|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Silence of the Lambs (discussion)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 02-02-2003 08:46 PM
quote:
Umm, I hate to break it to you, Michael [Brown], but there are huge piles of flat American films from 1991-2004 that are appropriate for 1.66:1. That is, they have an image area that fits in 1.66:1 (with room for masking) and show no boom mic or other unintended elements.
John,
Appropriate for 1.66:1??? Just because a film can be run 1.66:1 doesn't mean it should be.... Now I know why you think The Silence Of The Lambs is 1.66:1. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
I'd say that it's greater than 50% of the flat films.
That's certainly a curious comment. I'd say the percentage is much higher or lower depending on what your exact point is. Are you saying most spherical films are "protected" for 1.66:1 (or even 1.33/7:1) projection 50 percent of the time? How would you know? Are you watching these films out of frame to check for intruding mic booms, lights, tape marks for actors, etc.? (Or do you run everything at 1.66:1, and with perfectly-centered framing the image seems fine?) If you're commenting on the number of non-hardmatted prints, then that percentage would be in excess of 90 percent, I would imagine (at least during the '80s and early '90s when I was handling prints). The use of hard mattes in photography isn't all that common, and the use of hardmatted prints is almost as uncommon (again, someone with everyday handling of contemporary prints can chime in and confirm/counter, if they like...and don't fire back at me saying you remember this movie, this movie, this movie and that movie being hardmatted; I think if you add it up you'll recall more non hardmatted prints). And even when hardmattes are present on a print, it often isn't consistent through a whole film frequently being present only during a visual effects-originated shot, a nude scene, an optical effect, etc. Furthermore, in speaking with members of the cinematography community I certainly don't get the impression that hardmattes are used all that much lately; DPs have often stated that the studios won't allow them to be used, or at least encourage them not to be used. (None of the spherically-originated productions I worked on as a camera assistant used hard mattes, by the way.)
There's currently a (small) push for 3-perf origination and, when used, obviously a "regular" spherical 4-perf projection print would be hardmatted.
Michael Brown,
It is a myth that all spherical American films are 1.85:1 and all European films are 1.66:1. I can bore you to death with a lengthy listing of American 1.66:1 productions as well as European 1.75:1 and 1.85:1 films (Numerous British films were meant for 1.75:1 projection; many films from Spain, Italy, Germany, etc. were intended for 1.85:1.).
Post edited to include:
quote:
Does anyone have a widescreen copy on DVD? What ratio is it in?
quote:
Silence of the Lambs is presented in 1.85 on the dvd.
I cannot comment on international video releases, but for the U.S. I'm aware of two laserdisc releases and two DVDs. The ratio has been 1.85:1 in each instance, and some of these have been from Criterion, a company very conscious (certainly more so than other companies) of original presentation and filmmaker intent.
In addition, the Criterion liner notes state: "The Silence of the Lambs is presented in its original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1. This new digital transfer was made from the 35mm interpositive and the 35mm Dolby Stereo magnetic master in consultation with cinematographer Tak Fujimoto."
A final note: I'm planning to attend the American Cinematographer open house event and ASC awards dinner & ceremony later this month. Both events are attended by many DPs. If Lambs DP Tak happens to be in attendance, I'll make a point to ask him about the ratio if it'll help put an end to this ridiculous argument.
[ 02-02-2003, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Michael Coate ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Hawkinson
Film God
Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-02-2003 09:27 PM
Michael,
The only information I can generally provide is the way the image looks. We can speculate as to 1.66:1 versus 1.85:1 until we're blue in the face if we attempt to ascribe intent -- unless there is explicit text included with the print, which is extremely rare (not to mention that any notation on the leaders would be suspect, but generally it just reads "F L A T"). So yes, I can only comment on "appropriateness."
You ask, "How would you know? Are you watching these films out of frame to check for intruding mic booms, lights, tape marks for actors, etc.? (Or do you run everything at 1.66:1, and with perfectly-centered framing the image seems fine?)". The answer is essentially "Yes."
As I said before in this thread, "Our general policy is to run them at 1.66:1 unless there's something glaringly wrong at that aspect ratio." Of course, we don't keep the frameline "perfectly centered"; we adjust framing until most elements look correctly centered, and run from there.
So are you asking if I'm saying "are most flat films protected for 1.66:1"? Sure, that's basically what I'm saying (assuming you define "protected" to not include "hard matted to 1.85"; and perhaps a word instead of "most" to imply "more than 50%").
Clear enough?
--jhawk
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Kraus
Film God
Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 02-02-2003 09:53 PM
On dailies? Um...they tell you up front whether they are shooting anamorphic, Super 35, or 1.85. No guessing involved. And then on most shows, they will have shot a roll of a focus chart with the logo of the film and the specific frame outlined (which the camera operator shot lined up with his/her groundglass markings). The editor syncing dailies will put a dozen or so feet on the head of each roll of picture. Remember, this is for the crew including the DP, operator, director, producer, etc. If it wasn't exactly right you'd be told post haste.
I've never screened 1.66 dailies but then I'm not in Europe.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 02-02-2003 10:20 PM
quote:
So, Michael, what do you think is right -- that all modern US-produced flat fare should be run at 1.85:1 unless there's some special information provided, or an obviously critical element appears to be cut off from the image?
Observing what appears to be a critical element being cut off in 1.85:1 can be very subjective. Generally, in the absence of any enclosures, labeling on leaders, or comment from a film's DP, camera operator, lab liaison, etc., yes, I believe that 1.85:1 would be the best ratio to project in.
But then, something tells me that you might ignore notes enclosed with a print since you previously mentioned that you don't always trust info printed onto a leader. What would it take for you to be convinced that movie x should be run at 1.85:1?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic