- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!
Star Wars Pan Scan — Page 2
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Studio should not force a filmmaker to pan scan. Its like a muesum cuting a painting in half to fit it on there wall properly.
just as Lucas should not limit us to just the SE of the film...
thats like throwing out the Mona Lisa cause room must be made for new age art...
ahhh i love analogies
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
tell you what.. write the man a letter and when you get a reply thats when i will give you any credit whatsoever...
hint hint
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: jimbo
Get this on Terminator 3 not only does fullscreen show more on the top and bottoms get this. A couple shots fullscreen shows more on the sides. Warning there is some nudity for the scemise and the gay. Heres proof. During the effects shots they were framed in 1.85 so the widescreen shows more on the sides but the fullscreen version shows a bit more on the top. So effects shots were done in Super 35 and the rest was soft matte.
I really don't get what you're saying. T3 was shown theatrically at 2.35:1. It's filming process was Super 35, for everything, not just the effects shots. If it was soft matted, it would have been 1.85:1.
And stop going on about the nudity. You really are 16... (I'm 17, but whatever
) Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: jimboQuote
Originally posted by: WarblerQuote
Yes but correct me if I'm wrong althought you're seeing everything the director shot, not everthing that the director shot is somthing that he/she wants you to see. Which is why even in this case the Widescreen print is stlll the correct version. I think anyway.
I disagree. Many widescreen fans say this but I think that whichever version shows more of the shot picture. For example in Terminator 3 only the fullscreen version has any nudity. Kristanna Loken breast are not shown in widescreen. Why on earth would the directer not want you to see this. Hell even some effects shots look better in fullscreen. In the making of it showed how they animated the water below the Hunter Killer and talked for 5 minutes on how they did this. When it shows the final shot in 2.35 widescreen the water below the hunter killer is not visible. Yes there are definutly movies where the fullscreen version is superior but not alot of them. Still this is about Star Wars that movie is clearly much better in widescreen.
The point when T3 was in the theater it was shown widescreen. If the director perfers the fullscreen version, why is the widescreen version the one being shown in the theaters?
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
Jimbo, for once you and I agree. And I don't need to click to anything to know why it sucks. I will never watch any Star Wars film in Pan and Scam ever again.
I will when it's my pre-THX remastered VHS set. Got all the matte lines in the full glory. Great stuff to watch in order to reminisce.
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: WarblerQuote
Originally posted by: jimboQuote
Originally posted by: WarblerQuote
Yes but correct me if I'm wrong althought you're seeing everything the director shot, not everthing that the director shot is somthing that he/she wants you to see. Which is why even in this case the Widescreen print is stlll the correct version. I think anyway.
I disagree. Many widescreen fans say this but I think that whichever version shows more of the shot picture. For example in Terminator 3 only the fullscreen version has any nudity. Kristanna Loken breast are not shown in widescreen. Why on earth would the directer not want you to see this. Hell even some effects shots look better in fullscreen. In the making of it showed how they animated the water below the Hunter Killer and talked for 5 minutes on how they did this. When it shows the final shot in 2.35 widescreen the water below the hunter killer is not visible. Yes there are definutly movies where the fullscreen version is superior but not alot of them. Still this is about Star Wars that movie is clearly much better in widescreen.
The point when T3 was in the theater it was shown widescreen. If the director perfers the fullscreen version, why is the widescreen version the one being shown in the theaters?
Because modern theaters aren't equipped to show 4:3 films.
Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: bad_karma24<br
I really don't get what you're saying. T3 was shown theatrically at 2.35:1. It's filming process was Super 35, for everything, not just the effects shots. If it was soft matted, it would have been 1.85:1.
And stop going on about the nudity. You really are 16... (I'm 17, but whatever
Thats what I thought to but I have compared my fullscreen version with widescreen internet shots and can't find a single one where fullscreen doesn't have any top to bottom benifit over widescreen. Fullscreen version has the same width but more on top and bottom in all live action shots. The movie was clearly filmed in 1.33. In effects shots like I said the making of feature shows how they digitally animated the water under the hunter killer but the final 2.35 shot the water is not visible but you see more of the city. The effects are all clearly made in 1.85 and cropped to 2.35. Why this was done I have no idea but the link I showed clearly shows its true. Though in widescreens defense most effects shots the added information is more interesting then the added information fullscreen gives. For example when the missles go off 3 missles get croped off in fullscreen but fullscreen justs shows more of the ground. Terminator 3 was the only time I ever chose a fullscreen DVD to a widescreen DVD and its ovious why.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: jimbo
Actually there are four processes
anamorphic print - shotting the movie in its theatrical ratio and cutting off the sides for fullscreen. Oviously movies shot in this make widescreen superior. What was done with Star Wars.
Hard matte - Filming in fullscreen. Cutting off top and bottom. then cutting off sides to fullscreen. Widescreen version is better.
Super 35 - shooting the movie in an inbetween ratio so that the widescreen and fullscreen versions are pan scaned equally. Its worth noting that most effects shots will be done in hard matte for these movies.
Open (Soft) matte - shooting movies in 1.33 and simply cutting of tops and bottoms to create widescreen. Again effects shots are done in hard matte.
For the record bad_karma24 only Terminator 2 was shot Super 35. Terminator 3 was shot in soft matte.
