Widescreen or Open Matte (PhoneBooth example) (1 Viewer)

[Aaryn Chan]

Where can you get suck thing?

 

[Aaryn Chan]

Hmm.. They actually squoze (squeeze) the image a bit horizontally.

 

[WillG]

If you film it wide, film it anamorphic dammit!

I know this sentiment. I sometimes find it hard to warm up to the Idea of Super35 as I sometimes look at it as fake widescreen. I think some people are resistant to it as well because....I'll just say it.....I think some of us want to feel like we are being rewarded for watching OAR because we are getting something that P&S people aren't. I think for some, the existance of Super35 ruins those warm and happy feelings. I think some others do not like it because they think that directors are selling out to the "Fullscreen" crowd by using Super35. And there are those who do not like it because it makes it harder to make an airtight case for convincing people to support OAR. I'm just theorizing and not trying to start more Super35 controversey. But I tell myself that I just better accept it, because It seems to that the days of Anamorphic photography are slowly coming to a close. Some people will tell you that it's not the number of anamorphic films that are dwindling, it's that we are just seeing so much more 2.35:1 material as a result of Super35 and it's just diluting the perceptions of the pecentages of films shot anamorphically. But I just think it's a little from column A and a little from column B. Yes we truly are seeing films in 2.35:1 that probably would not have been so without Super35, but on the other hand we are seeing directors that once favored Anamorphic earlier in their careers jump on the Super35 bandwagon as well (Joel Schumacher, Ridley Scott, Spielberg). Once again, just theory as I have not done a gigantic amount of research

It does seem as Super35 does have it's share of advantages. For one, It is cheaper to use Super35 than anamorphic lenses and have heard suggestions that studios are pushing Super35 on directors because of that. It is a good solution for directors who want 2.35:1 but don't have the money in the budget for anamorphic lenses. I have read that it is harder to superimpose visual effects to film when shooting anamorphically. There are also other camera tricks that are more feasibly done with Super35. For example, all the forced perspective shots in Lord of the Rings would not have worked very well anamorphically. Also, I have read that the anamorphic lenses add a lot of bulk and weight to the camera which makes shooting in tight spaces more difficult.

 

[Lev-S]

I can just picture the new "anti-widescreen" sites citing the "conspiracy" that Super 35 and Open Matte films appear to be a part of.

"See! You DON'T gain image, you lose it! It's just a marketing gimmick to get us to buy new TVs! Fight the power! Vote Bush!"

(The above was not a real quote):b

 

[Vincent_P]

It's not fair to say that Ridley Scott has abandoned anamorphic for Super-35, seeing as how MATCHSTICK MEN was shot in true anamorphic. Rather, he's simply used Super-35 a few times- once it was a bad idea IMO (GLADIATOR), but in the case of BLACK HAWK DOWN I think the "grittier" quality of Super-35 was appropriate.

I'm also not so sure that it's an accurate assesment of Spielberg, either. As I understand it, he used Super-35 for MINORITY REPORT specifically to enhance the grain. I'd imagine he'll be shooting INDY 4 in anaorphic.

Just because directors branch out and use other formats doesn't mean they're "abandoning" formats they've used in the past.

Vincent

 

[WillG]

Well, I never meant to say that some of these directors abandoned Anamorphic althogether. In the case of Scott, I figured since his last 2 films were Super35, I figured "Matchstick Men" would be as well. If not, I stand corrected. But now that I think about it, it does not seem like that film wasn't a visual effects intensive movie so maybe that has something to do with it. But I think I am a bit more accurate when it comes to Spielberg. I think Minority Report would have been Super35 regardless of the intended visual style to the film. He hasn't used anamorphic in over a decade. In some cases I can understand why. For example. I don't think Jurassic Park would have worked in 2.35:1 because the frame needs height for the dinosaurs that were in the film. I heard somewhere here that the reason why Spielberg dropped anamorphic was because getting an "acceptable" P&S version of "Last Crusade" drove him crazy and as a result, "Hook" was his last anamorphic film. I too am wondering how Indy 4 will be shot. I might be anamorphic seeing as how the first 3 were and that Lucas is the producer and he still seems to prefer anamorphic when shooting on film, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. As for Schumacher, I guess we'll have to wait for his next film.

Also, Vincent, Did you get the info that "Matchstick Men" was anamorphic from IMDB, or could you just tell. The reason I ask is because IMDB often get the film process wrong.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I hate directors who film in Super 35 (unfortunately that means I hate the Wachowskis, Peter Jackson, James Cameron...) But I love Matrix, LOTR, and T2! Damn duality!

If you film it wide, film it anamorphic dammit!

Well, there's always VistaVision and 65mm.

 

[TheLongshot]

Paging Dr. Kleist! Dr. Kleist, please report to the Widescreen or Open Matte thread!

Dr. Kleist has been thrown off the forum, so he won't be contributing here...

As for the anamophic vs Super35 debate, as long as the film looks good, I don't care.

Jason

 

[John_Berger]

Dr. Kleist has been thrown off the forum, so he won't be contributing here...

You ARE kidding, right?

 

[Patrick McCart]

What happens in situations like "Life As A House" and "The Recruit?"

Who do we hang then?

We don't hang anyone. We thank the director and/or cinematographer for supervising the transfer. I wish more movies would have more filmmaker (or even restorationist/preservationist) participation for DVD.

It shouldn't be special to have a ____ supervised/approved transfer. It should be manditory.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

He was consitently obnoxious and all, but what rose to the level of a banning?

 

[WillG]

In the "24" S3 preview thread in the TV section, I believe he posted a link which lead to something objectable that other forum members opened up at work expecting something reasonably safe. Don't know if that is what did it, but it was something recent

 

[TheLongshot]

According to someone in the Advanced Anime thread, it was on the Video Games forum. What it was, he didn't get into...

Jason

 

[Aaryn Chan]

Is he one of Digital Bit's reviewer?

Sad...

 

[Malcolm R]

I guess we're not supposed to speculate about people who've suddenly gone missing, but it would be nice if there were some indication that they have been removed by the administration so that we don't have to consider that they may have met some personal tragedy. Perhaps change their status in their profiles to "inactive" or "suspended" or something?

There are a couple other members I can think of who have suddenly gone silent. Hopefully they're still "with us" even if they're not with us here at HTF. :frowning:

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Without Jeff Kleist, who will berate anyone who suggests that dubbing can be done well?

 

[Patrick McCart]

Why don't we get back to the subject?

Obnoxious or not, we're kind of getting off track.