Panavision is not 2.35! Let's get it right, folks!

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Darren Gross, Oct 30, 2001.

  1. Darren Gross

    Darren Gross Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    110
    I'm amazed at the massive amount of incorrect studio labelling and fan references to Panavision films being 2.35. Panavision hasn't meant 2.35 for decades.
    If it's anamorphic widescreen and it was filmed in the last two decades or so, the ratio is 2.40...So says the folks at Panavision.
    Also, filmed WITH Panavision cameras & lenses could mean any ratio. It's filmed IN Panavision that means it's anamorphic. Film credits make this mistake all the time, though.
    Super35 is a 2.35 theatrical presentation of a 1.33 frame.
    "This film is presented in the 2.35 aspect ratio of its original theatrical presentation." Uh, no!
    I think Universal nailed it pretty accurately on some of their Soderbergh films which says something along the lines of 'This director has chosen to present this film at a 2.10 format to represent of its original 2.40 theatrical aspect ratio.'
     
  2. alan halvorson

    alan halvorson Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 1998
    Messages:
    2,009
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, yeah, this has been known to most of us for quite a while. It's just that 2.35 has come into standard usage, wrong though it may be. No big deal.
    ------------------
    They're coming to take me away, ha-haaa!!
    They're coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-haaa To the funny farm. Where life is beautiful all the time and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats and they're coming to take me away, ha-haaa!!!!!
    - Napoleon XIV
     
  3. Roland Wandinger

    Roland Wandinger Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2000
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Widescreen Review has been using the term 2.40:1 in their DVD reviews for some years now.
     
  4. David Lambert

    David Lambert Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2001
    Messages:
    11,380
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, Alan, it IS a big deal. As much as I thought I knew, Darren's post actually corrected me and informed me on a coupla things.
    Thanks, Darren...I HAD fallen into the trap of believing the misinformation printed on the back of the DVD boxes! [​IMG]
    ------------------
    DAVE/Memphis
    [​IMG]
    MORE TV ON DVD, PLEASE!
     
  5. 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
    Post deleted.
    [Edited last by John Williamson on October 30, 2001 at 06:06 AM]
     
  6. 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
    This seems like a good thread to ask something that has been bothering me for some time, can someone tell me why Titanic's end credits list the film as being "Filmed in Panavision", when we all know that James Cameron always shoots his films in 'Super 35'?
    For the life of me I can't figure that one out.
    BTW Darren, the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 is so minimal that it's pointless to even bring up. Everything else you menioned is common knowledge to alot of people here.
    ------------------
    God bless the USA and the men and women of our military and their families!
    [Edited last by John Williamson on October 30, 2001 at 06:12 AM]
    [Edited last by John Williamson on October 30, 2001 at 06:15 AM]
     
  7. David Prior

    David Prior Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 1999
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, Super 35 can be 2.40:1 as well, hence Fight Club.
     
  8. Rob Gillespie

    Rob Gillespie Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 1998
    Messages:
    3,632
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  9. Jeff Adkins

    Jeff Adkins Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 1998
    Messages:
    1,778
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Real Name:
    Jeff Adkins
     
  10. Kevin Korom

    Kevin Korom Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If I remember correctly, Super35 stock is not 1.33:1, but approx. 1.60:1. I believe they eliminated the audio tracks to widen the existing film frame.
    ------------------
    Kevin
     
  11. Barrie Maxwell

    Barrie Maxwell Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 1998
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is analagous to the continual usage of 1.33:1 for the old Academy Ratio which is actually 1.37:1.
    Barrie
     
  12. KevinW

    KevinW Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2000
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok, I'm going to throw in my thoughts, and pardon me if I'm missing the point here, but isn't "Cinemascope" the original term for 2.35:1 material?
     
  13. YANG

    YANG Second Unit

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 1999
    Messages:
    471
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    CINEMASCOPE...Isn't that applies to movies that were made during 60's to 70's?If i am not wrong,most of this films have widescreen ratio more wider than the standard 2.4:1.An example that i can think of is BEN HUR.
     
