Panavision is not 2.35! Let's get it right, folks! (1 Viewer)

[Scott H]

Kevin Korom, I didn't read the entire page but the information on Super35 at the link you provided is in error regarding 1.60:1.
That doesn't surprise me, many sites that HTF members passionately reference have errors. I occasionally bring attention to that and take a lot of flak for doing so, with folks often choosing to believe the websites. I don't know what to say other than the sites are wrong sometimes. In fact, the widescreen FAQ that this site featured had errors in it. I pointed them out, there was a lot of discussion and they were acknowledged, though I do not know if it was ever corrected since I can't ever find that page. There's a popular U.K. site that uses an image with planes for samples, which has errors. To be honest it's awkward, in that many HT enthusiasts criticize J6P for letterboxing ignorance or whatever but they themselves propagate a lot of misinformation. Not that I'm infallible, but I do see it here and I'd feel irresponsible to not address it in a forum I respect (thus me interjecting myself into Super35 threads, which is apparently misunderstood by many here).
------------------
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 09:32 PM]

 

[Scott H]

Yep. And the same could be said of regular 35, and 16, and Super16, and even anamorphic 35
------------------
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.

 

[JeremySt]

Panavision is a company, not an aspect ratio.

 

[JeremySt]

Panavision is a company, not an aspect ratio. www.widescreenmuseum.com

 

[MattGuyOR]

If Super 35 is a 1.33 image, how come when you watch it open matte, there is info missing from the sides as well as more info top and bottom. I always thought it was about 1.85:1, give or take, with the top and bottom cropped to be framed 2.35:1. So which is it?

 

[Jonathan_]

Cameron did use Panavision to shoot Titanic. Panavision cameras that is. They designed the camera that Cameron used to shoot the underwater footage of the real Titanic. There's a whole chapter dedicated to the design and use of the camera in the a book about the movie. It's called "Titanic & the Making of James Cameron." It's a great read, especially if you want to know what all Cameron had to do to get the film made.
------------------
Jonathan

 

[Scott H]

quote: MattGuyOR :
If Super 35 is a 1.33 image, how come when you watch it open matte, there is info missing from the sides as well as more info top and bottom. I always thought it was about 1.85:1, give or take, with the top and bottom cropped to be framed 2.35:1. So which is it?[/quote]
Super35 is a 1.33:1 camera aperture, the image OAR is variable, just like regular 35 image OAR is variable. The answer to your question can be found in my large 'quoting post' on this page: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/.../032063-2.html
Reference the controversial simultaneous composition of multiple aspect ratios part. What you describe may be, depending on the film of course, yet another example of that practice. It may also simply be a 1.33:1 extraction from the S35 frame. I do not have an illustration to show you, but what you are referencing is not open-matte (though it may be mistakenly represented as such).
Again, Super35 has a camera aperture of 1.33:1 (.980" x .735"). Regular 35 has a camera aperture of 1.37:1 (.864" x .630"; projection aperture is .825" x .602").
------------------
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 09:58 PM]

 

[Scott H]

Okay MattGuyOR, I found an example for my explanation in the other thread. Those who don't believe my stating that simultaneous AR composition occurs please reference this.. Here is an example of the two common ground glass markings (superimposed on film for illustration) for both the 2.35:1 and 1.33:1 frames on Super35. Scroll down to item 5.2: http://www.imago.org/formats/grgl2scr.htm
------------------
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.

 

[GerardoHP]

If Super 35 is a 1.33 image, how come when you watch it open matte, there is info missing from the sides as well as more info top and bottom. I always thought it was about 1.85:1, give or take, with the top and bottom cropped to be framed 2.35:1. So which is it?

That's because Super 35 doesn't necessarily just crop the top and bottom of the frame but also, sometimes, the sides of the frame. The idea being that any part of the frame is appropriate for extraction. Generally, though, the portion of the frame used for framing the important action is the middle and slightly to the top of the frame, which makes the entire negative usable for television. And the original is not 1.85:1 but 1.33:1.
------------------
Gerardo

 

[Scott H]

To add to what GerardoHP just brought up, which is very applicable to this thread, while feature film credits are too often in error, if near the very end of the credits it states "Filmed in Panavision" that should be indicative of having been filmed anamorphically. If it says "Filmed with Panavision Cameras and Lenses" that should be indicative of having been filmed with spherical lenses.
------------------
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.

 

[Scott H]

Okay, I knew I had this on my machine somewhere... Here's an illustration of a ground glass showing the superimposed 2.35:1 and 1.33:1 frames. Note that the 1.33:1 shaded area is still exposed, and the operator can also see that area it is just darker to help delineate. But either extraction is precisely framed in accordance with these markings using the framing leader that was shot in pre-production.
http://home.earthlink.net/~harrisfil...nSuper35GG.jpg
------------------
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 11:12 PM]

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Jonathan, I have that book, and it is a great read, I find it amazing that his brother Mike Cameron invented a whole new camera system. Do youhave the companion book Titanic an illustrated screenplay? If not, get it, it's great, it also covers every deleted scene shot, but ultimatly cut, in great detail, most with photos!
------------------
God bless the USA and the men and women of our military and their families!

 

[Michael Coate]

Widescreen Review has been using the term 2.40:1 in their DVD reviews for some years now.

Widescreen Review currently uses the term 2.39:1 in the DVD reviews of those films released theatrically in scope (after 1970). Surprisingly, no one has yet brought it up in this thread that 2.39:1 is actually the projection ratio specified by SMPTE. "2.40:1" is a rounded figure. "2.35:1" is the most common term since that was what the ratio was before SMPTE recommended the change thirty or so years ago.
NOTE THAT I AM NOT INITIATING A CONTROVERSY OR ARGUMENT. I am merely contributing a piece of information to this thread.
For all practical purposes, "2.35:1," 2.39:1" and "2.40:1" are all "correct." What matters is that people know what one means when they use such terms.
Michael Coate
Research Editor/Staff Writer
Widescreen Review Magazine

 

[Scott H]

Michael, you are correct that SMPTE Standard 195 does specify a 2.39:1 projection AR. However, you are also correct that the difference between these ARs is minor and stating each is close enough. So your points are offsetting. I'm j/k

Seriously though, the projection AR of 2.39:1 would not necessarily be the OAR of a film/DVD. In fact, I have never seen 2.39:1 ground glass markings or framing charts, but I see many 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 markings and corresponding charts and leaders for telecine. So, to be quite technical, using a 2.40:1 OAR film as an example, the negative frame being projected at 2.39:1 is .825" x .690", while the 2.40:1 frame on the release print is .838" x .700". Of course a 2.35:1 OAR film, while still only slightly different, would be affected more so. Standard 195's other dimensions are precisely the same as typical ground glass frame dimensions for 1.37/1.66/1.85:1.
------------------
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 31, 2001 at 09:17 AM]

 

[Robert George]

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.

I think we are saying, basically, the same thing.
BTW, it's nice to see someone from WSR here. Being the research editior, hopefully you will offer your expertise whenever you can.

 

[Jonathan_]

John. Yes I do have Titanic: An Illustrated Screenplay.I would love to see some of the deleted or extended scenes from the book. It says most of them were filmed, but later excised. Who knows, maybe we'll get them on the Special Edition DVD, if they will ever release one.
------------------
Jonathan