Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Super 8 (2011)

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » Super 8 (2011) (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Super 8 (2011)

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 07-11-2011 09:49 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
I always felt Spielberg shot the Indy movies in scope because of George's insistence. Just a guess, though.

If so, I'm glad George insisted. IMHO 'scope was more appropriate for the Indy movies than the flat ratio.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 07-11-2011 11:00 PM

I would agree with Joe. Lucas is smarter in that department. Flat is claustrophobic in comparison. It is NOT closer to a human with 2 functioning eyes.

quote: Bobby Henderson
If anything too many movies are made in 'scope. Lots of throw-away dramas and comedies are shot in Super35 or digital and cropped down to 'scope. Even some low budget indie movies shot with relatively low cost video gear have the footage cropped to 2.39:1. It's pretentious. I've seen it lots of times in recent years where every single movie playing in a multiplex is formatted in 'scope.

Remind me to slap you the next time you're in town. Shame on you for even speaking such hogwash. Even a movie like Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2 was made better by it being in scope. [thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

Robby Golosino
Film Handler

Posts: 16
From: Davao City, Philippines
Registered: Jun 2011

posted 07-12-2011 12:58 AM

wahhaha...this film cost great damage to our amplifiers...when the train submits itself into the air...our suwoofer amplifiers submits itself as well....its signal gain is not only huge but monstrous...hahaha

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 07-12-2011 08:11 AM

Those who assumed Spielberg was down on the 'scope format thought that words like "artificial" and "slickest" sounded negative while things like "human perspective" and "lifelike" sounded positive. Could it be possible that Spielberg thinks some of his movies are more important or meaningful than ohers? Would he lend his name to projects that are just there to make money when he knows that he's really just pandering to what he thinks is a lower standard? No. That's not possible. Not THE Steven Spielberg. (Who said "Transformers"?)

I had a chance to meet Lawrence Kasdan about 20 years ago and I asked him specifically what he thought of using different aspect ratios. He said he loved the way he could place actors in the 'scope frame. And he used that aspect ratio quite a bit. As for Spielberg's contention that dinosaurs would look taller in the 1.85 frame, well, that's really a matter of composition. One of the things I really like about older movies is that they're not afraid to compose for the big screen. They're not afraid to use wide shots even when actors are talking! Too many directors are losing their perspective when they watch the video assist all day on the set... and then so much of the post work is done on TV and computer monitors too.

Frankly, I think Spielberg doesn't micro-manage the technical side of things as much as people think he does. He has so much trust and loyalty towards Kaminski that he'd probably let Kaminski try anything he wanted. And I think that's already happened a lot.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 07-12-2011 10:29 AM

quote: Greg Anderson
Those who assumed Spielberg was down on the 'scope format thought that words like "artificial" and "slickest" sounded negative while things like "human perspective" and "lifelike" sounded positive. Could it be possible that Spielberg thinks some of his movies are more important or meaningful than [others]?

The implication here seems to be that Spielberg prefers scope for his "popcorn" movies and flat for the "important" projects? That may seem reasonable at first thought, but the argument falls apart when one considers his "popcorn" flicks like Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds were done flat while "important" stuff like Munich was done in scope. So, again, we're right back to the idea that the selection of aspect ratio is being made on a title-by-title basis as I (and Bobby) previously speculated.

quote: Greg Anderson
Frankly, I think Spielberg doesn't micro-manage the technical side of things as much as people think he does. He has so much trust and loyalty towards [his DP Janusz] Kaminski that he'd probably let Kaminski try anything he wanted. And I think that's already happened a lot.

You may be right about that. Moreover, I think, in general, critics and movie buffs are guilty of giving far too much credit to movie directors, naively assuming that directors make every single decision.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 07-12-2011 03:03 PM

quote: Brad Miller
Flat is claustrophobic in comparison. It is NOT closer to a human with 2 functioning eyes.

No standard motion picture framing format, video format or still photography process accurately mimicks the field of view of human vision. The only processes that attempt to come close are dome screen formats like Omnimax.

One difference is the human vision field of view is more like a big oval than any sort of rectangular shape. The outer edge of that field of view is blurry, not hard like the edge of a photograph. Image quality at the periphreal edge of human vision is significantly lower than what is seen in the center of view.

Photographs typically have hard boundaries with some kind of rectangular shape. They're subject to many of the same compositional rules that have applied to paintings for hundreds of years. Obviously paintings have a number of different framing formats, with portrait and landscape being the two general ones. Frederic Edwin Church was an American landscape painter who had great success creating wide aspect ratio "marine" paintings. Niagara is one of his most popular works. Its 2.18:1 aspect ratio is very close to that of a 5-perf 70mm film frame.

People don't consciously look at objects of interest with their own eyes the way a photographer, cinematographer or director has to frame shots. I'm not thinking about things like head room, look space, rules of thirds, line and object direction or other stuff like that when I look at something. Normally the object of interest is going to be viewed in the center of the field of view. That's usually a big no no in photography and is frowned upon in graphic design. Centering everything looks boring. But that's how people usually look at things.

quote:
As for Spielberg's contention that dinosaurs would look taller in the 1.85 frame, well, that's really a matter of composition. One of the things I really like about older movies is that they're not afraid to compose for the big screen. They're not afraid to use wide shots even when actors are talking!

A cinematographer cannot compose within a 'scope frame the way he would in a flat 1.85:1 frame. The shots would look way too loose, especially on the left and right ends. The 'scope format can be tricky in how things have to be vertically cropped to make shots look dynamic. My big complaint with Super35 is it doesn't force the director and DP to pick a specific format and compose for that frame. The end result can be a movie whose compositions look boring in both theaters and on home video. At least with 35mm anamorphic (and 5/65mm) specific decisions must be made.

Older 'scope movies often made good use of the frame. The advent of home video and the horrors of panning and scanning killed some of that. A lot of 1980's 'scope movies made attempts to keep subjects in home video safe zones leaving huge areas of space to the left or right. Ghostbusters was a notable exception. I think the situation has been improving in recent years. HDTV and Blu-ray have helped. The public understands letter-boxing a little better.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.