| Author |
Message |
| Registered: May 30, 2008 | | Posts: 445 |
| | Posted: | | | | I see a gazillion (aspect ratio) releases for the same film, and after discarding the pan & scan, I don't know how to tell what the filmmaker actually wanted me to see.
I know that most frame for 1.85:1 and protect for a 4:3 open matte, but then I see various bits of cover art marketing hype all claiming that THIS particular version 2.20:1, 2.35:1, 2.40:1 was the actual theatrical release.
Has anyone compiled an interview resource from directors or cinematographers from various trade rags about what they really had in mind for a film?
I'm sure this is a different question entirely than what projectionists did with the soft matting when it came time to show the movie. How do they get the word anyway? Is it scribbled on the side of a film canister? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lasitter: Quote:
I see a gazillion (aspect ratio) releases for the same film You do?  Taking open matte / pan-n-scan out of the picture, I'm having a hard time thinking of just a few examples. And usually when it does happen, it's because a newer version has been released that is supposed to be more accurate. I can't think of a single release that was intentionally released in multiple aspect ratios (again, leaving 4x3 out of it) at the same time. | | | Get the CSVExport and Database Query plug-ins here.
Create fake parent profiles to organize your collection. |
|
| Registered: April 14, 2007 | | Posts: 433 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mark Harrison: Quote:
Quoting lasitter:
Quote:
I see a gazillion (aspect ratio) releases for the same film
You do?
Taking open matte / pan-n-scan out of the picture, I'm having a hard time thinking of just a few examples. And usually when it does happen, it's because a newer version has been released that is supposed to be more accurate.
I can't think of a single release that was intentionally released in multiple aspect ratios (again, leaving 4x3 out of it) at the same time. Robocop has been release on DVD in 2 different aspect ratios. The Criterion Collection version was 1.66 while the most recent version released by MGM is 1.85 | | | | Chris |
|
| Registered: May 30, 2008 | | Posts: 445 |
| | Posted: | | | | Check out World Trade center and Lord of War. I had a great reply prepared with examples, but the board timed me out and I lost it. |
|
 | W0m6at | | You're in for it now Tony |
| Registered: April 17, 2007 |  Posts: 1,091 |
| | Posted: | | | | This is going to become more of an issue, iirc what someone on these very boards said - some ratio (can't remember which) is becoming the new foolscreen (as it matches a 16x9 telly perfectly).
As someone who chases OAR, I think the OP has an excellent question. | | | | Adelaide Movie Buffs (info on special screenings, contests, bargains, etc. relevant to Adelaideans... and contests/bargains for other Aussies too!) |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting W0m6at: Quote:
This is going to become more of an issue, iirc what someone on these very boards said - some ratio (can't remember which) is becoming the new foolscreen (as it matches a 16x9 telly perfectly).
As someone who chases OAR, I think the OP has an excellent question. 1.78:1 is the new foolscreen. For most movies that are 1.85:1, you can't really tell a difference. However, there are some 2.35:1 films that are getting chopped down to accomidate HD tv's. The primary reason for this is remastering for HD cable channels and then the studios just getting lazy and dumping the thing out onto disk. It doesn't happen a lot but its something to be aware of. Disney is about the only studio that still consistently FUBARs their stuff. Not the new stuff so much, but the catalog titles. There's no rhyme or reason to it and its potluck as to whether the aspect ratio is correct. | | | | Last edited: by mdnitoil |
|
| W0m6at | | You're in for it now Tony |
| Registered: April 17, 2007 | | Posts: 1,091 |
| | Posted: | | | | Thanks for the supporting info mdnitoil. | | | | Adelaide Movie Buffs (info on special screenings, contests, bargains, etc. relevant to Adelaideans... and contests/bargains for other Aussies too!) |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,293 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mdnitoil: Quote:
Quoting W0m6at:
Quote:
This is going to become more of an issue, iirc what someone on these very boards said - some ratio (can't remember which) is becoming the new foolscreen (as it matches a 16x9 telly perfectly).
As someone who chases OAR, I think the OP has an excellent question.
1.78:1 is the new foolscreen. For most movies that are 1.85:1, you can't really tell a difference. However, there are some 2.35:1 films that are getting chopped down to accomidate HD tv's Yes, I've noticed this too. It used to be that OAR was something the studios usually used on DVDs but as more and more people adopt and complain about 'still having black bars on my widescreen TV' some have started cutting down to 1.78:1, especially on the lower budget pictures (I recently purchased Chaos which has had this done) It might even reach the stage where we have to start adding P&S AND Widescreen to a single DVD, not because of having 2 versions on there but to indicate it's not OAR but I think that may need a Rule change or at least clarrification. | | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong |
|
| Registered: May 30, 2008 | | Posts: 445 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mdnitoil: Quote:
1.78:1 is the new foolscreen. For most movies that are 1.85:1, you can't really tell a difference. However, there are some 2.35:1 films that are getting chopped down to accomidate HD tv's. It's a complex and fascinating subject that I will have to reread often, but Wikipedia has a great section on "Video and Film Technology" that tells me more than I could possibly hold in my head without it bursting. Some early favorites: Origin of the "Academy" RatioMattingSuper 35 and 3/4 perf film. and ... Anamorphic WidescreenGoing back to my original question, I guess the best way to rephrase it would be: How can you tell what the director of photography had in mind for framing the shot, or the director for placement of subjects in the scene? How much sky did they want us to see over the heads of the actors on the set? How much foreground terrain? Did they really want to clip off the feet or the tops of heads in a particular shot? This is much more important to me than compression artifacts, EE issues, absolute transfer quality, or a hundred other things. Compared to other art forms, such as native language reading of a book, this isn't a problem you have to sort out. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 3,830 |
| | Posted: | | | | you will know if you see the original roll of film (pelicule) | | | | Sources for one or more of the changes and/or additions were not submitted. Please include the sources for your changes in the contribution notes, especially for cast and crew additions. |
|
| Registered: May 30, 2008 | | Posts: 445 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Giga Wizard: Quote:
you will know if you see the original roll of film (pelicule) Can you give me a URL to a dictionary / glossary or similar resource showing the proper spelling and use of this word in context? I'm not having luck with it. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 3,830 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | | Sources for one or more of the changes and/or additions were not submitted. Please include the sources for your changes in the contribution notes, especially for cast and crew additions. | | | | Last edited: by ? |
|
| Registered: May 30, 2008 | | Posts: 445 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Giga Wizard: Quote:
could be that i miss typed could be pellicule or
Film OK. If you saw the original roll of film, what would you look for? Is there a URL / Wiki that shows you what you might see, the different markings, and what those markings mean to the projectionist, etc.? |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 3,830 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | | Sources for one or more of the changes and/or additions were not submitted. Please include the sources for your changes in the contribution notes, especially for cast and crew additions. |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 |  Posts: 700 |
| | Posted: | | | | James Cameron is providing all the known ratio formats for his movies...
He said that the movies should look as fine in 4:3 as 16:9, 1,85:1, 2,35:1 and so on...
He shoots his films in the same format as IMAX --> 70x70mm and take all the format ratios in cosidiration, but I think that it is 2,35:1 that he loves the most and is used for his cimema features...
But to see it "all" you would have to buy several formats to see whats hidden in the corners... no P&S from him... | | | | We are all at the same age, only at different time... |
|
| Registered: June 21, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,621 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting oleops: Quote:
James Cameron is providing all the known ratio formats for his movies...
He said that the movies should look as fine in 4:3 as 16:9, 1,85:1, 2,35:1 and so on...
He shoots his films in the same format as IMAX --> 70x70mm and take all the format ratios in cosidiration, but I think that it is 2,35:1 that he loves the most and is used for his cimema features...
But to see it "all" you would have to buy several formats to see whats hidden in the corners... no P&S from him... I loved that feature on the T2 UE dvd showing the transfer process, and how pan and scan isn't always cutting things but often adding them. Not sure if any other directors care as much as James, but it's kudos to him for caring (and a middle finger knowing no matter what version I watch, I'm missing something from another version). I thought this thread was going to be about Apocalypse Now, which was shown 2.35 or 2.40 in theaters, and is now 2.2 for most home versions. I think the laser is wider, but not sure. I won't even start on the cutting both versions of the movie in half on the newest dvd set, this film is just plain cursed on every level possible it seems! For even more confusion, check out the transfer feature on the Platinum Se7en dvd. It shows them adding/subtracting head-room and colors, although I think all versions were "director approved".  | | | | Last edited: by bigdaddyhorse |
|