|
|
Author
|
Topic: Here's a great video about why wide-screen is better than full screen
|
|
|
|
John Lasher
Master Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/968d.jpg)
Posts: 493
From: Newark, DE
Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted 08-25-2009 12:09 PM
more complete version
When I get into feature filmmaking, I intend to shoot anamorphic, and shoot anamorphic often, and if a "full screen" version is ever demanded of me, I'm going to
- make damn sure it's on the same (single-sided) disc with a widescreen version
- make sure that widescreen version occupies no less than 2/3 of the available disc space
- tell the transfer facility to just do a center-scan, sure the film will be reduced to a nonsensical jumble, with empty rooms talking to themselves and the like, but the mantra of the full screen junkie is always "I don't care what I'm missing, I just want my screen filled." :shrugs: If they don't care what they're missing, why should I? I already composed the picture once, I'm not spending one second in a telecine bay doing it again.
- make it so that picking the full screen version plays a non-skipable video showing why the widescreen version is better (actually, you can skip it by pressing enter, which will play the widescreen version)
Now, I just have to find a way of raising about $200,000 so I can get started.
(Hey, my post count is now the same as the house number where I was living when I first registered here.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 08-25-2009 08:53 PM
John, the telecine operator will be more than happy to do the pan-and-scan w/o you in the room, don't worry. That's basically what they did all day long back in the good old chemical "films days".
If you find someone to give you $200k to go shoot movies, make sure they understand you are not planning on giving them a single cent back and they are not from the "family".
Since TV's are nowaday's (mostly) widescreen-ish 1.78:1, it's not so bad. A little letterbox, which, if you insist can be streched out of the picture, is fine with most folks for flat content.
But Scope still poses an issue for many.
Oh well. Thankfully, there are also wide-widescreen TV's, like the Philips 21:9 one.
But it then becomes an issue for many trying to strech a square 1.33 SD image to 2.35 and we get into "I hate pillarbox images" territory ...
It IS somewhat of an issue though to have 4 "standard" formats still in use (1.33, 1.78, 1.85, 2.35).
The movies sent through the phone cable over here are SD. When they are widescreen, they are letterboxed. When fed through HDMI, most TV's are not smart enough to resize the thing and you end up with a tiny image in the middle of your +42" screen surrounded by black .... you know, á lá G-force ...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
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.
|