This is topic Format for "The Matrix" in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001560
Posted by Randy Loy (Member # 112) on 10-14-2000, 08:24 AM:
I give up! Does anybody know if "The Matrix" is a flat or scope picture? One of the performing arts centers I volunteer at has booked it for a November screening and the exhibitor relations contact our Executive Director spoke with couldn't tell her if it is a 1:85 or 2:35 format. I tried web searches, such as movie reviews at BOXOFFICE on-line, but am coming up empty. Anybody got any data on it? If it's scope we need to do some quick work on our screen masking!
Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 10-14-2000, 08:42 AM:
Matrix is 2.35Bye
Antonio
Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 10-14-2000, 08:54 AM:
Yes THE MATRIX is in scope, http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0133093 i would not like to see a action film like THE MATRIX in 1.85 btw, would not look good. Randy, you can always find information about nearly everything about film on The internet movie database. Did anyone no that there are plans for release of THE MATRIX 2 & 3 in 2002? 
Posted by Randy Loy (Member # 112) on 10-14-2000, 10:19 AM:
Thanks for the info Antonio and Martin! I bookmarked the Internet Movie Database site for future use.Martin, I agree with you regarding action films looking best in wide-screen. I suspected that "The Matrix" was probably an anamorphic print but wanted to be sure. Thanks again guys!
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-14-2000, 03:52 PM:
Someone (I forget who) pointed out that films with lots of digital effects are sometimes made in 1.85 because it would be too expensive to generate them in 2.39. And with many theaters using adjustable top masking for scope, the "big screen" effect is lost.I don't even want to know what a fully-rendered 65mm frame would cost!
Posted by Ari Nordström (Member # 288) on 10-14-2000, 04:12 PM:
Well, consider the next Star Wars movie. That Sony camera they've used for most of the shoot doesn't have the 2.35 aspect ratio so the final on the screen-resolution is even less than what it would have to be...Lucas should release the film on video instead. 
Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 10-14-2000, 06:48 PM:
Chances are, if they did do a 1.85 print of The Matrix, it probably would look better, seeing as it was filmed in Super 35.
What super 35 is, basically, is the filming of the movie without anamorophic lenses, so the director can choose where he/she wants the scope image positioned at on the original footage. James Camereon would use this for his 70mm films to also make a flat 70mm image for movies like The Abyss and T2 (there were actually very few 70mm prints of either made).
The point is that when they do this, the 1.85 frame has more top & bottom picture than the scope frame.
This is also done a lot for making fal and scope trailers from the same master print.
------------------
"Trying is the first step towards failure!"
-Homer Simpson
Posted by Steven Gorsky (Member # 603) on 10-15-2000, 05:07 AM:
The Internet Movie Database seems correct for most films, but I noticed it says Meet The Parents ( http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0212338 ) is scope instead of flat. Just so people know there are possible errors.Steven Gorsky
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-19-2000, 11:40 AM:
Steve Scott you are incorrect regarding looking better if projected 1.85:1
The grain visable on a cinema screen is mainly the prints not the camera negs
The projectable area of a anamorphic print is substantially larger than that of 1.85:1 and as such less grain is visable on the screen (this is very apparent in 70mm blowups form super35 or anamorphic prints that always look sharper and less grainy than their 35mm cousins)
Also the larger apperture allows more light to pass through the projector as well as the film's larger area to absorb more radiant energy.
Posted by Tom Kroening (Member # 201) on 10-19-2000, 08:10 PM:
I've never seen a "main house" have top screen masking. We have top and bottom masking in all the bitch houses thoough. With 18 screens (8 of which have top masking) it shouldn't be THAT hard to keep scope prints out of those houses. I keep telling the manager that does the bookings to schedule the flicks with these priorities.1. Number of seats
2. Sound format
3. Masking
of course special conditions such as broken A/C take over, but you all know that! We can't have 400 people in a hot auditorium.. they'd buy too many drinks ; ).
Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 10-20-2000, 01:32 AM:
Top-only masking is becoming very common here, even in the largest houses at the multiplex (which aren't THAT large, after all). 1.85 suffers the worst, since to make the Scope screen size halfway decent the resulting Flat screen is a ludicrous wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling deal which when combined with the shakiness of modern Simplexes provides a generally disgusting experience.
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-20-2000, 02:50 AM:
IMDB must have corrected it, because it says 1.85 now.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-30-2000, 10:42 AM:
Best practice is to maintain constant picture height between scope and flat, with adjustable side masking. Projecting scope and flat with a common picture width just makes the deficiencies of the flat format (less brightness, more graininess) more obvious, since you have to magnify the smaller frame much more. The Kodak SCREENCHECK program rates common image height an "A" and common image width a "C". Non-adjustable masking is a "D" and no masking rates an "F".IMHO, pictures made in scope are MEANT to be bigger, to have more impact.
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com