Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Letterbox variations

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » Letterbox variations (Page 2)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: Letterbox variations

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 06-22-2006 06:34 PM

"ABBA: The Movie" (1977), "JFK" (1991) and "The Horse Whisperer" (1998) are other scope productions that come to mind for beginning with a less-than-full-width image. Then, at a key moment, switch to full-width scope.

The "ABBA" DVD transfer retains the original image. Those other two titles had their narrow aspect ratio segments altered somewhat for their laserdiscs and DVDs.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-22-2006 07:25 PM

As I recall, the switch to full-blown 'Scope in Galaxy Quest happened at the moment when Tim Allen's character suddenly realizes that all the space stuff is real. It made artistic sense to me.

I loved the aspect change in The Horse Whisperer because I expected it and yet I never noticed the exact moment when it happened. (I only saw the movie once.) It was just, suddenly, "Oh, wow. It's using the whole screen now!"

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 06-22-2006 09:05 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall the original JFK DVD, which was a 4:3 transfer, starting in full frame and then letterboxing to 2.35:1 at the appropriate time. But for the later 16:9 release, they pillarboxed the 4:3 footage into the 2.35:1 frame. So the second release is actually how it was in theaters.

As a side note, Kathryn Bigelow originally wanted to shoot STRANGE DAYS primarily in 1.85:1, and then switch to 2.39:1 for the POV sequences. But then she realized that that wouldn't be practical.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 06-22-2006 09:12 PM

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
At least the flat/scope changes in "Brainstorm" made sense.

Not when watching on TV! "Brainstorm" is best if watched only in a movie theatre with a large screen and great sound. I don't think it works at all as a television experience.

When watching the film in 1.33:1 pan-and-scan, one never even has a chance to know about the aspect ratio differences between the "objective" and "subjective" segments.

The laserdisc and DVD versions aren't much better. Sure, they're letterboxed, but one particular version (and I can't remember if it was the first version or the remaster) had the aspect ratio changes made in the vertical plane just so an image always fills the width of your TV (the "objective" 1.66:1-ish scenes were taller than the "subjective" full-width 65mm-originated segments). The other release was letterboxed "correctly" but in this instance most of the movie would include matting on all four sides of your TV. Now, of course, most of us here understands why that would be the case, but you can imagine many viewers scratching their heads and advancing their dislike for all things letterboxed.

Also, when viewing "Brainstorm" on TV, I doubt one can see any resolution difference between the 35mm and 65mm segments. Not that that necessarily would prevent anyone from enjoying the movie, but I think the difference certainly adds to the enjoyment and appreciation when watching the movie in a theatre, especially when shown in 70mm.

I wonder how it'll be handled if and when it gets released on HD.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 06-22-2006 10:44 PM

We love taking the masking out to Scope when the image goes from flat to Scope. "Brother Bear" and "The Horse Whisperer" are two examples.

It's easy with a single or twin but a little tricky (though do-able) in a multi. And it wouldn't work at all with those constant width horror.

Is there anyreason why all prints couln't be Scope format and lesser width images printed with black sides?

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-23-2006 12:29 AM

The Horse Whisperer change happened exactly at the reel change. There wasn't anything particular going on screen at the time. Heck, it wasn't even at a scene change. Just all of a sudden, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, changeover...BAM, widescreen.

I thought my print was defective since the attached trailer was pillarboxed as well.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 06-23-2006 12:46 AM

quote: Ron Curran
We love taking the masking out to Scope when the image goes from flat to Scope. "Brother Bear" and "The Horse Whisperer" are two examples.

I already mentioned "The Horse Whisperer"! I think the appropriate handling of your post would have been to acknowledge this by quoting my original comment and elaborating from there instead of pretending my post doesn't exist.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 06-23-2006 01:11 AM

Apologies Michael, I was simply stating my own feelings about films I have projected and responding to the masking question related toshowmanship.

I would appreciate hearing your feelings about how these films would handled on a constant width set-up and the all-Scope prints question.

While I'm at it, do you think the changeover to digital will eventually kill off Scope?

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 06-23-2006 02:36 AM

I think I made my thoughts known regarding common-width screens in the Harkins Southlake thread. But to recap, I think common-width screens suck. The idiotic practice runs counter to the original concept of w-i-d-e-s-c-r-e-e-n. I believe theaters should be designed around the projection systems, not the systems designed around the theater!

Do I think flat productions should be printed in scope with the sides matted? Interesting idea which, in theory, could/would boost the light put onto the screen and improve steadiness, etc. This and other similar ideas have been proposed over the years and, obviously, none of them have been implemented. So I imagine this would be a tough sell to the powers that be.

I'm not sure why digital projection would kill off scope since the system was designed from the get-go to accommodate the current flat and scope projection standards. I doubt scope is in any danger of becoming obsolete (but perhaps it should be retired, but my reasons for making such an opinion will have to wait for a future discussion). This decade we are enjoying more scope releases per year since the decade of the 1950s. Letterboxed laserdiscs and DVDs and megaplexes with larger screens have contributed to the increase, although during this time there has been a dramatic shift from anamorphic to Super-35 origination.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 06-23-2006 03:34 AM

Thanks for your input, Michael. As it wouldn’t add to cost, the masked Scope concept could fly but there is probably no interest.

