What's too wide for widescreen?

Discussion in 'DVD' started by MarcusUdeh, Oct 5, 2003.

  1. MarcusUdeh

    MarcusUdeh Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was doing some research on Oliver Stone, and found that most of his anmorphiclly photographed films that were Laser
    Disc releases, had letterboxed aspect ratios wider than 2.35
    or 2.40 but 2.50.

    Is that a bit much for over matting?
     
  2. Gordon McMurphy

    Gordon McMurphy Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Modern anamorphically photographed 35mm films have an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 when unsqueezed. 2.40:1 isn't really much wider than 2.35:1, but 2.50:1 is, and that is quite drastic over-matting. The Wild Bunch DVD is 2.50:1 and should be 2.35:1 as it was shot in 1969 and the ratio for Panavision didn't change to 2.40:1 until 1971. High time that Warner did a shit-hot SE remaster of that movie.


    Gordy
     
  3. Deane Johnson

    Deane Johnson Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 1999
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe the orginal CinemaScope films were 2.55:1. They were later trimmed down a bit to make way for an additional soundtrack. Isn't Ben Hur something like 2.76:1?
     
  4. TedD

    TedD Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2001
    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Early CinemaScope 4 track mag sound prints were 2.55:1. When Magoptical prints became available, their ratio was reduced to 2.35:1.

    Ben Hur is a totally different animal, it was not photograhed in CinemaScope, but in Camera 65, later called Ultra Panavision.

    Ted
     
  5. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,566
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    Sometimes, they'll use full-apature sources.

    The Great Escape is like this. The DVD should be 2.35:1, yet it's much, much wider.
     
  6. Travis_W

    Travis_W Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2000
    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    'Last Man Standing' and 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' are around 2.50:1 and it's a little hard to get used to at first.
     
  7. Sergio Martorel

    Sergio Martorel Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ben Hur may be one of the few movies where you actually lose MORE than half the image in fullscreen. Not even the main title fits on a 1.33:1 screen.
     
  8. Vincent_P

    Vincent_P Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,887
    Likes Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    A lot of the films you're refering to are not overmatted at all, they are "windowboxed" with slight black bars at the side of the image if you view it on a monitor without overscan. I know Warner Brothers used to do this with a lot of their laserdisc releases of 'Scope films.

    Vincent
     
  9. Gordon McMurphy

    Gordon McMurphy Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Triptych finale to Abel Gance's, Napoleon are 4.00:1!

     
  10. Sergio Martorel

    Sergio Martorel Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  11. Geoff_D

    Geoff_D Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    932
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  12. Vincent_P

    Vincent_P Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,887
    Likes Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Copy the "link" below and remove the spaces to see an example of the cropping on the DVD release of BEN-HUR. I read an explanation that said the cropping was due to the 35mm interpositive that was used for the transfer being incorrectly made when it was reduction printed from the 65mm original, so the cropping is inherent in the actual film element they used and wasn't a mistake in telecine. It's a shame that they didn't make a new, correct IP for the video mastering (supposedly they KNEW the IP was incorrect, as it was created to make new 35mm prints of BEN-HUR and was rejected when they discovered the error).

    http : // www . widescreenmuseum . com / special / carmera65 . htm

    Vincent
     
  13. Gordon McMurphy

    Gordon McMurphy Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [​IMG]

    Yeah, pretty crazy. I guess that it costs a lot of money to reduction print 20+ reels of 65mm to 35mm, so they just carried on regardless. [​IMG]


    Gordy
     
  14. Sergio Martorel

    Sergio Martorel Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I hate fullscreen, but sometimes we´re too anal about widescreen ratios.

    C´mon, ppl... do we REALLY need to see ALL filmed area, boom mikes and all?

    Maybe Columbia should release a "Superbit Deluxe Anal-Retentive Edition" with no matting at all, projecting even the sound track, so buyers could choose the matte they want... [​IMG]
     
  15. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,566
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    I might be wrong, but when applying 70mm projection framing to that image, the DVD image is missing 8 pixels of image on the top and bottom and about 8 or 9 on the left.

