|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Shrek 2 Aspect Ratio
|
John Hawkinson
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/1135b.jpg)
Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 05-20-2004 11:03 PM
Is this really 1.85:1? Over in the FITA, Brad points me at the reel ID db. It looks like 1.66:1 there to me.
I measure 85pixels x 52 pixels, which is 1.63:1. Then, measuring the ratio of 1 perf's pitch to the width, I get 136pixels/18pixels (7.{5}), and it should be 7.37 (35/25.4/.187), that's a 1.025 distortion. Applying that to 1.63:1 yields 1.67:1 (pretty close to 1.66:1).
So, is it really 1.85:1?
--jhawk
p.s.: The question of which A/R to show it in is, of course, different, but it's hard for me to imagine animated features have elements that the animators would rather we crop out...
(Joe's edit was to move this from Yak, I guess; oh, and to expand the topic title from "A/R" to "Aspect Ratio" [ 05-21-2004, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: John Hawkinson ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/248b.jpg)
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-22-2004 10:10 AM
I remember running BEAUTY AND THE BEAST which was hard-matted at 1.85, contrary to the SMPTE Recommended Practice, I might add. It became painfully apparent that this feature was animated full frame and with the TV/Cable video market as the prime audience. Thing is, the animators didn't keep that 1.85 safe; there were shots where heads and chins were chopped off and composition looked claustrophobic through out. Had this print been hard matted at 1.66, I would gladly have projected it that way.
I later was able to get both a letterboxed Laserdisc version and a full frame VHS version and ran them side by side. Sure enough, the full-frame looked perfect -- framed so that heads were composed properly whereas the letterbox version was simply the masked full-frame image without any attempt to recenter. And indeed, there was no way you could recenter the closeup shots because they filled the 1.37 frame perfectly.
Funny how at one time it was the theatrical version that was the primary focus of the cinematographer -- whatever happened in the video realm was, well, whatever. We seem to have slowly moved in the other direction, where what used to be called the ancillary market, video, that's what the film is created for. At times, the theatrical release seems to be nothing more than an overblown advertisement for the real meat-and-potatoes....the video market.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/1170e.jpg)
Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 05-23-2004 11:18 AM
I thought NEMO was hard-matted for 1.85? At least, that's what I remember. I thought it was a bit out of frame at one scene, (the fishes seemed higher than they should be) and when I went to frame down, the black bar appeared at the top instantly. So I framed back up, and the bottom one started to ceep up. So I'm assuming it's exactly 1.85. (Yes, the masking was set correctly, and it's side-masking)
For the DVD of Nemo, I heard they pulled a "Super35" type pan-n-scan. They chopped off only a little bit off the sides, and opened up the top and bottom of the frame to fill the 1.33 ratio. (I think it was shot at 1.78 on the computers)
=TMP=
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/248b.jpg)
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-23-2004 12:13 PM
quote: Brad Miller So you don't like the style then. That's fine, but for you to say the composition is poor, that's a bad choice of terminology.
When a character's face moves out of the frame and that character is the focus of the action, yet the frame cuts across his eyes, or he is decapitated by the frame edge, then that's no longer style, but something any student in Composition 1.1 knows is just bad compostion. Yes, you can give benefit of the doubt to a lot of crap and call it style (BLAIR WITCHCRAFT, CHELSEA WALLS come to mind), but most people who live and breath film and film imagery can distinguish between style and just bad composition. And then there's bad style as well.
quote: Mike Blakesley I wish people would quit saying this. If it wasn't for the theatrical release, there wouldn't BE a meat-and-potatoes video market.
And I wish the studios would stop cutting the legs out of releases so that that whole ancilliary market, now the "second run" theatres, had the same chance they had at playing product as they did when there was a reasonable window between theatrical and video release dates. Someplace along the line it was decided that as soon as enough hoopla was generated in the opening weeks of the theatrical release, the title is already being readied for its launch into the video world. That doesn't say much for the regard studios moguls have for theatrical exhibition. Even first-run exhibitors have had a one-note lament for the past few decades: "PLEASE don't go to video so fast." Yet the window keeps getting smaller and smaller. And VIDEO grosses keep getting bigger and bigger. The traditional protection that a well-paced released schedule to different markets has evaporated and the result has pretty much changed the entire exhibition landscape. If "I'll just wait for it to come to cable or DVD" meant a good 6 to 10 months as it used to, allot more people would choose to see it at the theatre instead. Today when people discuss a film around the water cooler, a good percentage of them are not talking about their theatre experience but of their pay-per-view or even their video rental experience.
Granted, there is no substantive video market for box office flops (most times). But the industry continues to reduce theatrical exhibition to just another one of the steps in its marketing system, not the primary goal to achieve maximum return at the box office. Once the theatrical release has fulfilled it's goal -- to make everyone aware of a title -- then the focus quickly shifts elseware.... like the sales of those little shiney DVD things.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|