This is topic Apocalypse Now DVD in forum The Afterlife 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=12;t=000319

---

Posted by Robert John Jeromson (Member # 2559) on 07-21-2004, 08:37 PM:
 
Hi, can anybody explain why Apcoalpse Now (the redux and the previous) are not available on DVD in their original 2.35:1 aspect ratio, I know that originally there were 70mm prints struck but even at their current 2:1 DVD ratio their not a 70mm ratio either.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-21-2004, 09:48 PM:
 
Because this is the preferred ratio (for this film)of cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, who personally supervised the transfer. He has said this was how he composed the film, and the rest of the image was wasted space.
 

---

Posted by Robert John Jeromson (Member # 2559) on 07-21-2004, 11:34 PM:
 
I see, thanks for that
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-22-2004, 10:20 AM:
 
Storaro and aspect ratios:

http://www.zoetrope.com/zoe_films.cgi?action=show_one&film_id=13

quote:

---

Question: Why is the aspect ratio of the Apocalypse Now Redux DVD not the 2.35:1 ratio of the cinematic release?

Answer:
(by Kim Aubry, Producer of Apocalypse Now Redux)

In fact, the transfer of Apocalypse Now Redux (from film elements to High Definition digital videotape) was made with an aspect ratio of 2.0:1. This is consistent with the 1998 transfer of the original film Apocalypse Now done for DVD.

The aspect ratio 2.0:1 was chosen by the cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, who supervised every aspect of this film transfer. Storaro believes that for the purpose of TV transfer, it is better to crop (slightly) the extreme left/right edges of the originally photographed frame and allow for a taller picture on both conventional and 16:9 TV monitors, because the video presentation will have more vertical resolution and detail and will be more impactful.

An orthodox 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 transfer would in some ways be a more accurate reflection of the framing seen in most cinemas, but the picture would be using only approximately 50% of the available scanning lines of the NTSC and PAL systems and hence have very limited vertical resolution. Storaro believes that since he himself composed these shots when the film was made and since he carefully made fine adjustments to the framing as needed in the transfer, the 2.0:1 transfer is the best possible compromise in adapting the very wide film picture to the very "square" TV.

Mr Coppola and I agree with Storaro's views and accepted his decision.

You are right to wonder about the discrepancy between the theatrical trailer and the feature itself. But the feature is not 1.85:1, it is 2.0:1. The transfer of the trailer was not supervised by Storaro, and was done using the conventional theatrical aspect of 2.35:1. It doesn't bother us, as this is considered a DVD "extra."

---

quote:

---

If all of this happens, then the future audio-visuals recorded in these two different ways will depend on the specific need of the story. Considering High Definition and 65mm, I think it would therefore be sensible to propose a new standard for both.A new aspect ratio that will fit future, present, and past compositional needs. Currently 65mm is set at an aspect ratio of 1: 2,21 and High Definition at about 1:1,79, so, if we remove the 0,21 from the 65mm, and if we add the same number on top of High Definition TV, we will have a perfect balance between the two: that is, 1:2.

---

quote:

---

Rather than simply bemoaning the problem, however, Storaro presents an alternative called "Univisium," a new composition standard with an aspect ratio of 1:2. "It will allow us to readily compose any new image in the future without being affected by the media used or the screen on which it will be projected."

---

 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-22-2004, 01:01 PM:
 
Interesting info John. But nevertheless, hasn't video (DVD in particular) advanced enough to enjoy both the wide aspect ratio and the proper resolution? Look at releases like the Extended editions of Lord of the Rings or even the Indiana Jones Boxset: both roughly 2.35:1 and the detail and resolution are excellent for DVD. I can see Storaro's point of view if he was working with VHS or even Laserdisc, but with DVD and future high definition formats on the horizon, doesn't this make his point somewhat moot?

AJG
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-22-2004, 03:51 PM:
 
When the director and/or cinematographer supervise the transfer for DVD release, you have to go with their artistic judgement. Not everyone has a high quality monitor or television, so 2.39:1 letterbox sometimes suffers.
 

---

Posted by Robert John Jeromson (Member # 2559) on 07-22-2004, 03:53 PM:
 
Then why do they choose to compose for a cinema screen at 2.35 - 2.40 in the first place, surely it would be simpler to choose to shoot at 1.85:1 and preserve the integrity of the original composition.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-22-2004, 03:57 PM:
 
Because they feel that 2.39:1 (or 70mm 2.20:1) looks best on a BIG theatre screen.

Some feel a 2.39:1 letterboxed image just isn't sharp enough on the typical home receiver, so they are willing to crop the sides to get more image height.
 

