Spielberg 1.85:1 over 2.35:1 (1 Viewer)

[Mark Pfeiffer]

I've seen Minority Report, and its ratio is approximately 2.35:1. As for whether it was shot in Super 35, I have no idea.

 

[Damin J Toell]

What is with all the super-35 bashing? It's just a format!

It's a general internet thing: things people don't like get converted into crusades against the universe.

DJ

 

[Tim RH]

Wasn't PEARL HARBOR filmed in Super-35? That didn't have much grain in it, did it?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Pearl Harbor was anamorphic (FX plates in VistaVision from the Vista Series extras). Michael Bay has gone on record saying he will never again shoot Super35

For those of you about to take the SAT this summer:

Super35 is to non-anamorphic DVD on a widescreen TV as Anamorphic is to an Anamorphic DVD

Artistic grain is fine

Unneccessary loss of detail and additional grain beyond that is NOT.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Super35 is to non-anamorphic DVD on a widescreen TV as Anamorphic is to an Anamorphic DVD

Artistic grain is fine

Unneccessary loss of detail and additional grain beyond that is NOT.

For those of you interested in a professional cinematographer's opinion, as opposed to Jeff's constantly repeated misinformation, the posts of Scott H are helpful:

"Shooting ~2.40 via 3-perf [Super35] can yield a 25% savings on film stock compared to filming anamorphically and waste essentially no negative. Shooting ~2.40 S35 does not equal reduced theatrically quality."

"Fact: Shooting S35 can yield the finest grain, sharpest possible image on 35mm motion picture film, using the largest negative area of any commonly used 35mm method."

"Eliminating lenses and film stock variables, one can certainly make a point that the intermediate step can negatively effect the theatrical presentation (not the video transfer/DVD release). And the intermediate step that you cite is minor, not major as some here make it out to be. In any event, in the real world lenses and stocks and exposure are the overriding variables, and the main factors in this issue."

"Regarding ~2.40:1 for theatrical presentation, it affords some benefits over shooting anamorphically. A major one is cost. Anamorphic lenses cost more to rent. They are also slower than spherical lenses, which means that you may have to spend more on lighting equipment. They are also heavier than spherical lenses. So, anamorphic lenses means more equipment and more weight and more money. The photographic attributes are very different between anamorphic and spherical lenses. Spherical lenses are (quoting Panavision here) "superior in definition, contrast, freedom from distortion...", and the fields of view are quite different (50mm for 2.35:1 anamorphic is equivelant to under 25mm for spherical 2.35:1). Anamorphic lenses can't achieve the same depth of field as spherical lenses at comparable fields of view. As someone else noted, you could never have achieved the remarkable cinematography of Citizen Kane with anamorphic lenses. Also, shooting ~2.40:1 on 3-perf S35 will use 75% of the raw film stock that shooting anamorphically would, a remarkable conservation."

Jeff usually fails to respond to any of Scott's posts at this point in the thread. It seems to be all about his crusade and not at all about the facts.

DJ

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Scott H is a professional camera operator. What he has to say demands to be listened to

BUT

If these are all true, why do Super35 films continue to look so crappy on screen at great theaters in comparison to their anamorphic counterparts?

Because they're still a blowup

They still make J6P think he has ammo due to open matte transfers.

THESE ARE ALSO FACTS

If you want to shoot spherical, shoot 70mm. I'd prefer that over anamorphic 35mm any day of the week

 

[Michael Reuben]

Quote:

As it has been pointed out to you again and again -- and again -- the same is true of open matte transfers of films shot flat for 1.85 projection. It's not peculiar to Super35 and it's no reason to disfavor Super35. The mere fact that something may not work conveniently for the style of widescreen advocacy currently in vogue on the internet is not a consideration that any filmmaker should think about for a microsecond.
This argument is old, tired and dull. I don't expect you to change your mind, but it's reached the point where the crusade has become a form of thread-puking. (This thread is a case-in-point; nothing about it required yet another of your attacks on Super35.) I'm asking you once again -- and this time I'll make it official -- to step back and dial it down.
M.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

If these are all true, why do Super35 films continue to look so crappy on screen at great theaters in comparison to their anamorphic counterparts?

To make this an accurate comparison, you'd need to see the SAME film shot for both formats (with appropriate prints made) and projected on the same screen. Since that hasn't happened yet, the type of conclusion you draw is incomplete.

 

[Sarah Temple]

i was going to say the thing about jp and the fact that dinos are big, but thats been beaten into the ground!!!!!! anyway... the grain in spr is also due to the fact that it is only 40% color and 60% black and white... or thats what i always thought anyway???

 

[Robert Dallas]

Remember Spielberg used grain in purpouse on A.I. though it was shot in 1.85:1

 

[Sam Graves]

ONE of my DVDs SOMEWHERE has an extra or commentary or SOMETHING in which the person apparently asked Spielberg why 1.85 for JP and he said "because dinosaurs are tall". Wish I could remember who was saying that.

This is exactly what I thought of when seeing this thread. I want to say it was Peter Hyams (The Musketeer, End of Days), but I am not sure.

 

[Seth Paxton]

It's a general internet thing: things people don't like get converted into crusades against the universe.

Amen.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I'm not even going to touch that whole Super 35 vs Scope argument, i've been down that road too many times, and it leads to only one place...hell!
I am SURE I heard or read somewhere that Spielberg chooses 1.85:1 because it's the closest ratio to the ratio our eye's actually see in. I know I heard that or read about it.

 

[Scott D S]

I am SURE I heard or read somewhere that Spielberg chooses 1.85:1 because it's the closest ratio to the ratio our eye's actually see in. I know I heard that or read about it.

You are correct. I remember reading this in an issue of American Cinematographer when Saving Private Ryan came out.

 

[GerardoHP]

Mmmm, I don't know, I think my eyes see in CinemaScope.

 

[David Rogers]

Hey, who wants my Bud Light?

 

[MarcusUdeh]

Michael Bay has gone on record saying he will never again shoot Super35

Bad Boys II was shot Super 35 and Bay directed that!

 

[Sam Davatchi]

Indy 4 should be in 2.35:1, otherwise it would be a travesty!

 

[Matt_P]

As for Bad Boys II, are you sure? If this info is on imdb, I'd be wary of it. Bay used S35 on The Rock and hated it. I doubt he'd ever use it again. However, Bay's anamorphic framing is so tight sometimes (Pearl Harbor) that one may assume it's a blown up/matted S35. Some S35 directors don't frame very well (I'm not referring to Bay/Schwartzman), and the image can look cropped vertically. This can be a consequence of directors trying to frame for both 2.35 and 1.33 video at the same time--a mistake that muddles the picture, IMHO. Others, such as Scorsese, are masters of framing S35.

Back to Spielberg, I don't think there's any doubt that Indy 4 will by 2.35:1.

 

[Brian W.]

Michael Bay has gone on record saying he will never again shoot Super35

Now if only he'd go on record saying he'd never again shoot.
(Sorry, that one was sitting right there.)