Not sure if that was meant for me or the other Dave, but see JPytlak's comment. There are 2 valid reasons for shooting flat: 1) artistic; 2) cost. Going way back in this thread, I think someone speculated that Spielberg shot many of his movies flat because he felt it might help him win awards, and it works better for home video transfers. Those are two very crummy reasons for shooting flat (my opinion of course) but we are just speculating and nobody knows the real reasons why Spielberg does what he does. If he *is* doing it for artistic reasons, more power to him, but sometimes I think he makes the wrong choice. And as someone else said, his new movie about to come out which I am suffering a memory block on the name of right now is scope. Yay.

What would the artistic reason be for shooting something like "Collateral Damage" flat? And cost couldn't be much of a factor in a big-budget movie like that either. But they did it flat anyway. Same question applies to "Count of Monte Cristo". Or Spielberg's "AI" (cost is clearly not an issue on *any* Spielberg movie). Home video is the only reason that makes sense to me. And that's a lousy reason.

Screen masking: Nobody around here changes the masking between shows. And of course nobody has curtains. So when you enter the auditorium, you know instantly what format the movie will be in.

Super-35: I went to see "Lord of the Rings" again today, with a group who all wanted to see it again. I paid attention to image quality, and luckily the focus was excellent. It was quite grainy throughout. It probably would have been less grainy if shot scope, yes? Not saying it looked lousy, only that it could have looked better. Maybe the complexity of all the effects shots made scope impractical.

Changing format in a series: I appreciate the point, but I'll bet you could survey 1000 moviegoers who saw an original in scope some years ago, and a sequel in flat, and not one of them (unless they are film-techers or something) would mention that, even if you ask a leading question.

Dave can be DStam. And then there's JPyt, BMill, SGut, MGul and even BMaar.

I desperately want to be cool, so if a senior film-techer such as you JRed says I'm DStam, I'm right on it. I could also be "ChattersTooMuch", which is kind of long but it would have the virtue of instant recognition among other film-techers.

 |  IP: Logged

you can be 'amar' and not just 'amart'. do you have a family member with a first name that starts with a 'k'. --can't seem to do a question mark here since it is uncool to press the shift button-- they could be 'kmart'. that would be cool.

Peter Jackson had done Super 35 work before Lord of the Rings and the visual effects company he wanted to use was also experienced in that format. This seems to have been his major reason for chosing Super 35 instead of anamorphic 'Scope.

 |  IP: Logged

While John is certainly correct on the technical point that scope gives you more light and requires less magnification (so is therefore less grainy), I think we can all agree that flat can look good. It's not as if it is a deprecated format, nor do you hear people going around saying, "No! We won't use flat! It's too dark." Both scope and flat can be projected and filmed well.

I continue to believe that the choice of scope versus flat is really artistic. What aspect ratio you want your viewer to be in. In-your-face action versus "see-the-big-picture", etc. I think if you go back and read interviews and articles in In Camera where the question of "why flat?" or "why scope?" is asked, you'll see answers in the artistic plane.

Dave Stambaugh, I did mean you when I said, "Dave, you seem..."
On usernames, it is the case that over here I'm generally referred to by my username, with a lowercase initial. Comes of being a Unix geek, I suppose.

I'll certainly weigh in and agree that while keeping the aspect ratio across sequels is a nice thing, most of the audience won't notice, and it's really not a big deal to change if you "have to" for some reason.

On Minority Report: Greg, when I said it was scope yesterday, that's based on the "Team Fox Exhibitor Materials Update" for the week of March 8th, which lists for Minority Report:
Release Date: June 21, 2002
Rating: Not Yet Rated
Running Time: N/A
Format: Scope /Dolby SR, SRD, DTS
Attached: TBD (FOX)
Loose: Sin Eater (FOX), Road to Perdition (DW), TBD (PAR), TBD (UNI), TBD (SONY)

Trailer Version: A
Running Time: 1:22
Format: Flat & Scope - Dolby SR, SRD, SDDS, and DTS
Status: Now available and should be on screen
(So Dave, you are correct that it is not safe to presume an aspect ratio based on a trailer, though sometimes a trailer will give you a hint if it is letterboxed. So basically saying the trailer is in scope doesn't give any information.)

--jhawk
(who does prefer the lowercase "jh", thanks for asking)

 |  IP: Logged

Judging from what I saw, the film is definitely not a 'scope picture. At least, it was not filmed using anamorphic lenses. All the work is spherical lens based (easily determined by a few lens flare artifacts showing round elements instead of anamorphic abberations). Also, the composition in the trailer leads me to believe the film will presented in flat 1.85:1 ratio. The headroom and movement along the vertical axis of the frame doesn't look like 'scope work to me. So I would be surprised if this is shown in Super35 --although Super35 would be possibility.

 |  IP: Logged

The original pilot was shot in 4:3 but the rest was shot as I remember with a super 35 3 perf pull down, to get the 16:9 aspect they wanted.

The unfortunate problem is that they ordered all of the effects shots in the 16:9 aspect, so the effects shots never filled the entire 4:3 screen. Thier admittance to this was that they never realized it would air 4:3.

They had to do a blow up and cut the sides off to avoid the problems that had happened when the first pilot aired and the following few episodes. Oops.

Of course now you can see it in its original aspect on sci fi channel.

I do not know if they are using the same on that piece of crap show Enterprise, but I would not doubt it.

Also someone asked earlier why would it be less expensive to shoot flat on a cheap stock? Cheap stocks do not have the great depth of field or deep emulsion that a good kodak stock would have. The true cheap stocks, commonly used by independants trying to save money, react better to spherical lenses, as the light source travels to the film negative easier rather than using anamorphics.

Good or great film stocks from Kodak have great light reactivity making anamorphics easier to deal with. Kodak has several film stocks that allow anamorphics to use very low light while still getting a decent picture.

And heres to jred. Thanks for clarifying the super35 and james cameron issue. Nothing better than a visual aid.

quote:

---

The trailer I saw for "Minority Report" yesterday (with LotR) was scope, though it may not mean anything.

---

Yeah might not mean anything. I had a scope Jurassic Park 3 trailer in my hands before. (not 1.85:1 with sides masked out, it was the full 2.35:1 image).