---

Posted by Robert John Jeromson (Member # 2559) on 07-22-2004, 04:09 PM:
 
Do you believe that in a lot of cases Super 35 has resolved this issue, by that I mean giving cinematogaphers and directors the flexibility to choose an aspect ratio for each application?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-22-2004, 05:04 PM:
 
Personally, I think the reasoning is assine. One should maintain the original ratio. While yes, a perfectly running "TV" with a theoretical max resolution of 480 lines will only allow just over 270 lines for a nominal 2.35 picture...changing it to 2:1 only gets you to 320 or so lines. Big deal...you are not seeing the original composition. Furthermore, the future of 4:3 monitors is coming to an end...heck they my go before film

So on a 16:9 monitor...even if it is only 480 lines...your 2.35 nominal picture will be up to just over 360 lines or about 75% of the screen filled.

Now consider this...many of the wide screen systems understand some of the basic ratios...4:3, 16:9 and some even understand 1.85 and 2.35 with anamorphic lenses...so you have a ratio that is not in common use (filming wise) just because it makes a soon to be obsolete format look better? It makes no sense.

Have you ever noticed that when TV zooms in a scope film, even before you notice people are being left off the left and right sides, all of the perspectives look wrong...everything has a magnified feel.

If you shot it scope...leave it that way...technology will catch up...eventually.

I know I could give Apocolypse Now 768 "lines" with a 2.35:1 ratio with my home projector now (1366 x 768 projector with an anamorphic lens and scaler to bring the 480 DVD up to 768).

Steve

Steve
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-22-2004, 10:24 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Personally, I think the reasoning is assine.

---

Then you should tell Signor Storaro of your opinion.

Since he is the one who composed the images, he has the most right to his opinion.

(Since I have a good monitor, I would have most preferred the original 70mm theatrical aspect ratio of 2.20:1 in this case.)
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-23-2004, 09:12 AM:
 
Given the chance...I most certainly would. He should look at the clip on TCM...where they discuss perserving the orignal aspect ratios.

I never feel that once a film is released that it should be altered except maybe to add lost scenes...particularly if they were cut by the studio. I don't support Lucasfilm mucking around with Star Wars either. I sensible copyright law would force the copyright holder to turn over to the public domain the previous work if such a change is made.

If 2.0 was the best ratio for AN...then it should have been shot and shown that way (perhaps Edwards Theatres were ahead of their time). To say otherwise is hand-waving at its finest.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-23-2004, 07:57 PM:
 
What the world needs is Guttagscope... That new no-nonsense format that can only be run the way it was filmed and cannot be transfered to other commonly used film formats.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-23-2004, 09:56 PM:
 
I LIKE it!

Steve
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-24-2004, 02:09 AM:
 
This reminds me of the DVD release of The Recruit, where the DVD was 1.85:1 and the theatrical presentation was 2.35:1. Sure, you will get more information in this case but why didn't they just release it theatrically this way? The only reason I could assume is that a scope image looks better theatrically than does a flat image in my experience. Also, if we can get Lawrence on DVD at 2.20:1 and it looks amazing, why can't we get AN the same way?!

AJG
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 08-02-2004, 03:20 PM:
 
This 2:1 stuff is big BS. If APOCALYPSE NOW was meant to be seen in that aspect ratio back then, it would have been easy to put a black border to the sides of the picture during release printing.

Jacques tati did it with PLAYTIME, you could simply use a special aperture plate in the camera.

Even in the 70mm APOCALYPSE prints there was no matting, although the optical blow up process would have made this easy. I saw the Redux version just a few weeks ago, and there is not a single shot that would look better in 2:1. During the last years, Storraro has done a lot of promoting his own format which is compatible with nothing, neither theatrical scope, 70mm, special venue formats, HDTV or 16:9.

His claim that 2:1 makes for better composition or more natural viewing is laughable, reminding me of the 1950s discussions whether CinemaScope or VistaVision had the "more natural" composition.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-02-2004, 08:21 PM:
 
Christian,
Your refrence to comparing the "more natural" Cinemascope vs. VistaVision aspect ratios leaves me a bit confused. What VistaVision aspect ratio are you thinking about? It could be shown in several different ratios and it would appear that either 1:85 or 1:66 were the two commonly used ratios for VV extraction. Neither are very close to the CS aspect ratio. Also, back when they might have been comparing these two processes the common CS aspect ratio was actually 2.55 to 1 as many CS films were straight mag releases for the first couple of years. After that some were released in both straight mag, and mag/optical .

