Will we ever be able to see Apocalypse Now in it's true OAR?? (1 Viewer)

[John P Grosskopf]

Post self-removed poster, as silly mistake was made by same.

Robert G.'s post following this one clears up my confusion.

My bad.

 

[Dick]

Seems bizarre to me that Storaro would push for this ratio when it clearly compromises his compositions - heads are cut in half, etc. just like pan and scan. Really friggin' stupid choice, considering DVD has phenominal resolution compared to laser. Why didn't the guy just SHOOT it at 2.1? I just think this is a ridiculous power and control issue. Storaro wants to exert himself and this is the sad result. What other reason could there possibly be?

 

[Robert George]

John P:

Sounds like you might be confusing Technovision with Techniscope.

Technovision is an Italian camera company. Their anamorphic lenses and cameras are similar to Panavision in basic design. Technovision scope photography uses a standarrd 4 perf 35mm frame with 2:1 anamorphic compression.

Techniscope, on the other hand, uses spherical lenses but the camera aperture exposes a 2 perf 35mm frame, half the height of a standard 4 perf frame. The advantages of this system were lower cost (uses half the film stock), easier lighting (spherical lenses). Theatrical prints were standard 4 perf anamorphic blowups from the 2 perf flat negative.

 

[John P Grosskopf]

I stand humbly corrected. I was confusing the two different formats.

I now remember that "Ladyhawk" was shot in Technovision, and an article about its photography in a cinematography magazine and it's various advantages and limitations at the time the film was shot when compared against Panavision.

If I recall correctly (which may now be in question due to my blooper above) Technovision offered fewer lens choices than Panavision, causing Donner and his cinematographer to shoot night scenes as day-for-night sequences. The available lenses were either too slow for their purposes or did not offer the depth of field they were trying to achieve.

But not being perfect, I may be wrong.

 

[Scott H]

Your message sounds like you are assuming the transferred ratio on the DVD is 2.20:1. If only that were the case.

I was. Thanks for the concise summation Robert.

 

[Dave Mack]

Greetings Y'all!!!!
I swear that I'm not tryin' to ruffle feathers here but you have to realize that it's THEIR Film. They shot it, edited it, sweated over it for YEARS!!! It's THEIR FILM! It's NOT someone else's who spends $25 on a DVD which IS NOT and NEVER will be Film.
If people are unhappy with how it looks now on DVD, you don't HAVE to buy it! That is the most powerful message you can send! If you don't like it, don't spend your $$$!!!
But THEY are happy with it like this and it's THEIR Film. They want it this way!!!! And in NYC, it was shown at the Ziegeld at 70mm, so we didn't see a 2:35- 1 ratio anyway!! I don't recall anyone bitchin' about the OAR then!
And for people with Bad overscan, (I have DEFINITE black bars on my calibrated MITS. Diamond...) Adjust your overscan!!!!!!!!
Peace, Y'all and I'm really just throwing this out there as a thought and am not looking for trouble!!
D

 

[Michael Allred]

Here's some insight from a cinematographer as to why 'AN' may have been changed by it's DP.
This DP is Jules Brenner, whose work includes "Salem's Lot" and "The Return of the Living Dead". I thought Mr. Brenner's words may provide some illumiation;
"I could imagine some possibilities. 2.35:1 is extreme wide screen. Because of how this is letterboxed on a TV monitor, I think I might be inclined to choose go that way, as well. Remember what I said about 1.85:1 being the ideal (16:9 included because it's very close).
It's also in how the 2.35:1 frame was composed throughout the film. Remember that you have to shoot for more than one display ratio. In extreme wide, it would be possible for a cinematographer to compose for 1.85 as well. Explaining the hows and whys would require too much detail to go into but it does have something to do with relative importance of compositional elements. One might go so far as saying that composing for 2.35 is a compromise, if you didn't feel it's an ideal ratio, especially outside the big screen, big theatre. When you ask which is the "perfect" version you also have to ask "for what display mode".
Planned for, it may not be appropriate to call it an "alteration of work". Think of it more as part of the work in the context of commercial realities. I offer this not as anything absolute but to suggest an insight you may have been looking for."

 

[Jerry Gracia]

No I did not read it. Now I have, thanks. More power to me.

Good!

 

[Scott H]

Redux Deluxe
The Apocalypse Now DVD that might have been
by Paul Cullum
LA Weekly 02/12
excerpt: {According to Paramount Home Video spokesman Martin Blythe, "The choice was to bring out a vanilla disc now or bring out a loaded disc later. In a sense, we opted for both. We have never re-released a title on DVD. However, this is not to say that, down the road, we won't release one."}
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/12/film-cullum.shtml

 

[Seth Paxton]

Obviously the 2:1 with no thought of overscan is a mistake.
However, I do think the 2.20 vs 2.35, 35mm vs 70mm argument made by the intended audio defense is pretty compelling.
How can your final ratio be for a format that won't accept your final audio format? That does sound more like the intent was to frame out a 2.20 on the 35mm with the final destination being the 70mm blowup with 6 channel sound.
At the very least it sounds like they had both in mind as theatrical presentations utilizing the best of whichever format they were in.
The question then is "In an ideal world would they have optioned for a 2.35 frame and 6 channel sound?"
You would think with the advent of DVD and soon HD-DVD that the lean would be to go BACK to the original wider aspect since more resolution is becoming available in the home theater setting, rather than pushing for the 2:1 universal ratio.
Is home video killing cinema subversively?

 

[Dharmesh C]

Apparently, a 2 disc edition is coming out in December, I think... Any confirmations here?
www.davisdvd.com

 

[Martin Blythe]

Not in the US. I have no idea about International (we don't have rights).

 

[Dharmesh C]

Phew...
...2 investments are enough for me
...Nah, I want a deluxe edition

 

[Mark Palermo]

I swear that I'm not tryin' to ruffle feathers here but you have to realize that it's THEIR Film.

Legally, perhaps. But let's be honest. After a work has been completed and released to the public, it belongs to the culture. If the artist has revision theories, he should apply them into a brand new project. The Apocalypse Now video presentations are a disgrace to that film's historical properties, whether or not Storaro and Coppola agree.

Mark

 

[JonathanSimpson]

hi if martin blythe is still around just a quick question and yes i know it has been asked before but i have to ask it again, is hearts of darkness going to be released by you guys (paramount) or whoever so the individuals who have never seen it and dont own a laser disc player and find it very difficult to justify £25 for a used vhs copy from an auction site ?. one other thing if it was to be released by (paramount) would it be with or without coppola's wishes, as listening to the commentaries on the godfather collection (staggering set by the way) he seems to state what is pretty much common knowledge certainly amongst the guys at the htf that he realy doesn't like the character that he see's in the documentary and obviously the whole experience, i think it is on the commentary for godfather 1 (excuse me if i am mistaken as i have been listening to huge ammount of commentary recently) that he talks about it changing him forever and never really recovering from the experience, martin any updates as to where this is in terms of production would be greatly appreciated.

jonathan