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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Of All MPAA films for 2002, how many were in flat or Scope ? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Of All MPAA films for 2002, how many were in flat or Scope ? Kamakshipalya Dhananjay Expert Film Handler Posts: 190 From: Bangalore, India Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-19-2003 12:43 AM                     It is somewhat surprising to note that the 1.85 : 1 films are mostly produced in the U.S. Will someone give figures, if they are available at all, on the number of films that came out of the MPAA in the year 2002 screen ratio wise ? Also, for other territories, would somebody have the figures like say for Hong Kong or Germany ?  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 04-19-2003 12:59 AM                     I'd suggest you look at Box Office Mojo. They list pretty much everything that gets significant US release, and provide financial and theatre-count information. Edit: When I first read your post, I thought your reference to "screen ratio" was about what fraction of screens in the US showed a particular film. But now I realize you mean the aspect ratios in use. I guess you're best off using the IMDB's information. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Kamakshipalya Dhananjay Expert Film Handler Posts: 190 From: Bangalore, India Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-19-2003 01:16 AM                     Oh yes ! I meant the screen aspect ratio. But IMDB used to be complete and accurate once. Not any more. They do not list the technical specifications for several released films. So, I wonder if any survey was ever made by anyody at all.  |  IP: Logged Dustin Mitchell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1865 From: Mondovi, WI, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 04-19-2003 02:41 AM                     I don't know about 2002, but 2003 has been the year of scope so far, at least for our theatre (which admittably doesnt' get all wide releases due to competition). Currently we are playing 10 scope movies and 3 flat.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 04-19-2003 10:01 AM                    Sadly, about 2/3 of the Scope releases are Super 35 blow-ups, not from anamorphic photography. Some look very good, some not so good, but always relatively grainy. Nothing short of 65mm looks as nice as a crisp and creamy smooth true anamorphic Scope print.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 04-19-2003 01:02 PM                    since the inception of the use of super 35 the number of scope films has increased over the years. Super 35 is an easier concept to use than the anamorphic concept because you do not have added bulkiness of the lenses and the extra cost. However you do loose or take a chance on loosing conceptual information in the optical transfer process. Mainly related to focuse issues. last year I seemed to be running a far greater amount of scope films than I did flat.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Mehocic Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 804 From: New Castle, PA, USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-19-2003 01:08 PM                     I have on record the aspect ratios (flat/scope) for the 127 films we received last year. If you are interested I will email the info to you.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-19-2003 01:40 PM                        I'm not a fan of super 35 (I'd rather see 65mm or VistaVision used as a production format for feature films), but I will admit that the picture quality of films originated in super 35 has improved significantly in the last decade or so (since I started paying attention to such things). I used to associate super 35 with "grainy"; now, I tend to think of it as "scope with a little more grain and without anamorphic lens artifacts." It's probably a good thing that the format exists, as it provides a way for filmmakers to choose the scope aspect ratio when limitations of anamorphic lenses (too heavy and big for extensive handheld shooting) would make it very difficult to shoot in the format. I assume that improvements in camera lenses, film stock, and optical printing have been responsible for the improvement in scope release prints from super 35 negative. One of the best-looking films released in 2002 was "8 Mile" which was shot in super 35; it was very sharp and not excessively grainy. It's too bad that all prints from super 35 negative don't look this good.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-19-2003 02:21 PM                     One of the big problems I have with Super35 is very few movies shot in the process actually compose for the frame properly. They just sort of compose for different aspect ratios at once. The movie kind of works in widescreen and kind of works in home video "fullscreen." But it doesn't seem very dynamic in either frame. When cinematographers make the courageous choice and shoot true anamorphic, they have to consider using the frame properly. That's not to say anamorphic shot films have not been compromised either. I've seen plenty of 'scope-shot films in the 1980s and 1990s place their content in safe area for more friendly pan-and-scan work. Robert Zemeckis talked about the extra work involved in truly composing for 'scope on the "Forrest Gump" DVD commentary track. The extra work does pay off and create a much more dynamic, sweeping frame. Outside of the work of James Cameron and David Fincher, I see very few films using the 2.39:1 frame in Super35 properly. Most is just bland, watered down half-composition.  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 04-19-2003 03:08 PM                     One excellent example of framing in the middle was the 1950's An Affair to Remember. This was WEIRD, since it was way before these films were sold to TV, but EVERYTHING was kept in the center of the frame, making the surounding areas wasted space. I have to agree with Bobby here. A lot of 80's films (oh, JUST around the time of home video taking off)and some truly hideous compositions. Fortunately, this seems to be going by the wayside now that letterboxing and wide screen TV's are becoming the norm.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-19-2003 03:28 PM                     Put in a letterbox copy of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Now get two pieces of tape and place them vertically on your tv screen where the 1.33 cropping mark would have been and watch the entire opening scene with River Phoenix. This will allow you to see what a centered 1.33 image would look like as well as still being able to see what is being cropped off (assuming no panning for the video transfer). With the exception of I think 2 shots there is no need to pan and scan the frame at all. Even those 2 shots are extreme edge framed such that it would still fit effortlessly on a tv. I'm betting Spielberg and Lucas went 'round and 'round on that one with George demanding scope and Steve insisting to frame for video. Framing like that sucks, but I would welcome it any day over a 1.85 release. If nothing else, at least the 35mm prints have the benefit of more print real estate which translates into brighter and sharper pictures than 1.85 can produce.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 04-19-2003 03:55 PM                        Size DOES matter. Bigger IS better. The larger the frame, the less the magnification --- better sharpness, less graininess. 1.85:1 "flat" wastes image area and light: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/evolution.htm  |  IP: Logged Kamakshipalya Dhananjay Expert Film Handler Posts: 190 From: Bangalore, India Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-20-2003 05:47 AM                     Thanks Aaron Mehocic. email : dhananjaykv@indiatimes.com I wonder if anybody is here who knows the scenario at Europe.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Mehocic Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 804 From: New Castle, PA, USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-22-2003 01:45 PM                     Information forthcoming. Cannot access e-mail. I use public computers because I'm to stupid to figure out why I can't get my home computer's internet wizard to work. Stay tuned  |  IP: Logged Mike Perju Film Handler Posts: 90 From: Toronto, Canada Registered: Nov 2002 posted 04-23-2003 11:50 AM                     55% of all US films are released in 1.85  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.