  14. Robert George

    Robert George Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    1,105
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    First, CinemaScope.
    CinemaScope is the trade name for the first widely used anamorphic widescreen process developed by Twentieth Century Fox in the early fifties. Within the industry, the word was shortened to "Scope" and is used generically to refer to anamorphic photography, even today when the vast majority of anamorphic photography is with Panavision cameras and lenses.
    As for the aspect ratio, the actual exposed negative area of standard anamorphic photography (2:1 compression), when unsqueezed yields an image of 2.35:1 aspect (rounded). Original CinemaScope used only a magnetic soundtrack with a wider camera aperture, hence the aspect ratio of 2.55:1 for early 'Scope films. The addition of the optical track to the format necessitated a change to the aperture which is what changed the exposed negative to 2.35:1.
    Later, SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) called for a change in the projection aperture for scope films to cover any errant splice lines. This yields a projected aspect ratio of 2.40:1 (rounded).
    They are both correct, depending on the context. However, "2.35" is the common usage.
     
  15. Scott H

    Scott H Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As David pointed out Super35 can originate either 2.35 or 2.40:1 for anamorphic extraction, and other variations as well. And technically, Super35 is not a 2.35 theatrical presentation of a 1.33 frame. It is the presentation of a 2.35:1 frame just as 1.85:1 is presentation of a 1.85:1 frame. They were both composed within larger negative/camera aperture ratios. Additionally, though 2.40:1 is the the typical AR for Panavision anamorphic 35mm (or Todd AO-35), you may very well shot 2.35:1 Panavision Anamorphic as the AR is a product of the chosen frame/ground glass not the term anamorphic. The only constant here is that normal anamorphic camera lenses compress the image 2:1 and normal anamorphic projection lenses expand the image 2:1. The framing is up to the filmmakers, though projection isn't always in proper adherence (thus, in refering to DVD I never say that I want the film as shown theatrically which is a popular comment around here, I want it OAR). In fact, if you anamorphically expose the full normal 35mm aperture (.864" x .732") and fully print to 70mm (1.912" x 0.870' projection aperture), you have achieved 2.20:1, all that per Panavision.
    I'm pretty damn anal about this, but I do not typically correct people between 2.35 and 2.42:1 because there are too many minor factors and it is not always correct to do so, even for "Filmed in Panavision". That is why, as I recently commented in another thread, I often chose to write c2.40:1.
    Point is Darren is mostly right, but not exactly [​IMG]. There is no exactly right here except on a per film basis.
    Kevin, the Super35 exposable frame/camera aperture is not c1.60:1, Super35 is exactly 1.33:1 spec (.980" x .735"). Perhaps you are thinking of Super16, which has a projection aperture of 1.66:1 (and a fully exposed camera aperture of 1.69:1).
    ------------------
    My DVD Library
    Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.
    [Edited last by Scott H on October 30, 2001 at 10:46 AM]
     
  16. GerardoHP

    GerardoHP Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2001
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Real Name:
    Gerardo Paron
     
  17. Scott H

    Scott H Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    GerardoHP, you are right! I had made the extraction and printing to 70mm analogy regarding 2.20:1, and with that in my mind I wrote in error... I will edit that right now.
    ------------------
    My DVD Library
    Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.
    [Edited last by Scott H on October 30, 2001 at 10:48 AM]
     
  18. Kevin Korom

    Kevin Korom Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Kevin, the Super35 exposable frame/camera aperture is not c1.60:1, Super35 is exactly 1.33:1 spec (.980" x .735"). Perhaps you are thinking of Super16, which has a projection aperture of 1.66:1 (and a fully exposed camera aperture of 1.69:1)."
    That may be, however if it is, then the website where many of us learned about this stuff is wrong. Here's a link:
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/Fil...hootingSuper35
    ------------------
    Kevin
     
  19. Jeff Ulmer

    Jeff Ulmer Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 1998
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  20. Chris PC

    Chris PC Producer

    Joined:
    May 12, 2001
    Messages:
    3,975
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What about a movie I bought that is 2.00:1 Whats that?
     

Share This Page