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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Weird Aspect Ratio (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Weird Aspect Ratio Bastiaan Fleerkate Film Handler Posts: 85 From: Linschoten, Utrecht, The Netherlands Registered: Jun 2006 posted 04-20-2007 10:06 AM                        Has anyone seen this aspect ratio before. It is 1:2.44 Looks like they shot the movie in scope and forgot to print it that way... It's a Dutch movie called 'Blind'  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-20-2007 10:37 AM                        Looks like a letterboxed flat trailer for a scope movie.  |  IP: Logged Bernard Tonks Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 619 From: Cranleigh, Surrey, England Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-20-2007 11:01 AM                     According to Internet Movie Database the release prints are: Technical specifications for Blind (2007) Film negative format (mm/video inches) 35 mm (Kodak) Cinematographic process Super 35 Printed film format 35 mm (anamorphic) Aspect ratio 2.35 : 1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808174/  |  IP: Logged Bastiaan Fleerkate Film Handler Posts: 85 From: Linschoten, Utrecht, The Netherlands Registered: Jun 2006 posted 04-20-2007 01:15 PM                        OK. The whole movie is like this. So if I understand it correctly, they filmed it in scope, but printed it in Widescreen. OK, that makes sense....NOT! The trailer for this movie was in scope though... nice movie BTW!  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 04-20-2007 02:04 PM                     Cinematographic process Super 35 They filmed it FLAT, intending it to be printed SCOPE. Instead, the lab hard matted it ot 2.39. If this is a trailer, it is intended to be run in front of FLAT films. If this is the feature, the lab screwed up.  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 04-20-2007 05:07 PM                     It may not be the lab's fault. There are some filmmakers who actually want the "letterbox look". These often come from the advertising or music video end of filmmaking. It's even more likely if the film is non-mainstream. In this month's American Cinematographer there is an account of a Brazilian feature - Send A Bullet (Manda Bala) - made in an aspect ratio of 2.70:1. They actually shot anamorphic Super-16mm (yes, you read that correctly) and the piece says that the final product was shown at Sundance on 1080i HDCAM. Presumably this was flat. So it could all be intentional. The labs always do what they're told to do!  |  IP: Logged Bastiaan Fleerkate Film Handler Posts: 85 From: Linschoten, Utrecht, The Netherlands Registered: Jun 2006 posted 04-20-2007 07:13 PM                        This is the feature movie. The strange thing is...the trailer for this movie was scope. This movie indeed isn't main-stream... maybe it's a fault from the lab or the film maker wanted this...  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 04-20-2007 11:35 PM                     There are cases where Super 35 movies are printed to flat rather than scope for test screenings or non-final prints, presumably because it is cheaper. This may be such a case. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 04-21-2007 01:49 AM                        Don't worry, the whole world will be flat soon. And 16x9.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 04-21-2007 09:37 AM                        quote: John Hawkinson There are cases where Super 35 movies are printed to flat rather than scope for test screenings or non-final prints, presumably because it is cheaper. I don't get how that can be cheaper. Continuous contact printing is continuous contact printing, whatever the source and destination format is. It's when you need to optically print format A to format B (e.g. printing an anamorphic original to a letterboxed dupe) that is going to introduce extra cost. My guess would be that digital intermediate post-production was involved, and that a letterboxed dupe neg was burnt out by the recorder as distinct from an anamorphic one, possibly due to as simple a cock-up as someone clicking the wrong button on a menu screen.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-21-2007 10:12 AM                        But, looking at the frame you posted, that's obviously a FLAT print, yet you say the trailer on it was SCOPE. So it's obviously a lab screwup....the thing was supposed to be printed in scope. The trailer was probably attached, rather than printed with the feature...correct?  |  IP: Logged Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 04-21-2007 10:33 AM                     I've done screenings of films that have been Super35 with just a SRD track on it. It is cheaper to make a pre-release type print like that then ship a full Track & Picture equipment set-up and you can play it almost any where.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 04-21-2007 11:14 AM                     Leo, huh? I'm suggesting the negative is in super 35, and it was contact printed to a flat release print with the left edge cut off, rather than step-optical printed to a scope release print, which would be more expensive. Am I confused? --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Bastiaan Fleerkate Film Handler Posts: 85 From: Linschoten, Utrecht, The Netherlands Registered: Jun 2006 posted 04-21-2007 11:53 AM                        quote: Mike Blakesley yet you say the trailer on it was SCOPE. I didn't say this. The trailer of this movie was in scope. The trailer was shipped separately. Most movies in the Netherlands don't have trailers attached. I think the movie was shot digitally and printed the wrong way. Maybe I can blow the picture up with a different lens... I will have to experiment.  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 04-21-2007 10:55 PM                        On the subject of aspect ratios, one of the arguments against full scope is that 2x camera anamorphics are problematic, which is one reason why some prefer Super35 with spherical lenses. I have also noted that 1.5x anamorphics will not scare the horses. Iscovision proposed something like this. So what would be wrong with a Super35 width negative with a 1.5 squeeze? This would yield an exposed area about 12% larger than 2x anamorphic (.65” x .98” – I quote Imperial rather than metric to avoid getting a breadstick up my nose) without the 2x distortions. Release prints would be our standard Scope variety or digital files.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.