spend in theaters, because that's what I would have done!

This is making more sense by the second, Simon, much to my dismay! It does however, raise this question, if a filmmaker actually wanted us to see his/her film in a ratio other than what was projected at the theater, then why does he/she allow it to be released in it's theatrical AR on home video instead of it's actual intended ratio? This is the only flaw I can find in your reasoning.

At any rate, congrats, Simon, you've managed to rattle the foundation of this forums self-proclaimed OAR snob! Go have yourself a beer. I need to think...

 

[Simon Howson]

Think of this, if you were a Hollywood film maker in 1955 you had several options. You could shoot for 1.37:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1 (or indeed 1.75:1), or you could shoot in CinemaScope, which at the time was 2.55:1. If you were really lucky you got to shoot in Todd-AO - 2.21:1. If it was 1959 and were William Wyler you could shoot in 2.76:1.

There were so many different options ranging from an 1895 standard, up to cutting edge widescreen formats. A film maker could go back and forth between a variety of formats depending on what they thought was artistically ideal for each project. (I am setting aside the fact if you were a director at Fox you'd be forced to use CinemaScope) Like Godard during the 1960's shot colour films in widescreen (either Franscope or Techniscope) and shot his black and white films full frame - 1.37:1.

Flash forward to now - Hollywood film makers these days have two options, 1.85:1 or 2.4:1. If you want to shoot in 4:3, your only real option is 1.85:1, isn't that a compromise in itself?

I agree that there are some film makers that shoot in Super 35 for a range of reasons unrelated to aspect ratio manipulation. However there are probably more that think it is a good idea to release theatrically 2.4:1, even though when they are on the set composing shots they are paying the same amount, if not more attention to the 16:9 (HDTV) composition.

I've been watching a lot of Otto Preminger's widescreen films recently ranging from Carmen, and River of No Return up to Exodus and The Cardinal. Just watching his widescreen films for 5 minutes is a completely different experience to watching contemporary widescreen films. The way he stages action and moves the camera is completely different. He will use the full area of the widescreen to fit in more zones of action, and in doing so he can delay cutting, because the way he has positioned the actors causes your attention to shift between different areas of the frame during the take. He gives the viewer freedom to investigate alternate areas of the frame, but in doing so he can also direct your attention. So, in other words, the viewer takes some editing control of the film. Which I think is more powerful than just cutting to a new angle every 4.5 seconds.

This approach is very precise film making, where each shot and camera movement are designed for specific affects. It is the complete opposite to the Gladiator mentality of just throwing cameras at the action and hoping "someone get's something good".

In Exodus many scenes feature windows, or door frames enabling you to peer into backgrounds which are held in sharp focus. This means he is generating action both laterially, but also in depth. This simply doesn't occur in contemporary widescreen films because the action is either framed very close, or the action cut so rapidly that there isn't opportunity to develop interplay between foreground and background.

After all of this I must say I have a greater appreciation for a nicely composed widescreen film. As you can imagine I prefer anamorphic cinematography, but there are some Super 35 films I admire. For example James Gray's film Little Odessa made interesting use of zooms which would've been hard in anamorphic. I also think that a film like Seven is an excellent Super 35 film, because I like the look of it, and perhaps the consistent under exposure would've been difficult - but not impossible - to acheive in anamorphic.

Regarding anamorphic well, I think Bringing Out The Dead is astounding, along with Million Dollar Baby which was just beautiful to look at in the cinema, but probably won't have anywhere near the impact on DVD, because in a way, DVD still doesn't completely do top quality anamorphic cinematography justice, where as it makes Super 35 look better than it really is.

 

[Vincent_P]

Vilmos Zsigmond shoots almost exclusively in anamorphic Panavision, and he uses almost exclusively Panavision's anamorphic zoom lenses. I was on the set of JERSEY GIRL and saw him in action, and the lighting set-ups didn't take particularily longer than I've seen them take on Super-35 productions I've visited the sets of, nor were the Panavision zooms particularily "huge".

Dario Argento's low-budget thriller from 1992, TRAUMA, was also largely shot with anamorphic zooms, so your comment that shooting in anamorphic using zooms is "not possible" is simply untrue.

Vincent

 

[Simon Howson]

Firstly, Zsigmond is a very experienced cinematographer, who has worked in anamorphic a lot. He was shooting some of the best anamorphic films at the absolute height of its popularity - the early 1970's. He is in particular very familiar with using anamorphic zooms, just look at the Altman films he worked on like McCabe & Mrs Miller and The Long Goodbye. Almost every shot in those films is a zoom, so he has had a lot of time to learn how to work in the format with those lenses.

Even though it is something that he does, and is good at, it is far more common for D.O.P.s shooting in Super 35 to stick exclusively to zooms. It is mentioned in the Gladiator ASC article, plus also the one for Master and Commander. I am not disputing that certain cinematographers prefer anamorphic, although they are a dying breed. I am just saying the standard production process these days is to use Super 35 in order to stick with spherical lenses, and often zooms.

(That's another thing about contemporary Hollywood film style, films feature wild extreme uses of focal lengths, a single film may feature both a 10mm and 500mm lens, this simply wasn't the case 40 or 50 years ago when most films would be shot with a few lenses ranging from about 25mm to 75mm, I mean Hitchcock would shoot a whole film with a 50mm lens, that is just unheard of these days. Yet the fact so many films are shot with zoom lenses just makes it very easy for the director or D.O.P. to use a wide variety of focal lengths even within a single scene.)

The main problem with anamorphic zooms is that they are slower, of course this can be compensated for using more light or faster film, but what cinematographers desire these days is flexibility to help them work as quickly as possible.

Another issue is the fact that if a film is to include a lot of CGI then often the CGI artists desire the image to shot within a limited lens apertures, on a restricted range of film stocks. It is much easier for a cinematographer to use slower stocks better suited for the inclusion of CGI elements in Super 35 because spherical lenses are faster, and exhibit more depth of field than anamorphic lenses when set close to wide open. Hence most CGI heavy films are more likely to shoot in Super 35.

If a young D.O.P. has just come out of shooting music videos and Coke commercials they don't want to deal with lenses that are a full stop slower, and weigh twice as much as what they are used to, hence most young D.O.P.s shoot in Super 35.