What's new

Why are effects shot in Super 35 movies not pan & scan? (1 Viewer)

MickeS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
5,058
It seems that in most movies shot in Super 35, like "Titanic" for example, the effects shot are not full frame, but widescreen. Why is that? Wouldn't it make more sens to do the effects shots in 4:3 too, in order to get a better presentation on TV, since the rest of the movie will most likely be full frame on TV?

Just curious.

/Mike
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Strictly a cost issue. It takes additional work and time to fill in the extra space for a 4:3 image as well as the widescreen image (assuming the intended ratio for the projected film is 2.35:1).

On some films, though, they've gone ahead and spent the money. If you look at the 4:3 version of T2, there are instances of additional CGI work at the bottom of the frame. A good example is where the T1000 drops through the ceiling of the parking garage elevator in a molten state and rises while forming the shape of Robert Patrick.

M.
 

Paul W

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 17, 1999
Messages
459
Here's another silly question: why should we want a better full-frame (non-OAR) version of the movie?

Granted, J.6 might like this, but I am glad they do not fill the frame with CGI. I don't think it would be a good idea to legitimize full-frame presentations more than it already is.
 

MickeS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
5,058
why should we want a better full-frame (non-OAR) version of the movie?

We shouldn't, but since sometimes they use the Super35 format for this purpose, it would seem natural, to me at least, that they made the effects shot in the same format.

How can it cost much more to create effects for the 4:3 aspect ratio than for 16:9? I thought the bulk of the cost was for coming up with the ideas and the technology in the first place, once that is done it seems like there wouldn't be much additional cost to make them in 4:3?

Good point about T2.

/Mike
 

Paul W

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 17, 1999
Messages
459
Each pixel costs money to reproduce. This is because of the time required in terms of computing power. Time=money. Don't forget the $.02 per pixel in extra electricity from running the servers that much longer.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
I thought the bulk of the cost was for coming up with the ideas and the technology in the first place, once that is done it seems like there wouldn't be much additional cost to make them in 4:3?
I have no direct experience with CGI work, but my impression from watching all those DVD featurettes is that executing the shots involves significant additional effort -- the kind of painstaking detail work that builds the image in tiny increments, a bit of shadow here, a reflection there, a few specks of dust in the corner, etc. I have to believe that, if you expand the area that the CGI image is intended to cover, the amount of such work increases accordingly.

M.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top