Once again, your lack of knowledge of filmic processes shows your overall ignorance. Hard matte is called that because the frame is actually matted during filming. For example, Allen Daviau shot E.T. with a 1.75:1 hard matte. Such a process precludes making an open matte fullscreen transfer because you are restricted to what was actually shot. Thus the sides have to be cropped in order to make the film fit the frame. The end result is that the transfer is grainy as hell because only 25-30% of the film frame is being used at any one time.
Star Wars and many other 2.35:1 films are shot in anamorphic widescreen. What this does is puts a 2:1 squeeze on the film as it is being shot. During projection, a compensating lens is used to unsqueeze the film to its wider dimensions, giving us a 2.35-2.40:1 aspect ratio. To convert this to pan and scan, once again you are restricted by what was originally shot, so you lose ~46% of the frame at any given time. The only major downside to shooting in anamorphic is the tremendous amount of light required for shooting with an anamorphic lens, which tends to make night shooting extremely difficult.
Super 35 is a completely different beast. Rising from the ashes of RKO's Superscope process, Super 35 shoots using the entire width of the film between the sprocket holes (no sound on film), so the shooting AR is ~1.6:1, depending on if the camera shoots 3 perf or 4 perf (if 3 perf, AR is 2:1). In post-production, special effects are composed in the 2:1 ratio to make effects shots less grainy in video transfers and to allow more flexibility in panning and scanning. When the film is shown in theatres, the camera negative is matted to (usually) 2.35:1 and optically compressed by an anamorphic lens to make the film compatible with projectors across the planet. Conversion to a 1.33:1 ratio is one consideration that filmmakers like about shooting in Super 35; the other is flexibility. Because Super 35 is shot with flat lenses, lower light levels are possible and smaller cameras can be used.
BTW, T3 was shot Super 35, just like T2. Other recent films shot in Super 35 include the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Kill Bill vols I &II, Gladiator, Hannibal, and Titus.
Here endeth the lesson.
Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: jimbo
I disagree. Many widescreen fans say this but I think that whichever version shows more of the shot picture. For example in Terminator 3 only the fullscreen version has any nudity. Kristanna Loken breast are not shown in widescreen. Why on earth would the directer not want you to see this. Hell even some effects shots look better in fullscreen. In the making of it showed how they animated the water below the Hunter Killer and talked for 5 minutes on how they did this. When it shows the final shot in 2.35 widescreen the water below the hunter killer is not visible.
Sounds like poor cinematography and bad matte choices to me. Perhaps after filming, the director decided that going further out to reveal the water ruined the focal points of the shot.
The director and cinematographer ultimately decide what belongs in a given frame and what should be thrown out. Just because an open matte transfer shows more of the film negative, it doesn't mean it's better. Good camera work results in tight, well-thought-out composition. Look at any Kubrick film for flawless cinematography; he was a nut for lines, angles, and symmetry. His Academy Ratio composition is genius, and completely destroyed when matted for 1.85:1 presentation. I'm glad Warner released his work in the intended aspect ratio rather than the theatrical aspect ratio. The Shining in anamorphic widescreen would've been awful. It would've been nice to have both versions though for comparison.
If the filmmaker composes a shot for 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 using Super35, removing the mattes for home video destroys the composition. You may see more, but it's not something you were ever meant to see anyway. It also wreaks havoc with special effects, which are usually done in the theatrical aspect ratio only (or close to it). When the film is transferred open matte for home video, special effects shots are typically cropped to 1.33:1 while the rest of the film is opened up.
Anybody here have The Goonies on DVD? I had never seen it in its original 2.35:1 presentation until the DVD's release, and it's a completely different experience. I thought it was awesome when I heard that Warner originally planned to release it as P&S only until Donner got wind of it and insisted it be presented in widescreen.
The director's vision should come first. The wants and needs of an ignorant moviegoing public should be irrelevant. The mighty dollar has the final say in most cases, unfortunately.
MTFBWY…A
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JayAnybody here have The Goonies on DVD? I had never seen it in its original 2.35:1 presentation until the DVD's release, and it's a completely different experience. I thought it was awesome when I heard that Warner originally planned to release it as P&S only until Donner got wind of it and insisted it be presented in widescreen.
I love that movie, and was very happy with the DVD.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Jay
The director's vision should come first. The wants and needs of an ignorant moviegoing public should be irrelevant. The mighty dollar has the final say in most cases, unfortunately.
Careful, Jay. This is one of the many arguments being raised by the pro-SE flamers who have been inhabiting this forum.
Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.
- Time
- Post link
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
However, I also support a director's right to modify his own work, including George Lucas. I don't protest the existence of the Special Editions. I've always been clear on that. I think Lucas has every right to make the changes he's made.
I do protest the refusal to release original versions, both for the sake of history and the fans. I find his desire to erase the original cuts from our collective memory abhorrent.
MTFBWY…A
- Time
- Post link
Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: bad_karma24
Because modern theaters aren't equipped to show 4:3 films.
Not true I've seen old pre widescreen movies in modern theaters shown 4:3.
- Time
- Post link
Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.
- Time
- Post link
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
You've peaked my interest.
I don't know how my mom found out about the movie, but she's been dying to see it. She's going to buy the DVD (would have preordered, but she's been very busy lately) from Amazon.
- Time
- Post link
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
I was attempting to put feelings of semi-disbelief into writing. I'm surprised to see the movie mentioned.
- Time
- Post link
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com