    The resulting picture would be 2.59:1.


    Is this correct?
     
  16. Bill Burns

    Bill Burns Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  17. Vincent_P

    Vincent_P Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,887
    Likes Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    2.55:1 Cinemascope used magnetic sound strips on the film with no optical track, so it there was more "width" of the film to project. I believe the early Cinemascope films also used modified 35mm film that had smaller, square sprocket holes, again squeezing some more "projection area" out of the film. The aspect ratio became 2.35:1/2.4:1 when they went to optical sound and "standard" 35mm with the normal sprocket holes.

    Also, I'm not sold on "65mm or bust!" transfers when it comes to large-format films. The remastered 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY looks fantastic, and it used the new 35mm reduction IP (which retained the 2.2:1 70mm aspect ratio) that was made directly from the 65mm negatives. Robert Harris also utilized a "modified" 35mm reduction of MY FAIR LADY (which retained the entire 2.2:1 70mm aspect ratio) instead of a 65mm element. One major benefit of using a 35mm reduction is the ability to use telecines like the Spirit or C-Reality, neither of which supports 65mm. A 35mm reduction IP of a 65mm film is still going to have far better grain structure than a film shot on 35mm to begin with, and far greater resolution than even 24P High-Definition, so I don't see how using a 65mm can make a really great difference, especially when the selection of 65mm telecines is so limited anyway and the 35mm telecines are so much better.

    Vincent
     
  18. Bill Burns

    Bill Burns Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The projection aperture must have changed. If it was still a 2.39:1 aperture, and you cover part of that with sound, it reduces. It doesn't widen. Sound isn't printed above and below the image (unless it runs horizontally through the camera, as with VistaVision/Technirama).

    TWM only lists the 2.39:1 aperture. I'd like to discern the earlier aperture measurements, if anyone knows them. I wasn't clear earlier, though (I was basing some of my comments on a starting point of the .838 x .700 aperture, but they don't read correctly because I didn't make this clear -- sorry) -- 2.66:1 could, of course, be reduced to 2.55:1 and later to 2.39:1 with sound on film (and as TWM further explains, sprocket hole size plays an influence, as you mention, Vincent) -- sound might very well narrow the picture area by intruding on its horizontal axis, and this is what TWM gives as the essential cause of CinemaScope's change ...

    from my earlier post:
     
  19. Vincent_P

    Vincent_P Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,887
    Likes Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Good points re: the advancements in large-format telecine, Bill, I admit I wasn't considering that when I posted. I agree that if high-quality large format pre-print is available, obviously that should be used if the 65mm telecines are now up to the standards of the Spirit and C-Reality.

    Also, I pulled out my copy of John Belton's WIDESCREEN CINEMA book, and on page 142 he gives the stats for the Cinemascope 2.55:1 frame- camera aperture of 0.735" X 0.937", with a projection aperture of 0.715" X 0.912". If you search around the http : // www . widescreenmuseum . com (remove spaces when copying that URL), they might even have some frames of projection alignment film scanned and posted. That site really is a great resource for widescreen and all-around film tech/history info, if you haven't yet I'd reccommending searching around it.

    Vincent
     
  20. Vincent_P

    Vincent_P Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,887
    Likes Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Adendum to the above post, here are a couple links of interest re: early Cinemascope from the Widescreen Museum site:

    http : // www . widescreenmuseum . com / widescreen / apertures . htm

    The above URL shows actual frame charts with colored overlays so you can get an idea of how the 'Scope projection frame has evolved over the years.

    Also:

    http : // www . widescreenmuseum . com / widescreen / wingcs3 . htm

    The above shows some actual early 2.55:1 Cinemascope frames (including a strip from 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA), so you can see the larger frame area plus the smaller "square" sprocket holes and the magnetic 4-channel sound strips.

    Vincent
     

Share This Page