The second issue I have is with the increasingly popular Super35 filming format. What is the point of shooting a film flat (albeit with a slightly larger frame area) and then cropping it to the 2.4 aspect ratio instead of just using an anamorphic lens? With super 35 you get more grain and lower resolution, not to mention I dislike the fact that you actually see more image on video than you do in theaters. It can't be a cost issue- Titanic, Independence Day and Gladiator used it. So WHY??

------------------
"I could never be a woman. I'd just sit at home and play with my breasts all day."

This will NEVER happen!!!!!!!!! Why not? because it makes sense! Our industry frowns upon things that make sense.

 |  IP: Logged

C.

I copied this from a posting by a guy (David Mullen) at r.a.m.t. I would like to meet him someday; he seems very knowedgable and is always very clear with explanations;

-------------------
"-snip-.....[anamorphic lenses like] Arriscopes, Hawks, Powerscopes, Technovision, Todd-AO, Clairmont, JDC, etc. They all vary in terms of sharpness, speed, distortion, matching, breathing, flaring, minimum focus, etc. You make tests to determine which you want to use.

For example, I know someone who tested the Arriscopes and said they were incredibly sharp (sharper than Hawks) with no flare problems but were also really big & heavy and breathed badly when focused -- while the Hawks flared badly but hardly breathed when focusing."
---------------------

Anyway, the point is that some directors would rather sacrifice grain for the "look" of flat. I don't think this is a *really* bad thing, if other factors are carefully done (copying the negatives, good optical printer lenses when formating for release prints, etc.) Carefully done, film can yeild a very high quality image, even after blowing it up.
Hey, shooting in 65mm would be my choice, but that's not going to happen.

I used to really like the idea of release prints with 1.5 squeeze for 1.85. And, it still not a bad idea. But now its just too much work for all the theater.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

I did find the Saving P. Ryan issue, couldn't track down the Titanic issue though. For the benefit of our beloved readers:

From AC, August 1998, Quothe Spielberg:

"To me, widescreen formats like CinemaScope were a Hollywood invention of the 1950's. I find widescreen to be an artificial aspect ratio, whereas 1.85 more closely approximates the way the human eye really sees, in the sense that we seeas high to low as we do from side to side. If I hadto make a choice, I'd rather see from high to low. I think the most human perspective is [the range] from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1. The slickest format for theaters is 2.35:1. I've chosen 1.85:1 for my last four pictures because they were intended tobe more lifelike."

To each his own, I guess. But I wonder what he means by "slick." Personally, I prefer the look of anamorphic. I don't know what it is but I think it just looks better then super35- depth of field? I dunno. If you compare a couple of DVDs (I admit I bought one) like Mask of Zorro with Mystery Alska, thelatter just LOOKS cropped, and zorro doesn't. What is it exactly between spherical and anamorphic that results in such a different look?

I hadn't heard of the 1.5x squeeze before, and what a fantastic idea! That ain't gonna happen, but why not the trailer format? There isn't a single change that would be needed.

Thanks all-

Brett

The term "depth of field" has nothing to do with screen dimensions. It is related with the focal distance of a certain lens. If you are involved somehow with photography it is easy to understand. By closing the aperture (less light passes through the lens) more area behind - and front from the subject is in focus. On the contrary by opening the aperture only the subject remains sharp and the rest is out of focus.
An anamorphic lens uses many elements (spherical plus anamorphic - cylidrical- adapter), so the light passing through it
is less than a standard lens. Considering this you have to open the aperture (more area out of focus) or put more and stronger light sources to have the same results with a flat lens.

C.

The Titanic issue of American Cinematographer is Vol.78 No 12, december 1997.

Indiana Jones 4 will be in scope though, thank goodness...can you imagine a 1.85:1 Indy? AAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH.....!

Phew!

------------------
"I could never be a woman. I'd just sit at home and play with my breasts all day."

Steve Martin - L.A. Story

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged