Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Underworld scope trailer

This is topic Underworld scope trailer 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=005448

Posted by Dave Callaghan (Member # 1544) on 10-13-2003, 02:36 PM:

The scope trailer for Underworld is printed with a hard mat on the left and right sides of the picture. Why?

Underworld is a scope feature! The hard mat could lead you to think the feature was flat! Why not simply print a scope trailer for a scope feature full frame?

Can anyone suggest a reason why this would be done? All I can imagine is this is a trailer prepared for the DVD that could be displayed 16:9. I can't imagine this strategy being too successful because the image would have an anamorphic squeeze. Then again, maybe it wouldn't look so bad. I don't watch enough DVD on my 4:3 set to make an informed comment.

The first time I noticed anything like this was the flat trailer for Armageddon that was printed in a letterbox.

Now it looks like I have to give up on the idea that I could guess the feature format from the trailer.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 10-13-2003, 06:14 PM:

Did not encounter this problem with any of the Underworld trailers we played.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-13-2003, 06:17 PM:

I think "Underworld" was shot in Super35, or at least in a manner to be cropped down into that format. I've only seen one version of the trailer, with the framing opened up to a more home video friendly framing. I guess they just put black bars on the sides of it to place on 'scope format trailers.

This is also a long shot guess, but perhaps the distributor was not decided until the last minute just how to frame the actual film print. Perhaps there was some push to just show the film flat rather than cropping down further for Super35, even if the film was composed for the format. I know this was a consideration for "Black Rain" before it was released. An American Cinematographer article on the film mentioned how it was either going to be a flat DolbySR optical release or 'scope Super35 with 70mm.

Posted by Dave Callaghan (Member # 1544) on 10-15-2003, 03:08 AM:

Thanks for mentioning Super35.

As a projectionist, I am more concerned with the final product than the origination medium. But not without concern - grain and colour saturation are just two of the aspects of the release print that are valued.

My thoughts about Super35 until now amounted to its being a negative image that allowed printing in pretty much any format, from television to 70 mm, off of the same negative.

It was also my understanding that a difficulty with Super35 was how to determine the composition during production. Sure, any aspect ratio could be printed, but 1.33 isn't 1.78 isn't 1.85 isn't 2.35/40.

I have run a 1.85 composed image printed full-frame as 1.37. Sure, nothing is lost, but the emotional impact is greatly diminished. The director and DP at the screening pointed the error out to me. They let it run rather than interrupt the screening, but it was corrected the next time.

Super35 in the camera is MaxiVision48 in the projector - 3 perfs in height with perf to perf width, including the analog soundtrack area.

What I have been able to determine so far is that Super35 is a spherical/flat exposure. Anamorphic prints have to be done optically off of that negative, at additional expense to the production. Still, how would composition, given the aspect ratio, not be a problem?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-15-2003, 05:43 AM:

When shooting with the Super 35 format, the camera viewfinder is marked with the various aspect ratios that might be "extracted" from the negative:

http://www.arri.com/infodown/cam/ti/p-1013.pdf

http://www.cameraguild.com/technology/formats.htm

http://www.cameraguild.com/technology/protecting_vision.htm

Good communication between the cinematographer and the lab is essential.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 10-15-2003, 11:35 AM:

quote:
Super35 in the camera is MaxiVision48 in the projector - 3 perfs in height with perf to perf width, including the analog soundtrack area.

Actually S35 is 4-perf just like any other 4/35 format.

-Aaron

Posted by Matt Hale (Member # 1518) on 10-15-2003, 02:34 PM:

On The Snow Walker we shot super 35 for most of it. Some early material, however, was photographed before the decision to go scope was made. When it came time for the negative cutter to do his thing, a few cuts had to be intentionally made out of frame in order to get actor's heads into the picture.

The extra perf at the splice was not an issue for the film prints since it was cut off when they did the 2.35 extraction, but for video we had to deliver both 16x9 letterbox and 4x3 full frame, which required re-splicing the negative and re-framing of the image in those shots. A real pain in the butt.

Now they are talking about making the trailer from the 16x9 digital betacam transfers and blowing it back up to film as a flat image. By doing that they save something like $40,000.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-15-2003, 05:25 PM:

quote:
It was also my understanding that a difficulty with Super35 was how to determine the composition during production. Sure, any aspect ratio could be printed, but 1.33 isn't 1.78 isn't 1.85 isn't 2.35/40.

With Super35 it is possible to simultaneously compose for 2.39:1 super widescreen while maintaining decent compositions for 1.77:1 HDTV and 1.33:1 standard ratio TV. Basically it is just a trick of controlling headroom in the composition and using guidelines like the rule of thirds in staging characters.

But much of the time most Super35 films strike me as having a sort of unorganized, loose kind of feel to them, even when they have been cropped down into the 2.39:1 format.

I think one of the big issues is set decoration / production design and how the shot design works into it. Some Super35 films really look as though they have been specifically composed for the 'scope frame. David Fincher always seems to be pretty good at doing this. Others sort of seem like they are riding the fence trying to be all things to all aspect ratios. And that just doesn't work. You get kind of a lifeless image at times.

One of the great things about anamorphic 'scope is it forces the cinematographer and production designer to work in that format. On average, movies shot with anamorphic lenses not only appear to look better for higher resolution image quality, but their compositions can often appear more striking.

Posted by Dave Callaghan (Member # 1544) on 10-15-2003, 08:11 PM:

quote:
Actually S35 is 4-perf just like any other 4/35 format.

I was basing my 3-perf information on the following:

www.aaton.com/products/film/35/3perf.php

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-15-2003, 08:14 PM:

That was one of the claims of SuperScope and VistaVision
One negative to yeild multiple aspect ratios

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 10-16-2003, 01:34 PM:

quote:
S35 is 4-perf just like any other 4/35 format.

Super 35 can be 3-perf or 4-perf.

The majority of the feature films produced in Super 35 have been 4-perf, but there has been a rise in the use of 3-perf, including recent productions like Panic Room and Kill Bill.

A lot of contemporary television production is originated in 3-perf.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-17-2003, 10:38 AM:

Almost all modern telecines and datacines can handle both 4-perf and 3-perf pulldown. 3-Perf is used for many television shows, and can be used for feature production, especially those using a "Digital Intermediate" rather than optical printing to "extract" and recenter the image from "Super-35".

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 10-17-2003, 08:07 PM:

A couple other scope trailers presented in 1.85 for movies shot in super 35/2.35 have been out, I remember specifically some of the Austin Powers II trailers and Detroit Rock City.
There's also been a few trailers in 2.35 for movies that were in 1.85- the teaser for "Evolution" comes to mind- even the flat version was letterboxed.