I will refer you to the VV specification page at the Wide Screen museum so you can digest all the different aspect ratios that VV typically produced and the circumstances for using them.
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vvspecs.htm

BTW: The CS vs VV thing is not even a debate and VV wins hands down because its actually a large film format due to of its usable image area. It also lacked any of the distortions that were inherent in CS of the era. Gee, Paramount saw what other studios did and developed something far superior.

BTW: Many of the 1930's 70mm films were 2 to 1 aspect ratio because of the optical sound track they carried on the print. I don't have any problem with 2 to 1 but I would'nt expect it to become commmon place today. Possibly used for special cases though.

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 08-04-2004, 05:41 PM:
 
Hi Mark,

somewhere in a pile of photocopied (but never properly sorted) articles and technical papers from the 1950s, I have a 1954 ad from Paramount. On the front page there is an image of dancers on a stage, and a rounded "field-of-view" is superimposed over the picture in dotted lines. The tagline says that the Vistavision gives a more natural angle of view and a "more pleasing" frame when compared to other wide screen processes (all that translated into German, so I cannot say what the original leaflet may have said).
The only A.R. advertised was 1.85:1 with the option of going up to 2:1, no mention was made of the other common VV release print formats.

Certainly VV produces a sharper picture than CinemaScope, but I would say that the angle of view is first determined by the taking lens on the camera, not by the negative image size or aspect ratio. When the film is projected, size of screen and the viewer's distance to it decide how the image will be perceived.

I think the question which wide screen system gave the "most natural" look was a mistake in concept because the very idea of wide screen was to make use of peripheral vision and to render the borders of the screen "psychologically invisible". Therefore, I believe that the question should not have been which aspect ratio gave a "better" frame, but how great resolution and angle of vision need to be to create a real-looking projected image.
(IMAX does not have a very wide A.R., but it fills the angle of view and has high-resolution images, so it gives a realistic viewing experience, most effective when wide-angle photography is used).

What I wanted to say was that Storraro's explanation of how 2:1 is supposed to be more convenient than 2.39 or 1.85 or whatever does not really make sense. Personally, I do believe that he made up his theory long after the fact, not when APOCALYPSE NOW was shot. This kind of mythical explanations tend to live forever among DVD collectors and on internet forums...

BTW, I love VistaVision, was totally blown away when I saw a 35mm dye transfer print of THE SEARCHERS a decade ago, and sadly job matters kept me from traveling to Bologna/Italy to see some vintage VV prints this summer, among them my favourite Lewis/Martin comedy ARTISTS AND MODELS (1955). I wonder if I'll ever see Shirley MacLaine's gorgeous legs in Technicolor & dye transfer?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-30-2004, 09:31 AM:
 
Christian,

I think that any DP has to shoot dfilm for a number of years in the many different formats before he can decide whats really the most practicle thing. I have to wonder if Storaros feelings were also biased by HDTV's aspect of 16X9 in which 2 to 1 would loose very little, or very little would be left blank on the TV screen. While the other way around it is very close to a current large format cinema standard of 2.2 to 1. What ever his reasons may be I am sure they are good ones.

As to VistaVision and its brethern....Technirama and such. In general VistaVision had better depth of field for a given angle of view than even Todd-AO did, with the exception of the bug eye lens which was rarely used and retired early on because of its inherent distortion. The frame size of VV dictates the use of a series of shorter focal lentgh lenses than Todd-AO to achieve the same degrees of coverage in a given frame. Shorter focal length lenses always have greater depth of field than do longer lengths. When it cames to Technirama the same VV aspects apply but with Super Technirama the squeeze was minor compared to other anamorphic systems and as a result there was much greater depth of field available if and when needed. Just about every VV, Technirama or Super Technirama film I've watched shows impressive depth of field for its drame coverage unless the director intentionally did not want it that way(Hitchcock for instance). The other benefit the VV system had in its heydays was the use of the famous Leica camera lenses which were undoutedly the finest glass made back in those days.... of course there is better now though.

"Artists and Models" was the first I.B. Tech film I ever aquired as a collector. Its not that great of a film and believe me Technicolor is the real star of it!! Eventually the edge of the film fell off and the print became un-runnable. Which is only one reason why I don't collect film any more and have not for quite some time..... vinegar is another reason and so on.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 09-02-2004, 09:39 AM:
 

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

When it cames to Technirama the same VV aspects apply but with Super Technirama the squeeze was minor compared to other anamorphic systems and as a result there was much greater depth of field available if and when needed.

