Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Format for "The Matrix"

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Format for "The Matrix"

Author

Topic: Format for "The Matrix"

Randy Loy
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 156

Registered: Aug 1999

posted 10-14-2000 08:24 AM

I give up! Does anybody know if "The Matrix" is a flat or scope picture? One of the performing arts centers I volunteer at has booked it for a November screening and the exhibitor relations contact our Executive Director spoke with couldn't tell her if it is a 1:85 or 2:35 format. I tried web searches, such as movie reviews at BOXOFFICE on-line, but am coming up empty. Anybody got any data on it? If it's scope we need to do some quick work on our screen masking!

| IP: Logged

Antonio Marcheselli
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1260
From: Florence, Italy
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 10-14-2000 08:42 AM

Matrix is 2.35

Bye
Antonio

| IP: Logged

Martin Frandsen
Master Film Handler

Posts: 270
From: Denmark, Europe
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-14-2000 08:54 AM

Yes THE MATRIX is in scope, http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0133093 i would not like to see a action film like THE MATRIX in 1.85 btw, would not look good. Randy, you can always find information about nearly everything about film on The internet movie database. Did anyone no that there are plans for release of THE MATRIX 2 & 3 in 2002?

| IP: Logged

Randy Loy
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 156

Registered: Aug 1999

posted 10-14-2000 10:19 AM

Thanks for the info Antonio and Martin! I bookmarked the Internet Movie Database site for future use.

Martin, I agree with you regarding action films looking best in wide-screen. I suspected that "The Matrix" was probably an anamorphic print but wanted to be sure. Thanks again guys!

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 10-14-2000 03:52 PM

Someone (I forget who) pointed out that films with lots of digital effects are sometimes made in 1.85 because it would be too expensive to generate them in 2.39. And with many theaters using adjustable top masking for scope, the "big screen" effect is lost.

I don't even want to know what a fully-rendered 65mm frame would cost!

| IP: Logged

Ari Nordström
Master Film Handler

Posts: 283
From: Göteborg, Sweden
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 10-14-2000 04:12 PM

Well, consider the next Star Wars movie. That Sony camera they've used for most of the shoot doesn't have the 2.35 aspect ratio so the final on the screen-resolution is even less than what it would have to be...

Lucas should release the film on video instead.

| IP: Logged

Steve Scott
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1300
From: Minneapolis, MN
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 10-14-2000 06:48 PM

Chances are, if they did do a 1.85 print of The Matrix, it probably would look better, seeing as it was filmed in Super 35.
What super 35 is, basically, is the filming of the movie without anamorophic lenses, so the director can choose where he/she wants the scope image positioned at on the original footage.

James Camereon would use this for his 70mm films to also make a flat 70mm image for movies like The Abyss and T2 (there were actually very few 70mm prints of either made).

The point is that when they do this, the 1.85 frame has more top & bottom picture than the scope frame.

This is also done a lot for making fal and scope trailers from the same master print.

------------------
"Trying is the first step towards failure!"
-Homer Simpson

| IP: Logged

Steven Gorsky
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 146
From: Frederick, MD, USA
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 10-15-2000 05:07 AM

The Internet Movie Database seems correct for most films, but I noticed it says Meet The Parents ( http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0212338 ) is scope instead of flat. Just so people know there are possible errors.

Steven Gorsky

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-19-2000 11:40 AM

Steve Scott you are incorrect regarding looking better if projected 1.85:1
The grain visable on a cinema screen is mainly the prints not the camera negs
The projectable area of a anamorphic print is substantially larger than that of 1.85:1 and as such less grain is visable on the screen (this is very apparent in 70mm blowups form super35 or anamorphic prints that always look sharper and less grainy than their 35mm cousins)
Also the larger apperture allows more light to pass through the projector as well as the film's larger area to absorb more radiant energy.

| IP: Logged

Tom Kroening
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 214
From: Janesville, WI USA
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 10-19-2000 08:10 PM

I've never seen a "main house" have top screen masking. We have top and bottom masking in all the bitch houses thoough. With 18 screens (8 of which have top masking) it shouldn't be THAT hard to keep scope prints out of those houses. I keep telling the manager that does the bookings to schedule the flicks with these priorities.

1. Number of seats
2. Sound format
3. Masking

of course special conditions such as broken A/C take over, but you all know that! We can't have 400 people in a hot auditorium.. they'd buy too many drinks ; ).

| IP: Logged

Christopher Seo
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 530
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-20-2000 01:32 AM

Top-only masking is becoming very common here, even in the largest houses at the multiplex (which aren't THAT large, after all). 1.85 suffers the worst, since to make the Scope screen size halfway decent the resulting Flat screen is a ludicrous wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling deal which when combined with the shakiness of modern Simplexes provides a generally disgusting experience.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 10-20-2000 02:50 AM

IMDB must have corrected it, because it says 1.85 now.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 10-30-2000 10:42 AM

Best practice is to maintain constant picture height between scope and flat, with adjustable side masking. Projecting scope and flat with a common picture width just makes the deficiencies of the flat format (less brightness, more graininess) more obvious, since you have to magnify the smaller frame much more. The Kodak SCREENCHECK program rates common image height an "A" and common image width a "C". Non-adjustable masking is a "D" and no masking rates an "F".

IMHO, pictures made in scope are MEANT to be bigger, to have more impact.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.