Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Shrek 2 Aspect Ratio (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Shrek 2 Aspect Ratio
John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 05-24-2004 06:28 AM      Profile for John Hawkinson   Email John Hawkinson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thomas asks, "I thought NEMO was hard-matted for 1.85?"

No, like all Disney animations, Pixar/Disney animations are composed for 1.78:1 (err, or is it 1.75:1? I always forget).

Ironically, with all these posts, I thought there would be arguing that I was wrong and miscalculated and that Shrek 2 really was 1.85:1. Wow! [Cool]

--jhawk

 |  IP: Logged

Richard Fowler
Film God

Posts: 2392
From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Registered: Jun 2001


 - posted 05-24-2004 06:56 AM      Profile for Richard Fowler   Email Richard Fowler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
When I talked to the head of PDI/Filmworks rendering department last year while Sherk II was in production he mentioned that it was being scanned at 1920 HDTV standard at 1.78 ratio. I saw the film last week in a house with 1.85 plate and it looked a little tight in a few scenes but nothing major.

 |  IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 05-24-2004 11:30 AM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I just ran MIDNIGHT COWBOY -- brand new print (thank you, MGM Classics, who have quietly been striking new prints of their library over the past few years now). Unfortunately, one of our 3.75in lenses for 1.85 was dropped and cracked. I had to run at 1.66. Not a big deal one might think. Unless one is the cineamatographer or producer! Adam Hollender as well as the producer were there and Adam sure did notice that it wasn't 1.85. Which I was actually very impressed with -- it's not a very big difference. Of course the print was full frame and everything was safe way out past 1.66 so set gack or mics were not ever an issue. Luckily Mr. Hollender was fine with it and the fact that it was a spanking new mint print made him just beam with delight. He and the producer spoke for nearly an hour afterward about their X-rated-yet-Best-Picture-Oscar-Winner picture.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.