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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Why is a film shot flat or scope? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Why is a film shot flat or scope? Stephen Frazza Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Nutley, NJ, USA Registered: Mar 2004 posted 10-21-2004 12:40 PM                        What determines whether a film is shot in flat or scope? Is there a cost differental between shooting one or the other and if so is it marginal or significant.Or is it just an artistic decision at some level.I only ask because it seems odd to me sometimes when things are shot one way and not the other. Just to use recent examples like Ladder 49 being flat and Raise your voice being scope. I searched and read some other post on this but none touched upon whether $ was an issue or is it just artistic?  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 10-21-2004 12:50 PM                     I think for many directors, it is an artistic choice. For instance, Spielberg was once asked why Jurrasic Park was not in the scope format, and he stated that to convey the height of the dinosaurs, the Flat format was more effective. I like the idea of the artist having this freedom, but what bugs me is when they shoot Super35 and make scope out of it. In many cases, like Master and Commander, it looks worse than it should. Now Lord of the Rings was an exception to this rule, as I think it looked magnificent. In addition, LOTR would have been extremely difficult to do in true anamorphic because of all the shots that used "forced perspective." AJG  |  IP: Logged Peter Mork Expert Film Handler Posts: 181 From: Newton, MA, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 10-21-2004 01:51 PM                     I think when scope came in in the 50s, it was sort of assumed that eventually all pictures would be shot that way. But a lot of directors / cinematographers balked, for various artistc and technical reasons. 1.85 and 1.66 flat were the compromise. I like Super 35. Some people don't like shooting with anamorphic lenses, for the artifacts they produce and other reasons. It's better they should be able to use the lenses they want and still have the choice to shoot widescreen. In the end, I don't think cost is much of a factor in the decision-making process.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 10-21-2004 02:17 PM                    I think now with the advent of HDTV widescreen televisions you will start to see even more use of the scope aspect ratio. From its introduction with The Robe all the way through the 60's and into the early 70's, it was primarily a tool to draw people away from their televisions. Then it became reserved for those massive production sci-fi and action type films that were also blown up to 70MM. Now just about anything uses the format and Hollywood knows it has to satisfy the home consumer who want their televisions to utilize the full potential of the TV screen.  |  IP: Logged Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 10-21-2004 04:55 PM                     quote: Aaron Garman For instance, Spielberg was once asked why Jurrasic Park was not in the scope format, and he stated that to convey the height of the dinosaurs, the Flat format was more effective. Which makes sense only in theatres with top masking. Dinosaurs would not look smaller on a full scope screen just because the image extends more horizontally. Many effects people prefer spherical footage to work with. I recall that in the making of STAR WARS Episode 1 they did a lot of extra work to match effects and composites to the special look of anamorphic live action scenes. In other words, it saves time and money. I have noticed that many cinematographers like to speak about the problems of shooting anamorphic. If you check their filmographies, you'd be surprised to learn that most of them never shot a single film anamorphic, so they're talking about tools they never laid hands on. Some DOPs are in love with certain lenses and pieces of equipment, especially when they come from shooting commercials and music videos. They prefer to use the same equipment for theatrical productions and don't want to get involved with the special style of work that goes with anamorphic production. And there are producers who do not know the differences anyway. A friend of mine spoke to a local producer who had done his third feature film and asked him in which format the film was shot: FRIEND Did you shoot in Super-35 or anamorphic Scope? PRODUCER ??? FRIEND Was it anamorphic Cinemascope or Super-35? PRODUCER ...? FRIEND (indicating with hands) Did you have big heavy lenses like this... or smaller ones like that? PRODUCERS Ah, I see. Yeah, the smaller ones, the big ones would have been to expensive.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 10-21-2004 05:24 PM                    You might want to search Google / Groups for postings on rec.arts.movies.tech on this very topic. Look especially for posts by David Mullen who is a working DP (recently inducted into ASC) who has done films in both formats and beat George Lucas to market with the first significant release in HD cropped to 2.40, "Jackpot."  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 10-21-2004 07:01 PM                       It's artistic. It's the producer's choice. Expenses involved in possible wider set design notwithstanding, seems I recall (Phil?) the equipment rents for the same money. At the very least, the difference is negligible considering the overall budget of a picture. Flat is preferred if they're counting on the show being particularly suited for television. Although eventual television screenings are alloted for, to a degree, when composing shots in 'scope.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 10-22-2004 04:10 AM                     Another tidbit would be that much of the budget for the original Halloween was used on the panavision anamorphic lenses that Carpenter still prefers to my knowledge. Well, he prefers shooting anamorphic that is. AJG  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 10-22-2004 11:35 AM                       quote: Aaron Garman much of the budget for the original Halloween was used on the panavision anamorphic lenses That sounds like a stretch (no pun intended). Unless they made custom lenses for him or something, I find that hard to believe. I'm sure there's not that much of a difference in price for the rentals.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 10-22-2004 12:47 PM                     From The Internet Movie Database quote: Half of the $300,000 budget was spent on the Panavison cameras so the film would have a 2:35:1 scope. AJG  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 10-22-2004 03:53 PM                       Well, that's not quite the same thing - cameras and lenses are two different parts. They had to have a camera package to shoot the picture, and a complete package (with lenses, and accessories included) can rent for $2,000 a day or more... The fact that it was anamorphic didn't make it cost more.  |  IP: Logged Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 10-22-2004 04:17 PM                     So far as the Panavision equipment is concerned, whether the production is to be shot Anamorphic or Spherical, the camera rental cost is the same. While anamorphic lenses cost more to rent than spherical, the chances are that fewer will be taken, if for no other reason than the range of focal lenths is limited compared to spherical. Straightforward Academy format 1.85 release has has its additional costs as higher sets and more ceiling pieces will be required and with Super-35 an important consideration is the additional cost of making the optically printed internegatives. Both of these costs help to offset the additional costs of anamorphic lenses.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 10-22-2004 04:50 PM                  quote: Tim Reed The fact that it was anamorphic didn't make it cost more. Actually it does..or did at least at that time. Dunno 'bout now, but back when I worked on "Halloween" and "Jaws" for example, at Panavision we charged 4x the package rate for an anamorphic package vs. a spherical package. That got you a Panaflex camera rather than a big ol' PSR... a Panavision rebuilt and blimped Mitchell reflexed NC. The revolutionary (at that time) small and lightweight, hand-held, self-blimped Panaflex camera was only available for films shooting anamorphic. Of course every film had a contract for the equipment that was negotiated between the producer and Panavision so the rates varied. Some films even were donated the equipment to help get it made. Not sure now, but it used to be required to have a screen credit of: "Filmed in Panavision" if anamorphic and "Filmed with Panavison Equipment" if spherical. >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 10-22-2004 06:24 PM                    My rate sheets are no longer current but they gave rates for each type of camera (including a couple magazines & batteries etc.) and each individual lens. The moderately greater rates on anamorphic optics was the only difference. BTW, Panavision has a real web site now; not just a redirect to their T-shirt vendor.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 10-22-2004 07:15 PM                        From the Panavision website Q. What is Panavision Super 35®? A. Panavision Super 35® is a format for shooting full aperture, utilizing a greater camera negative area. This format provides the option of releasing a film in any of 3 formats: 70mm, 2x Anamorphic, and 1.85, without cropping any of the sides. The final decision can be made in post-production, as it does require an optical process. Allows the cinematographer to use spherical lenses, while achieving a 2.40:1 finished product. How do you do 1.85 from Super 35 without cropping the sides? I understand you actually use a camera which only pulls down 2 perforations, correct?  |  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.