|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Anyone Notice the 1.85:1 Trend?
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 06-25-2017 03:39 PM
WOODSTOCK opens with pre-title exposition in a pillared 1.37 image in 2.35 anamorphic. If my memory serves, that segment ran about 10min half a reel, and then there was a slow fade-out with a faded-in to full scope. quote: Marcel Birgelen
I think Leo is right on "The Horse Whisperer" (1998) though, it is probably the first movie to do a "prolonged aspect ratio switch", so not just for a few seconds of narrative or for exposition purposes like a fake commercial, infomercial or information video.
So certainly THE HORSE WHISPERER wasn't the first.
We actually used a masking move cue for that AR change in R1. Not only did the mask changed, but because our curtain had different stops for 1.85 and 1.37, not only did the mask widen to full scope, but so did the curtain. It also should be mentioned that the prologue in 1.37 was in center channel mono, then at the change to scope, sound changed to full surround stereo. Since that change is at a specific point/pause in the "running movie" with picture and sound changing, I don't think using a mask change (and in our case, the curtain as well) was a distraction but it actually was very dramatic. It worked so well that we did it every time we booked that classic R&R documentary (at least 4 engagements over the years).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 06-25-2017 04:55 PM
quote: Michael Coate
I think the best example of this "in-movie aspect-ratio switching stuff" (and I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned it) is Doug Trumbull's "Brainstorm" (1983).
Thanks, I totally forgot about that somewhat underrated movie. But indeed, it constantly switches between 1.85 and 2.35 if I remember correctly, even within the same scene.
quote: Daniel Schulz
I think what IMAX is pushing these days is a 1.9:1 AR, which is just the full-container image of a DLP chip. They had a whole marketing campaign for Sully and also for Beauty and the Beast which showed you the picture you were missing out on if you saw those movies at 2.35 in a non-IMAX theater. Which of course is silly, if the filmmakers wanted you to see a taller image they could have framed for 1.85 and released a flat DCP.
I totally agree, especially when the whole movie is in 1.9, it makes no sense not to release it as a flat DCP for normal releases or if you filmed it in such way that it can be framed in both 2.35 and 1.85 or 1.9, release both formats and let exhibitors choose what format they want to present.
I'm wondering though, if there are any recent Digital IMAX releases that use 1.43, because their retrofitted laser sites should technically be able to show them with their anamorphic setup.
quote: Frank Angel
So certainly THE HORSE WHISPERER wasn't the first.
Brainstorm also predates The Horse Whisperer, so it already had to trade in first place.
I'd say Woodstock's non-scope content falls into the "info" / "exposition" category, although full 10 minutes makes it a doubtful case. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote: Martin McCaffery
Maybe I'm just remembering trailers, but didn't a Cinerama movie do the 1.37 AR to Cinerama routine?
Well, maybe we should indeed classify this under the "Trying to blow your mind" category, or the "Showoff" category.
Disneyland Paris also had a show in their studios park, based on a 70mm movie that actively used AR switch-overs as part of the concept. It was called Cinemagique and only recently closed. I don't think those specialty cases, like attraction movies, should really count though.
quote: Carsten Kurz
There are many explicit demonstrations of wide screen or super widescreen starting from narrower formats. But that makes explicit sense to demonstrate the super wide formats. This is far from being the nonsense we see in Transformers 5 or other IMAX-Promo infected flics.
I didn't see the latest Transformers movie yet and also I somehow don't feel tempted to do so, neither for fun, nor for work actually. The previous movie didn't do any of this aspect ratio flipping in the normal DCP, it might have done so in the Digital IMAX release. Are you saying this movie also has changing aspect ratios in the regular DCP release?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 06-26-2017 07:14 AM
quote: Carsten Kurz
Much of Transformers: The Last Knight was filmed with IMAX cameras.
During playback the picture will occasionally change from letterbox to non letterbox.
This was intentional by the filmmaker.
They make it sound like the letterboxing is the result of the "IMAX" footage...
A movie in "flat" on an "unmasked" scope-sized screen and the movie itself containing many letterboxed scenes must really look totally stupid. Like watching a bunch of cheap TV commercials, where nobody cared to frame them somewhat correctly.
quote: Mike Blakesley
The 1.85 picture is used when the action is in "real life," and whenever a character is experiencing a "recording," the picture switches to 2.35. So while it does happen within scenes, at least in this case the intent makes sense.
It's been really quite a while since I've last seen this movie, but the discussion about it at least stirred the interest to watch it again shortly.
I don't remember being annoyed by the constant AR switchovers. I guess, it is also because it does make sense, since it indeed happens between the "real" and "recorded" world.
So, I guess it's like with most other things. If it somehow makes sense, you're probably not so easily annoyed with it. This AR switching is probably no exception, at least not for me.
I remember watching the "IMAX BluRay" version of the Dark Knight Rises (the IMAX scenes are in 1.78 and not in their native 1.43) with friends and at least two of the five people we were watching the show with, kept complaining about the fact that the image kept changing in size and I wasn't one of those two.
Usually, I don't hear anybody complain about "geeky stuff" like aspect ratios. With friends, it's usually like: Yeah, you're the only one even noticing what aspect ratio it is in.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
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