Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Blade II - Flat instead Scope. Huh?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Blade II - Flat instead Scope. Huh? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: Blade II - Flat instead Scope. Huh?

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 03-13-2002 08:38 PM

Joe, very interesting! Note how the horizontal crossmember piece in the phone booth was probably outside the "protected" area for scope framing. Looking at the VHS frame compared to DVD, the expression "too much information" comes to mind.

| IP: Logged

Dave Macaulay
Film God

Posts: 2321
From: Toronto, Canada
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-13-2002 09:54 PM

I suspect 3-perf pulldown 35 is less popular from just the standardization of cameras and optical equipment on 4-perf.
It saves a bit (25% I suppose!) on shooting stock, but maybe the other inconveniences (even getting a 3-perf projector to run dailies?) overshadow that...?

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 03-13-2002 10:13 PM

In general, 3-perf pulldown cameras are most often used for film being shot for television, rather than feature films.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 03-13-2002 11:50 PM

Everyone take a look at the photos that Joe posted. Look right on top of Edward Furlongs head. Does that look like an Apes face from Planet of the Apes or what?

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 03-13-2002 11:59 PM

I guess I forgot to mention that "The Epic" is an example of a film genre which is usually in 'Scope and which gets respect at the Oscars... although I still contend that most dramas which aren't epics (and which tend to clean up in the acting categories) tend to be shot flat.

| IP: Logged

Evans A Criswell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1579
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 03-14-2002 10:04 AM

quote:
Evans, I was under the impression that those shooting Super 35, like Cameron, were shooting 3-perf pulldown Super 35. (Look here for nice diagrams of the different 35 and Super 35 formats) Once I read your post, what Dave was saying makes sense to me. Since Super 35 3 perf is a possiblity, I don't really understand why you wouldn't use it, unless you are making a big consideration for the home video market, which Cameron undoubtedly is. Thanks for the clarification.

quote:

In general, 3-perf pulldown cameras are most often used for film being shot for television, rather than feature films.

I'd never heard of 3-perf super35 until the post I quoted above.

As for John's comment, why would anyone want to use 3-perf for TV? Using 4-perf yields the TV aspect ratio. Wouldn't using 3-perf require cropping of the sides of the image to get the image to fit the TV (unless you're talking about HDTV), wasting image area on the negative? 3-perf would work for HDTV, though.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 03-14-2002 11:12 AM

Actually a lot of things shot for tv use 16mm. At least that's how it used to be done.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 03-14-2002 01:35 PM

For television production, 35mm 3-perf uses a "Super 35" width camera aperture of 0.980 x 0.546 inches. The image area transferred to 16:9 video is 0.910 x 0.511 inches. For 4:3 video, the area is 0.680 x 0.511 inches. The format is used to save stock and lab processing costs, while having the largest available image area for the growing 16:9 video format. For today's TV shows, the important action is kept within the 4:3 area, or the image is letterboxed on 4:3 televisions.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 03-14-2002 01:50 PM

quote:
I'm sure Sam Raimi could have gone with scope for Spiderman if he wanted. I think he just doesn't like it. All of his movies, as far as I know, have been 1.85.

Raimi directed "For Love Of The Game" (1999), which was scope.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 03-14-2002 01:53 PM

David Fincher's "Panic Room" was shot in 3-perf Super 35.

| IP: Logged

Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 03-14-2002 02:26 PM

"It's a little disappointing to buy a ticket for a big effects movie ("Collateral Damage" is a recent example) and enter the auditorium and find the screen masking set to flat."

This is why I am against having the masking change at any time when the customers can see it- when they walk in, it should be set to how it's going to be for the entire movie. I left my job at the last theatre I worked at because they forced me to have the masking set to Flat in between all shows, reason being most screens were top/bottom masking for scope and they wanted the slide show to get "the biggest screen possible". They had 2 screens with side masking but they had those go to flat in between shows too; didn't make much sense but neither did a lot of other stuff there.
Before I worked at a theater I knew what the masking was but not exactly how it worked (did someone have to come down and move it by hand?) I found the answer during a double feature when the masking moved out for the second movie.

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-14-2002 02:43 PM

Dave, you seem to have some strange idea that scope is inherently better than flat, and that everyone should agree with you. This is a really poor premise to start with.

The decision for scope versus flat is an artistic one. Yes, economic and practical factors show up, too, but it's a fundamentally artistic choice.

It is never inherently wrong to choose a particular format.

I think it's also a little disturbing how people are pigeonholing directors and producers on aspect ratio. It may be a religion for some, but that doesn't make it a religion for all.

--jhawk

p.s.: Minority Report is Scope.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 03-14-2002 03:55 PM

JHawk said: "...you seem to have some strange idea that scope is inherently better than flat, and that everyone should agree with you. This is a really poor premise to start with."

Because of the larger image area, "Scope" IS usually better than "Flat" for image quality. A larger image area on the camera negative reduces the manification of the grain and improves sharpness. A larger image area on the print allows more efficient use of the light, and less concentration of radiant energy on the film frame.

I do agree that the aspect ratio chosen for a film should be an artistic decision, rather than an economic one. But the limitations of video display sometimes push producers toward pictures that are less wide in hopes of maximizing the video market.

There are better ways of achieving a 1.85:1 aspect ratio than simply cropping the image area:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/february97/pytlak.shtml

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 03-14-2002 06:12 PM

And to get back on topic a bit, I don't see 'scope or flat as being any better than the other artistically. However, I do see it as a very bad and distracting thing for a film series that originated in one format (like "Blade" being a 'scope film) and then having sequels filmed in a different format (such as "Blade II" being shot flat).

On the technical end, I do prefer anamorphic 35mm photography over Super35. Much of the time it looks better --even after the film has been transferred to DVD.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-14-2002 06:13 PM

Since everyone knows that scope makes better use of light, why aren't all movies released in scope, with the "flat" films side-cropped the way some trailers are now?

| 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.