|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Aliens (1986)
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-30-2009 10:46 AM
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Why did FOX put that restriction on him of his choice of filming? Was Super35 not perfected yet, or something else?
The true Super35 format hadn't even been introduced at that time. What I mean by true Super35 is the Super 1.85/Super 35 system Clairmont Camera and Arri developed to use up the space normally reserved for the optical analog audio track and yield a significantly larger image on the negative. "Super Techniscope" movies like Silverado and Top Gun still left the optical track space intact on the negative instead of using up all the area in between the perforations. The Abyss was a true Super35 movie.
quote: Julio Roberto
Speaking of widescreen, looks like this may be the year of the beggining of the death of true-anamorphic.
I don't agree. Just as many, if not more, movies are being filmed in anamorphic 35mm. The real issue, and it has been this way for a few years now, is the lack of 1.85:1 "flat" movies. Super35 is being used on a lot of movies that normally would have been released flat years ago. I've seen it many times where our local Carmike 8-plex is playing nothing but 'scope movies, many of them shot Super35. The issue even occurs during off peak times like January, April and August when the theater is playing a lot of throwaway comedies, dramas and bad horror movies.
We're seeing a reverse form of panning and scanning taking place with many movies. The movie is released in Super35 to fill the width of commercial movie theater screens, then it is opened up "full screen" for old TV sets or to fill 1.77:1 ratios of HDTV screens when it is broadcast on cable. It's a one size fits all approach. What's really bad about this is the compositions just tend to be rather bland.
With shooting anamorphic 35mm you're locked into composing for the 2.40:1 frame. That's not the case with Super35. As a result few directors and cinematographers treat Super35 in the framing, production design and set decoration areas in the same manner as shooting anamorphic. I've repeated this point before in other threads and the point remains valid. James Cameron, David Fincher and perhaps a handful of other directors properly compose for 2.40:1 when shooting Super35.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 04-30-2009 01:44 PM
quote: Monte L Fullmer
And this is what you see on a "behind the scenes" presentation when you see the camera monitors that are probably ratioed at 1.77:1 with lined out areas on the screen, what it would look like in 2.40:1?
If we are thinking of the same thing, then yes (although video taps for S35 are often made for 1.33 monitors, but same thing).
Bobby, just to make sure we all understood each other, I was talking about TRUE anamorphics, where a movie is shot in anamorphic and (likely, if it doesn't go to digital dci) projected anamorphic.
Super35 is not true anamorphic. It's spherical, as you well know.
I just showed how, out of about 65 films opened this last couple of months in France, almost half were wide-screen. But out of those, only 7 were true-anamorphic, with the rest being Super35 squeezes or digital. The other half were, of course, flat.
Just making sure we are talking about the same thing. If you say that more and more films are being shot in scope (anarmorphic, not spherical), instead of fewer and fewer, then we indeed agree to dissagree. ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
I think the percentage of films being shot in (true) anamorphics is declining and will continue to do so for the next several years to the point that, sometime in the future, they'll be an extremely small percentage (say 3%) of all significant films shot in the west. Super35 and spherical digital crops will replace them, even if released in scope, but they'll still be cropped spherical-originated. And in the case of DCI projection, cropped-spherical projected as well ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
In another words, I think the use of (true) anamorphic processes is a dying art that will be relenquished to a very small minority in 3-5 years. Once a significant number of DCI projectors show up, making true anamorphic films only adds expense to doing the same in, say, Super 35, as the scanning to DI of anamorphic is more expensive and the added resolution does nothing for cropped scope DCI 2K projection.
Only an artistic license for the look of anamorphic artifacts (distortions) would justify its use. And at the price tag it will carry, I don't think many producers will concur and force the use of Super 35 at best.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-30-2009 03:48 PM
quote: Julio Roberto
Bobby, just to make sure we all understood each other, I was talking about TRUE anamorphics, where a movie is shot in anamorphic and (likely, if it doesn't go to digital dci) projected anamorphic.
Re-read my post carefully. I fully understand the differences between Super35 home video safe widescreen and anamorphic 35mm widescreen.
Anamorphic 35mm photography is not in decline. The fact is not very many movies are filmed with anamorphic lenses in the first place. Panavision has only so many systems it can rent out to productions at any given time. Anamorphic lenses are bulky, heavier and the DP has to be up to the challenges of using those kinds of lenses.
I repeat, the real issue is a whole lot more movies than normal are shot in Super35, even a lot of shows that really don't have any business using the 2.40:1 ratio. The real decline is the number of movies being released in 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 formats.
Back in the 1980s and early 1990s when VHS rentals were booming not very many movies at all were released in super wide format. The vast majority were shot flat in 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 so they would play better on home video. That is not the case today. Super35 has largely taken over.
Everybody and his brother wants to shoot in "scope" whether it's true anamorphic 35mm, cropped Super35 or the head-scratching retarded move of shooting with video cameras and cropping that to 2.40:1. The movie studios want their movies to fill 100% of a commercial theater's 2.40:1 screen as well as fill all of the 4:3 and 16:9 TV screens at home. Super35 allows you to do that. Anamorphic 35mm doesn't; you're stuck with letterboxing or panning and scanning.
quote: Julio Roberto
Once a significant number of DCI projectors show up, making true anamorphic films only adds expense to doing the same in, say, Super 35, as the scanning to DI of anamorphic is more expensive and the added resolution does nothing for cropped scope DCI 2K projection.
Anamorphic 35mm is still going to beat Super35 in terms of color and contrast quality since the full 4-perf 35mm is being used rather than only half. Hollywood studio use of HDTV levels of resolution (2K) will end up biting them back a decade or two from now, but that's another separate issue.
| 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic