Pan n Scan THIS! 'THE SCORE'.

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Inspector Hammer!, Feb 4, 2002.

  1. Inspector Hammer!

    Inspector Hammer! Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 1999
    Messages:
    11,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Real Name:
    John Williamson
    I just got through watching 'The Score' again, and this is a prime example of why I absolutly love filmmakers who choose to shoot in the anamorphic format. Shot after shot after shot, the film flies in the face of those who want their 4x3's filled, it uses the anamorphic frame to it's fullest potential.
    I love directors and DP's who shoot anamorphically because they know that they are making a movie for the cinema FIRST AND FOREMOST. They are aware that their film will be severly cropped, but they do it anyway God bless em!
    I cannot imagine what this film looks like on Joe and Jane's crop box![​IMG]
     
  2. Tom-G

    Tom-G Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2000
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Real Name:
    Tom G
    Some directors fill every inch of the screen with fantastic visuals and it's a shame when the movies get butchered. Two I can think of right off the bat are Ridley Scott and Wes Anderson. When I saw The Royal Tenenbaums I was amazed at how beautifully photographed it was. Same thing goes with Rushmore.
    I remember the first time I saw Star Wars in its original asect ratio after years of watching it pan and scan. I actually thought that additional footage had been added on the sides to have more Stormtroopers and the like. [​IMG]
    John, The Score is a good example of a beautifully photographed film.
     
  3. RicP

    RicP Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  4. Dana Fillhart

    Dana Fillhart Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm guessing he's of the belief that anamorphic 2.35 provides more detail than does either "flat" 2.35 or Super35. I don't know either way; I'm hardly an expert on the matter.
     
  5. Jerry Gracia

    Jerry Gracia Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 1998
    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  6. RicP

    RicP Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  7. Kevin Coleman

    Kevin Coleman Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1999
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know what you mean on the score especially.
    I remember one shot in particular early in the movie when Angela Basset first comes home to Deniro and she is standing in a bedroom, I think, talking to him all the way over to the far far right of the frame and he is over on the far far left of the frame I remember thinking how in the hell are they going to pan n scan that.
    Kevin C. [​IMG]
     
  8. Jerry Gracia

    Jerry Gracia Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 1998
    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  9. Jerry Gracia

    Jerry Gracia Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 1998
    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok, Ric.
    I submitted my last post before seeing the last part of your previous post.
    We're on the same page.
    Cheers! [​IMG]
     
  10. MickeS

    MickeS Producer

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    5,058
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  11. Damin J Toell

    Damin J Toell Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,762
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Real Name:
    Damin J. Toell
     
  12. Rob Willey

    Rob Willey Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Real Name:
    Rob
     
  13. Ike

    Ike Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2000
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know, I know, but I rented Magnolia on VHS (I can't remember why now. Was the DVD released later or something?), and there's a scene where the tape actually becomes widescreen in a two shot. It just pulls back, and begins exposing the black bars, and you see the people on both ends. I think someone needs to buy a copy of the tape, and make that a widescreen FAQ.
     
  14. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Anamorphic consistantly presents a superior image, I cannot fathom why Ridley Scott shoots Super35 when he knows how badly it degrades the theatrical presentation. For a man with such an artistic eye, and mastery of the 2.35:1 frame, it's a shame that he limits himself so.

    Hopefully he'll come to his senses one of these days.
     
  15. Josh_Hill

    Josh_Hill Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,049
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Watch Lawrence of Arabia or 2001 in P&S and see how a beautiful film can be butchered.
     
  16. Scott H

    Scott H Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  17. Inspector Hammer!

    Inspector Hammer! Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 1999
    Messages:
    11,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Real Name:
    John Williamson
    Alright, now that you guys have brought it up.[​IMG] I really don't care for the Super 35 format for two main reasons...
    1. Needless grain in the image. Since resolution is being wasted, grain is apparent in the image. Now let me be clear on this, I KNOW that grain is presant in every film, as it's part of the nature of film, I realize this, my point is Super 35 adds grain that did not have to be there. Because the intended theatrical image must be extracted and then blown up for the theatrical prints, the grain is only being magnified.
    Before I state my second reason, let me make it clear that I ALWAYS view my films in their OAR's, ALWAYS, if they were shot in the Super 35 process or not, so I don't watch open matted films as you may think from my statment above.
    Now...
    2. I'm going to be honest here, and I know that i'm going to get my ass handed to me on a stick telling you this but this is how I feel, please be gentle.[​IMG] I know that they're are many reasons why filmmakers may choose to use S35, but there is one factor that is common to every filmmaker who chooses to use S35, and that is they all want to simultaniously make a version of their film for the "I want my screen filled!" Joe/Jane crowd. This reason alone makes me wish that S35 would just go away and never be used again. I know that at home is where their film will be seen the most, but to that I say, so what? I say forget how the film will look full frame, your making a movie for the cinema first, if Joe/Jane want to view your film at home, either view it in it's OAR, or don't view it at all.
    It's this reason, above all I think, why I can't stand this format, in this respect, it's nothing but a sell out device created to make the Joe/Jane whiners happy.
    What i've stated in this post may seem like flame bait, but honestly it isn't, I just wanted to lay my cards on the table about S35 since we were talking about it. This is just how I feel on the subject, it's MY opinion, that's all, yours may differ.
    Alright, now I must go, I can see the warm glow of the angry mobs torches already on the horizon.[​IMG]
     
  18. Scott H

    Scott H Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    John, I have no torch. I swear. Not even a lighter.
    First, one thing that I am always trying to convey here is that the complaints raised here, valid or not, relate only to the use of S35 for spherical ~2.40:1 acquisition with the intent to distribute theatrically on regular 35. There seems to be no realization that such is not it's primary use, and that there are issues with the other methods as well, and neither set of issues should damn a method.
     
  19. Scott H

    Scott H Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Btw, my ideal 35mm camera setup would be 3-perf and optically aligned for S35. This is not uncommon, and shooting spherical ~2.40:1 with this setup will NOT allow an open-matte 1.33:1 transfer. That would not be my intended use though, as I would likely select Panavision's S-HD3P ground glass for a 1.78:1 frame. Since I rent cameras and they are setup specifically for each shoot this is a moot point, but if I owned one that would be my preference. So, shooting 1.85:1 would be a reduction for a theatrical print, and 1.78:1 for TV would be larger than on conventional 35mm.
     
  20. Seth Paxton

    Seth Paxton Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 1998
    Messages:
    7,585
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Remember though, it's not just about "clarity" of the picture. What types of lenses you want to use, what sort of light pickup the film stock will give you, maybe how much grain you want in the picture...these are just a few of the many factors in picking a film stock.

    It's rarely as simple as "this will look cleaner".

    For example, look at the ultra-depth of shot in Citizen Kane. Now watch any De Palma film, or Resevoir Dogs, or Andromeda Strain...to get this depth they either use dual focus lenses or matte 2 seperate shots together.

    Meaning that behind the close-up side things in the distance are out of focus on that side of frame, but cross the boundry to the long focus and those same things are suddenly clear along with the point of focus, but the foreground stuff is now out of focus.

    They just can't get the depth with the anamorphic lenses/film stock that Toland was getting out of his spherical lenses/film stock.

    The lighting effects can give you similar issues.

    So it's not just "I want the best."
     

Share This Page