logo Sign In

GundarkHunter

User Group
Members
Join date
10-Mar-2003
Last activity
9-Apr-2017
Posts
4,720

Post History

Post
#172505
Topic
T2 HDWMV isn't the full print
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/172505/action/topic#172505
Time
Jay is correct. The only place where a compromised frame [for pan-and-scan video transfers] is used in Cameron's films is where digital visual effects come into play. These effects shots were composed for a 2.0:1 A/R, so you'll see obvious panning and scanning in these shots. Why not do effects for the full Super 35 frame? Cost. It is much cheaper to do effects for only the part of the frame that is seen in theatres than for the full Super 35 frame. You'll notice if you watch T2 or Titanic in the "fullscreen" version [hate that term] that the top and bottom is opened only slightly for the effects shots, but you'll see much more of the top and bottom of the frame in non-effects shots.

As for Kubrick, I'm almost certain that if he'd seen what today's hi-def displays are capable of producing, he would have authorised video versions of his films with both open matte and matted transfers.
Note: E.T. was not open matte. Allen Daviau shot with a 1.66:1 hard matte in the camera and composed his shots in a loose 1.75:1 A/R.
Post
#172425
Topic
T2 HDWMV isn't the full print
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/172425/action/topic#172425
Time
Originally posted by: eros
which is a high quality 16:9 format.

'Bout died when I read this. Super 35 is anything but high quality. It now approaches acceptable quality thanks to finer grain film stocks and greater lens use flexibility, but the quality is actually closer to matted 1.85:1 AR films. Cameron chooses to use this format because of its flexibility and video-conversion friendliness. Same with Peter Jackson and the LOTR films.

Quentin Tarantino used a modified version of Super 35 for the Kill Bill films, which is a 3 perf 2.0:1 native AR, converted to 2.35:1 for theatrical release and widescreen DVD. The graininess particularly shows in the B & W segments, but is part of the look of the film.

Post
#171842
Topic
spider-man 3
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/171842/action/topic#171842
Time
I enjoyed the 2nd film as well. The human drama was really there, and it was probably the best superhero film I'd seen since the original Superman, at the time. I think it still holds up well against Batman Begins, but Raimi has his work cut out for him to top Chris Nolan. The casting of Topher Grace will not only make or break this franchise, but make or break Grace's career.
Post
#171840
Topic
Best movies of 05
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/171840/action/topic#171840
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Length is based solely on the content of the movie, so if one film is 90 minutes long, I can like it just as long as I like another film that's 3 hours long. The problem is when people try to tell 90 minute long stories in a 3 hour movie, or vice versa.

Amen, brother. I could come up with a fairly lengthy list of films that dragged on and could have been told in less than 2 hours *cough*Meet Joe Black*cough*King Kong*cough*.

Post
#171781
Topic
Best movies of 05
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/171781/action/topic#171781
Time
Originally posted by: sybeman
If I'm paying $10 bucks for a movie ticket these days, it damned well better be three hours long!


I disagree. If I can see a good 90 minute film for $10, I'll take that any day over a bloated 3-hour "epic". The problem with Hollywood in terms of entertainment value is not quantity, but quality. People who have enjoyed King Kong have told me it was way too long.

We need to get out of the Wal-Mart/Costco mentality that large quantities at low prices=good. With some commodities, that is true, but not entertainment.