Excuse my ignorance on digital. I was thinking digital capture for digital exhibition. I thought that digital’s native format was 16x9 and that there would be savings involved going from theatrical 16x9 to home formats. That’s why I wondered if it would affect the future of Scope.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 06-23-2006 05:44 PM

Oh, you meant digital image capture. Well, again, same answer: no. In fact, I see no reason to single out "digital capture for digital exhibition." For the immediate future, there will be choices of film origination, digital origination, film exhibition, and digital exhibition. They're all compatible with one another.

Many of the HD-originated productions have output to film in scope format. Native format and exhibition format(s) have little to do with one another. The process of capturing a larger-than-necessary image in the camera (1.78:1, AKA 16:9) and then extracting a 2.39:1 scope image from within isn't all that different in concept from the Super-35 process (there are alternative HD origination methods as well), and the steps involved do not seem to be cost-prohibitive. Productions of all budget types and genres have shot in HD and released in scope, including mega-budgeted shows like the last two "Star Wars" episodes (2002 & 2005) to the micro-budgeted "Jackpot" (2001). "A Prairie Home Companion" is in current release and was shot in HD and composed for scope release. "Superman Returns" and "Miami Vice" are soon to be released.

High-Def origination got a huge endorsement from George Lucas when he announced that he would shoot "Star Wars Episode II Attack Of The Clones" digitally." At a press event held at Skywalker Ranch a few years ago, I asked Lucas his thoughts on digital origination and his love for the scope aspect ratio and his response was that he would not have gone forward with shooting in HD if he didn't think the format could satisfactorily accommodate a scope-format finished product.

Once 16:9 TVs in homes, stores, restaurants, bars, etc. becomes the norm, and HD-based DVD format(s) become the primary viewing choice, I don't think there's any reason to believe that the studios won't offer their scope titles in both a 1.78:1 version (which at this point would be considered the "full frame" version) and also in a 2.35:1-ish letterboxed version.

"Scope" is a style as much as it is a technology. And filmmaking styles and trends come and go. So who's to say if the number of scope titles made in subsequent years will stay about the same or dramatically go up or down.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 06-28-2006 05:16 PM

Let me add to the list: one of the MOST fun aspect ratio switches was in the print of WOODSTOCK which starts out with the entire first reel was 1.37 and mono sound with only dialog, no music -- basically documentary footage. It had the look and feel of TV with thin, tinny sound. There is a fade-to-black and boom, change-over to full scope and and full sterophonic sound with the surrounds kicking ("By the time I got to Woodstock...." CSNY giving it their all). VERY dramatic and LOTS of fun to do, and over the many years that I've played it, that switch always got an applause.

WB had Technicolor, 4track mag prints on this title making it that much more impressive. The new (1999 I think) director's cut had Dolby SRD.

Thing is, I hate having the curtains open full while the image is masked for 1.85 or narrower -- in this case 1.37. So we have a second curtain stop just wider than 1.85 so that the curtain frames the narrower ratios avoiding those huge expanses of black on either side of the picture. So when this change occurred in WOODSTOCK, both the grand curtain AND the mask moved in unison to expose the full CinemaScope screen.

DAMN; I love the movie business.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 06-28-2006 07:04 PM

Frank, I almost forgot Woodstock. I think a lot of it was shot in 16mm. Yes, it was fun to run.

Your comment about opening curtains and masking reminds me of another reason why 1.85 is a waste. You have a layer of masking in front of left and right speakers, or you outrig them. This is where the constant width advocated will bite us on the bum.

If DC won't be all 16x9, we can have this discussion again in another decade.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 06-29-2006 02:03 AM

quote: Frank Angel
The new (1999 I think) director's cut had Dolby SRD.

1994.

quote: Frank Angel
WB had Technicolor, 4track mag prints on this title making it that much more impressive.

Some sources suggest there were 70mm six-track prints too. I've never been able to confirm, though. I've never seen a 70mm print of "Woodstock"... never handled a 70mm print... never read about a 70 at a retrospective fest... never seen any newspaper ads promoting a 70mm showing... but have heard endless hearsay and memories from folks.

quote: Frank Angel
Thing is, I hate having the curtains open full while the image is masked for 1.85 or narrower -- in this case 1.37. So we have a second curtain stop just wider than 1.85 so that the curtain frames the narrower ratios avoiding those huge expanses of black on either side of the picture. So when this change occurred in WOODSTOCK, both the grand curtain AND the mask moved in unison to expose the full CinemaScope screen.

Good job, Frank! Now that's showmanship.

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 06-29-2006 02:43 AM

I'm pretty sure Woodstock played at the Cinerama dome here in 70mm. Again, hearsay based on a colleague's report of it. Also remember seeing print ads in American Cinematographer talking about how well the 16mm-to-70mm blowups came out.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.