---

Hm, I see what you mean when VV/Technirama is compared to Todd-AO, but which other anamorphic system do you mean?

The lower anamorphic squeeze will certainly improve sharpness and minimize correction problems compared to 2:1 lenses. But VistaVision and Technirama have the same depth of field rendering because the anamorphic lens does not change that at all.

The same goes for 35mm formats: A 50mm anamorphic lens has exactly the same D.O.F. as a spherical lens of the same focal length.
The smaller the format, the greater D.O.F. will be, so a 35mm film shot with a 40mm anamorphic lens will have a greater D.O.F. than a VistaVision/Technirama film shot with a lens of the same horizontal angle, provided the same f-stop is maintained for both.
But I agree with you, on the screen most Technirama films have deep focus, maybe cinematographers just used more light than for an average scope movie, and by stopping down, the depth of field was enhanced.

You are perfectly right about ARTISTS AND MODELS, but Ms. MacLaine's dancing must have made a great impression on me in my formative years - too late to change it. Still, I find the scene with the evil child at the comic book editor's office very funny.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-09-2004, 08:41 PM:
 
"The same goes for 35mm formats: A 50mm anamorphic lens has exactly the same D.O.F. as a spherical lens of the same focal length."

That is definately not true. A scope lens will have much less depth of field at the same apeature as its equivelent spherical focal length, partly due to the fact that anamorphic lenses don't really focus like a spherical lens... you are really adjusting both an actual focus for the back up lens and an astigmatism adjustment for the anamorphic section. lenses with less squeeze such as Technirama also have way less inherent astigmatism. I can state this from experience having owned quite a few anamorphic camera lenses. The lack of depth of field on scope lenses is one of the main reasons for the existance of Super 35 and like formats where spherical lenses excel in depth, and they are much lighter and cheaper to rent. A good film to watch for anamorphic depth of focus effect is the later "Cape Fear" which was shot anamorphic. A good customer of mine pulled focus on that film. Take a look at the scene in the darkened bedroom where the camera is in constant motion around the actors.... That was the most difficult focus pull my customer ever did out of a boatload of anamorphic films he's worked on... and they did that scene in one take. That shot is a good example of how critical focus is with anamorphics.

For a great VV depth of field shot just watch "The Searchers" at the beginning and end shots where the camera moves through the open door going outside.... the door jam stays in focus all they way past the camera....within inches.... its almost a 3D sensation seeing it even in lousy a 35mm reduction. Its a really neat shot and one of the best examples of how great the depth of focus can be with that format!! You kind of feel like you're being pushed on a rolling chair through that door.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-09-2004, 09:51 PM:
 
So, why the heck isn't the "Hearts of Darkness" documentary available on any home format except for crappy VHS? It's a fantastic documentary and well worth watching for any fan of the film. It had a limited theatrical release in the early '90s (35mm prints do exist) and played on PBS; one would hope that it will be made available on DVD at some point.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-09-2004, 10:37 PM:
 
IMHO, Paramount should have done some negotiating and had the "Hearts of Darkness" documentary included in the "Apocalypse Now" DVD package. I still bought the original DVD when it was released. But if the documentary had been included in something like a 2-disc special edition package the "Apocalypse Now" DVD release would have been much more significant.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 09-12-2004, 04:28 PM:
 
Mark, I believe that both the "ASC Manual" and Samuelson's "Hand-On Manual for Cinematographers" recommend using the same DOF tables for spherical and anamorphic lenses of the same focal length. Let me quote cinematographer David Mullen, ASC (who lensed many anamorphic features) from a cameraguild.com forum thread:

cameraguild.com thread

quote:

---

Re: Anamorphic Lenses
Author: David Mullen, ASC (---.dialup.mindspring.com)
Date: 04-26-04 21:26

Scope lenses have a 2X squeeze (compression) horizontally, making it pretty easy to figure this out. It sees twice as much horizontally compared to a spherical lens of the same focal length.

Basically a 50mm anamorphic lens has the horizontal view of a 25mm lens but the vertical view of a 50mm lens (hence why most people just use the same depth of field charts for anamorphic lenses.)

What's "normal" is a matter of debate. Since anamorphic lenses "feel" more wide-angle because of their greater horizontal view, the tendency is to use longer lenses (hence the lower depth of field many people notice.) Although early CinemaScope movies used the anamorphic lens as a way of seeing wider and thus did not use long lenses much (except for Kurosawa's scope movies.)

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

the original B&L anamorphic camera prismatic attachment and the later cylindrical anamorphic attachments were meant to be used only with prime lenses of 50mm focal length and up

---