Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: IS "127 Hours 1:85 or 2:35?

This is topic IS "127 Hours 1:85 or 2:35? 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=010791

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 01-18-2011, 09:47 PM:

Hi Folks:

I keep seeing this film listed at 1:85. But I saw it and I swear it is 2:35.

Looked on the internet and found it listed both ways.

Thanks,

Mike

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-18-2011, 10:24 PM:

IMDB lists these specs:
---------------------------
Camera
Canon EOS 1D Mark IV
Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Canon EOS 7D
Moviecam Compact MK2, Zeiss Ultra Prime and Cooke Panchro Lenses
REDLAKE Y5, Zeiss Ultra Prime and Cooke Panchro Lenses
Silicon Imaging SI-2K MINI, Zeiss Ultra Prime, Cooke Panchro, Schneider and Fujinon Lenses

Laboratory
Technicolor, London, UK

Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm (Kodak Vision2 50D 5201, Vision3 250D 5207, Vision3 500T 5219)
Uncompressed Digital
Video (HDTV)

Cinematographic process
Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
Digital Stills (source format)
Digital (source format)
Super 35 (3-perf) (source format)

Printed film format
35 mm (spherical) (Fuji Eterna-CP 3514DI)
D-Cinema

Aspect ratio
1.85 : 1
---------------------------

Considering the amount of video involved the real aspect ratio could be 1.77:1.
[Razz]

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 01-18-2011, 10:37 PM:

This brings up a good question: how reliable is IMDB? Is there a better source to find tech specs on a given movie?

AJG

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-18-2011, 11:27 PM:

I played the film and it is flat.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-18-2011, 11:37 PM:

Yup, 1:85.

Posted by Justin B. Martin (Member # 5817) on 01-19-2011, 01:04 PM:

quote: Aaron Garman
This brings up a good question: how reliable is IMDB? Is there a better source to find tech specs on a given movie?

These tech specs on IMDb are correct and most likely sourced from the December 2010 issue of American Cinematographer. AC would be your best bet for tech specs.

IMDb's data is only as reliable as the users submitting it, a good thing when the contributor(s) -- as in this case -- know what they're doing/talking about.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-19-2011, 01:53 PM:

quote: Aaron Garman
Is there a better source to find tech specs on a given movie?

Yes, there is a forum specifically for that information Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets. The problem is, the information is only going to be on this site if we all actively contribute the information as it becomes available to us. It's not like the information is not known.

quote: Darryl Spicer
I played the film and it is flat.

quote: Joe Redifer
Yup, 1:85.

See?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-19-2011, 03:03 PM:

Actually my post is wrong. It's 1.85:1, not 1:85.

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 01-19-2011, 06:32 PM:

Hi Folks:

Thanks for the replies....I saw it in San Francisco and my vivid recollection is that it was a scope film. I must be remembering wrong.

Mike

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-19-2011, 07:05 PM:

Yep it is 1.85:1, ran it pre-release at UC Irvine.

Posted by Mandy Moncayo (Member # 6040) on 01-19-2011, 10:56 PM:

We have digital and print versions...both flat.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 01-20-2011, 08:48 AM:

The NYC studio vault prints are 1.85, ran them for Academy Screenings.