Pan n Scan THIS! 'THE SCORE'. (1 Viewer)

[Inspector Hammer!]

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!

 

[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.
John, The Score is a good example of a beautifully photographed film.

 

[RicP]

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.

Maybe I'm missing something, but don't you mean 2.35:1 and not "anamorphic"? There's nothing special about anamorphic that requires it to be 2.35:1 and any movie that's 2.35:1 wasn't necessarily shot with anamorphic lenses.
I understand your point and I agree with you completely, but I think you meant to say you love filmmakers that shoot in the 2.35:1 Aspect Ratio, rather than just the generic "anamorphic", right?

 

[Dana Fillhart]

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.

 

[Jerry Gracia]

Maybe I'm missing something,

You are, Ric.

THE SCORE was shot in anamorphic format, that's what Jon is referring to. Movies shot with 'anamorphic' lenses must be PANNED AND SCANNED for 4:3 format.

Not anamorphic as it relates to DVD 16X9 enhancement.

 

[RicP]

THE SCORE was shot in anamorphic format, that's what Jon is referring to. Movies shot with 'anamorphic' lenses must be PANNED AND SCANNED for 4:3 format.

Yea Jerry I know that.
So Movies that are filmed 2.35:1 but non-anamorphic do not have to be pan & scanned? Do you see my point? Panning & Scanning is more about Aspect Ratio than it is whether or not the DP used anamorphic lenses. I understand that a film shot Super 35 is typically matted for 2.35:1 presentation and that theoretically you can remove said mattes for a "full screen" presentation.
I guess my whole point, which is really not important anyway, was that perhaps John should have said "anamorphic 2.35:1, rather than just anamorphic. But who cares right!

 

[Kevin Coleman]

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.

 

[Jerry Gracia]

So Movies that are filmed 2.35:1 but non-anamorphic do not have to be pan & scanned?

No.
Barring extensive use of visual effects and or hard-matting to any aspect ratio wide enough to warrant panning and scanning.
There is a shot in THE SCORE where the director places two characters in complete opposite sides of the 2.35 frame. Since this film was shot in 'anamorphic', this shot will be chopped in half in PAN AND SCAN. If this film would have been shot in Super 35, the two characters would probably still be in the frame in the 4:3 version with extra space below the frame.
Maybe we're talking past each other, Ric.

 

[Jerry Gracia]

Ok, Ric.
I submitted my last post before seeing the last part of your previous post.
We're on the same page.
Cheers!

 

[MickeS]

Since this film was shot in 'anamorphic', this shot will be chopped in half in PAN AND SCAN. If this film would have been shot in Super 35, the two characters would probably still be in the frame in the 4:3 version with extra space below the frame.

Maybe we're talking past each other, Ric.

I think you are. You're talking about "full frame" (removing the mattes), where Ric is talking about "pan and scan". Any film (shot with anamorpic lenses or not) can be pan and scanned, however an anamorphically shot film can't easily be presented in "full frame".

/Mike

 

[Damin J Toell]

Barring extensive use of visual effects and or hard-matting to any aspect ratio wide enough to warrant panning and scanning.

additionally, it may be the case that the filmmakers chose not to protect the top and/or bottom of the frame. a film need not be hard-matted to do this; some soft-matted films simply aren't protected at the top and/or bottom of the frame and an unmatted presentation therefore reveals wires, microphones, etc. shooting in Super35 at 2.35:1 does not, as is often claimed (and was recently done so again within the last couple months on the Software forum with regard to David Fincher and The Game), necessarily imply that protection is given for an unmatted presentation.
DJ

 

[Rob Willey]

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.

I thought the same thing when I saw this one in the theater. That shot with DeNiro and Bassett standing on the extreme opposite sides of the frame in different rooms lasts quite a while.

I happened to see the P&S version on an airplane a few months ago and they kept cutting back and forth between the two, completely changing the meaning of the scene. YUCK!!!

Rob

 

[Ike]

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.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

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.

 

[Josh_Hill]

Watch Lawrence of Arabia or 2001 in P&S and see how a beautiful film can be butchered.

 

[Scott H]

Super35, official film stock of Mordor and the X-Files Conspiracy!!

Super35 is not a film stock. With all due respect, in my humble opinion such ignorance of the subject detracts from the credibility of a DVD columnist/reviewer.
My little disclaimer... I am not a proponent of S35, nor of filming anamorphically. Neither is necessarily better, and either may be the ideal method for a film. Such is the decision of the filmmakers. I am a proponent of cinematography. And on this board I am admittedly continuously responding to S35 misinformation and myth because it misleading.
I know that John may now post a S35 bash I would suggest that the actual technical discussion of the method, if rekindled, be contained in the previous substantive threads on the topic. And that Jeff please note that my comments are hardly personal in nature, but directed to his posts.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Alright, now that you guys have brought it up. 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. 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.

 

[Scott H]

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.

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.

Seriously, it's like you are choosing to overlook the facts that I have presented countless times. Did you read what I said about 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 S35 acquisition?
Anyway, this is unequivocally false. Myth. The exact same could be said for regular 35mm Academy acquisition, such as 1.85:1. The only difference between conventional 35mm and Super35 is that S35 affords a larger exposable aperture.
Did it ever become popular for that reason? Sure. Is that a primary reason for it's use today? No. There are as many reasons for using it as there are such films.
In all honesty John, I feel that you are fixating on some potential negative aspects, which aren't all unique to the method, and completely ignoring relevant information pertaining to it's use and benefit. That wasn't so bad, was it?

 

[Scott H]

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.

 

[Seth Paxton]

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."