Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Minority Report

Topic Closed

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets » Minority Report (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Minority Report

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 06-05-2002 03:44 PM

Minority Report
Fox
8 reels (~2:20)
Scope (Super 35) / MUL (all digitals)
Studio Print

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 06-05-2002 04:07 PM

If this is indeed in scope, it marks a return to the scope format by Steven Spielberg:

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0181689

But imdb lists it as flat:
http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0181689

Which is it?

(P.S. , Since my original posting on June 5, the IMDB has updated their technical specifications listing to show that prints are anamorphic --- they must be reading Film-Tech, the DEFINITIVE source for movie information. )
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Michael Brown
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1522
From: Bradford, England
Registered: May 2001

posted 06-05-2002 04:56 PM

Could it be linked to Cruse producing?

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 06-05-2002 05:21 PM

Why is there chatter here?

Anyhow, it should be no surprise it's scope. Like I said on the Ides of March in Yak, "Blade II - Flat instead Scope...", studio publicity clearly labels it scope. And I'm sure Steve can tell the difference ;-)

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Don Anderson
Master Film Handler

Posts: 312
From: West Bend, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 06-07-2002 08:01 PM

8 reels long.....ouch! what's with the long movies as of late?

| IP: Logged

Michael Brown
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1522
From: Bradford, England
Registered: May 2001

posted 06-07-2002 08:13 PM

So finally is it definitely scope??

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 06-08-2002 07:59 PM

To repeat, it is in Scope. Not real Scope --has Janusz ever made an anamorphic film? --but a Super 35 blowup. Grainy but that's part of the look of the film. Assistant editor remarked on the sharp picture (I have Blue Star anamorphics).

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 06-09-2002 06:44 PM

Sorry, Brad, about the "chit chat," but since my post isn't a question or an opinion I don't feel it necessary to create a new thread in a different forum just to answer this simple question.

quote:
has Janusz ever made an anamorphic film?

"Tall Tale" (1995)

| IP: Logged

Mark Lucas
Film Handler

Posts: 44
From: CA, USA
Registered: Mar 2001

posted 06-14-2002 02:24 AM

It has to be 1.85:1. All the trailers I've seen for it have been either 1.85:1 or vertically cropped to fit in the scope shape. Right? What the heck would Spielberg be shooting in Super-35 for? That's like James Cameron shooting in anamorphic.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-14-2002 02:44 AM

Mark, I think Steve is far more than qualified to report whether the film is scope or flat. Steve has ran the film, not you. Steve says it is scope, and he has now verified that was not a typo, thus it IS scope. When a movie is shot in Super 35, it gives the option of re-framing for 1.85 and video release, hence the reason why you saw "extra" picture information. Please note this at the top of each forum page:

"Do not post information regarding a given film unless you have PERSONALLY handled a print. Posting second hand information is not permitted in any form."

Any further chit chat on this needs to have it's own dedicated thread created in FHF or Yak. I want to leave this thread open so trailer info may be added at release.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 06-14-2002 05:55 AM

It appears that the Internet Movie Database has corrected their listing of technical specifications. It now indicates that it was photographed in Super 35 and prints are anamorphic. Wonder if someone at IMDB reads Film-Tech (the DEFINITIVE source for movie information

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Mark Lucas
Film Handler

Posts: 44
From: CA, USA
Registered: Mar 2001

posted 06-14-2002 11:38 AM

Rarr

I guess I'll find out for sure when I actually see it.

| IP: Logged

Rachel Gilardi
Madam Moderator

Posts: 2214
From: Peabody, MA, USA
Registered: Dec 2007

posted 06-16-2002 07:51 PM

Grow up, it's Scope.

| IP: Logged

Mark Lucas
Film Handler

Posts: 44
From: CA, USA
Registered: Mar 2001

posted 06-17-2002 12:58 AM

Be nice.

I was just shocked that it wouldn't be in 1.85:1. Spielberg hasn't shot a film in 2.35:1 in a while, and never in Super-35.

| IP: Logged

Rachel Gilardi
Madam Moderator

Posts: 2214
From: Peabody, MA, USA
Registered: Dec 2007

posted 06-17-2002 08:06 PM

I'm always nice which is why Brad is not going to yell at me for chit-chatting.

It really is scope though (had to add in something to do with the film).

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.