|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Anyone Notice the 1.85:1 Trend?
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 06-27-2017 07:55 PM
quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
Whedon filmed both Avengers films in 1.85 and recommended it for this film as well.
I’m 99,9% positive the second Avengers movie was released in 2.35.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I DO remember a sci-fi movie ("Passengers" I think) that was partly filmed with Imax cameras and seemed like the picture was too tall for the scope frame at times.
Which is somewhat strange, because there was no “IMAX aspect ratio” release. The cameras they used were Arri Alexa 65, which are 6K cameras with a full size 65mm CMOS sensor. IMAX has taken this camera and slapped an IMAX logo on them, together with some “secret sauce”, whatever it may be. But the IMAX version of this camera also wasn’t used for the production of Passengers (2016).
The native aspect ratio of those cameras is 2.11, so it’s both suitable for 4K acquisition in both scope and flat, without losing resolution or without the explicit need for anamorphic lenses.
So, the conclusion must be: The cinematographer was drunk.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 06-29-2017 06:40 AM
quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
You're correct. It was Ant-Man, which came out two months later, that was 1.85
The reason why I still quite vividly remember is, because I disliked the choice for 1.85 for the first Avengers movie. Also, 2.35 seemed to be the de-facto standard for all other "second generation" Marvel releases up until that moment. So, the choice struck me as particular odd. I expected the sequel to keep in line and also be in 1.85, but I was surprised to find out it was in 2.35. And although I didn't really like that particular movie, I think at least the aspect ratio was a better match than it was for the prequel.
quote: Steve Kraus
I run a screening room. My last four screenings:
F-20 (2.00 : 1)
F-166 (1.66 : 1)
no format indicator but it was 1.78 : 1
S-276 (2.76 : 1)
Yeah, well, if I'd keep a list on the aspect ratios I've been screening, then scope currently isn't winning. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But like others, including Daniel, I don't see a continuing trend for 1.85 for big budget releases, besides the oddball release targeted at IMAX.
I think the idea of "wide screen" and movies is pretty much engrained in the mind of many people, just like the somewhat stuttering experience of looking at 24 frames per second. Take this away, and a bit of the movie magic dies with it.
Also, I agree with Daniel on this one. In the continuing battle to capture the audience, the industry should focus on experiences they cannot get at home. Wide screen done right is one of those things.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 06-29-2017 08:05 AM
quote: Steve Kraus
I run a screening room. My last four screenings:
F-20 (2.00 : 1)
F-166 (1.66 : 1)
no format indicator but it was 1.78 : 1
S-276 (2.76 : 1)
I projected a show at which Wes Anderson did a Q & A, and someone asked him why he used multiple aspect ratios in The Grand Budapest Hotel. He replied that he had long wanted to use the device, but didn't feel it was practically possible if the main theatrical release medium was 35mm, because either some shots would be cropped, or some would look unacceptably small on common width or commmon height screens. This puzzled me somewhat, because the same problem exists with digital, unless you make lens zoom and masking adjustments during the show. As I recall, the DCP had a flat container, and with the 'scope scenes letterboxed and the 1.37 scenes (probably around 90% of the footage) pillarboxed.
But it does appear that digital projection has got some movie makers into the mindset that the use of ratios other than 1.85 and 'scope is now a viable artistic choice, and one that can be made without the risk of unwanted cropping in the theater (assuming that a pillarbox or letterbox is acceptable).
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I guess you're probably the only one who ever bothered adapting it "in flight". It also often comes at a price, since most movable masking systems aren't entirely silent. So, you could argue that "remasking" an already running movie only adds to the distraction.
This place was an arthouse, and when we tried setting the masking to 'scope at the start of the film, customers were coming out and complaining that we'd set it incorrectly. My memory is indistinct (The Horse Whisperer was an overlong, pretentious and easily forgettable pic - indeed, my only vivid memory of that week was building the print up and discovering that a previous projectionist had placed a label on the end of the last reel, to identify the print in its built up configuration, which read, simply, "HORSE SHAGGER" - and this was two decades ago), but as I recall, there was a music cue over the AR change that would have covered any masking noise.
| 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic