Black bar haters MUST SEE THIS!

[VadiaRotor]

Originally Posted by Marquoz

I never understood the complaint about black bars. I turn my lights off, close all my doors, and the black bars disapear into the black bezel of my TV

yeah, but in many cases, the black bars were added to a movie which was filmed in Super35, so a big part of picture gets out of sight, and without those black bars you can see more of a picture

http://www.avsforum.com/t/404077/the...te-screen-shot




if a film was originally made in 2.35:1 or 2.2:1 or whatever, I don't mind the black bars

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by VadiaRotor

yeah, but in many cases, the black bars were added to a movie which was filmed in Super35, so a big part of picture gets out of sight, and without those black bars you can see more of a picture

http://www.avsforum.com/t/404077/the...te-screen-shot




if a film was originally made in 2.35:1 or 2.2:1 or whatever, I don't mind the black bars

that's called open matte. the problem is. if it was framed for 2.39:1 you weren't MEAN'T to see that extra picture, in many films when they do that you see things like boom mikes and other offscreen things that spoil the regular 2.39:1 framing

[VadiaRotor]

Originally Posted by wormraper

that's called open matte

yes, I know. Removing painted black bars to show extra picture is called open matte, and I love it!

Originally Posted by wormraper

if it was framed for 2.39:1 you weren't MEAN'T to see that extra picture

I disagree. If we weren't meant to see the extra picture, they wouldn't make special effects on that extra picture, because spending money and time on that would be pointless. If they wanted us to see only the 2.35:1 stripe, they would make special effects (including expensive and time-consuming CGI) only on that part of picture, but they don't, they make them on the whole picture. See Matrix, T3, Underworld, Titanic or King Kong in 16:9, for example.

Once I even saw LOTR in 16:9, but to my pity, I didn't pay attention to image formats back then, so I didn't make a copy, but still, the fact is that the open matte 16:9 LOTR had special effects equally good on all its picture. Why else would they do it if not in order to show us?

[Deciazulado]

Vadia: If the director wanted you to see those parts on the theaters, he would have framed the shot differently for you to see it in the theater.

Let me explain something about professional moviemaking / filming tech: Everything that you see on an movie theater has ALWAYS extra image in the negative/camera image exposed that you shouldn't/wouldn't see. Everything. This is done for various reasons: Safety factors, that's the way it's done, standards. Etc. It's built into the system. The 4-sprocket 35mm film taking format has a maximum 19mm x 25mm, 1.33 shaped, image area but that area is not the one used in composing modern widescreen films. Still, the camera keeps exposing the whole area in the negative when shooting the film because that's the way they were built. But even if someone chose to make a 1.33 film using the full Super-35 format 1.33 negative, the camera groundglass and what the director cameraman would shoot for would not be the full 19mm x 25mm, but the 18mm x 24mm of the projection format, so there would still be 5% extra on all sides of the negative. Even the 1.78 open matte broadcasts of 2.39 movies and 1.85 movies are cropping non intended image area from up to the 1.33 negative area. And most digital cameras have a 1.78 shaped imager, but theatrical films use the 1.85 and the 2.39 formats. The director and cameraman compose the film for viewing in those formats. That's the movie they make and how they want you to see it. Again, if they wanted otherwise they can decide to compose and make the movie in 1.85 instead of 2.39. (Btw, the 2.39 theatrical prints have no black bars, they just have the image the director wants printed on it)

Now there's also the reality that TV screens are not shaped like moviescreens. Instead of 1.37, 1.85, and 2.39, TV monitors come in 2 shapes: 1.33 and 1.78. As a general compromise for broadcast, video transfers can be made (now) at 1.78 (and for half a century at 1.33), and of course the professionals that make films are not ignorant of this and realize that if they don't protect the areas not supposed to be seen by hiding cables or having Kate Beckinsale wear the full leather pants in a shot that on the theater she could get away by wearing denim shorts, or the SFX houses don't make a safety extra image (Example: Hey if they did T2 sfx stricktly in 2.39, then the 70mm 2.20 prints might show SFX errors or empty spaces ruining the effect, so we make them 2.00 safe) then when their movies would be broadcast, they would have to be hacked (pan/scanned) to fit the TV shape. So this way, these video versions can be done by opening up the image that's supposed to be matted to fill the TV viewers viewing screen without having to cut the parts that were actually intended. (As I said a TV compromise, the least damaging one)

On that shot^^, the director wanted you to have the guy's teeth in your face for that scene for emotional impact.

inyourface.jpg

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by VadiaRotor

yes, I know. Removing painted black bars to show extra picture is called open matte, and I love it!


I disagree. If we weren't meant to see the extra picture, they wouldn't make special effects on that extra picture, because spending money and time on that would be pointless. If they wanted us to see only the 2.35:1 stripe, they would make special effects (including expensive and time-consuming CGI) only on that part of picture, but they don't, they make them on the whole picture. See Matrix, T3, Underworld, Titanic or King Kong in 16:9, for example.

Once I even saw LOTR in 16:9, but to my pity, I didn't pay attention to image formats back then, so I didn't make a copy, but still, the fact is that the open matte 16:9 LOTR had special effects equally good on all its picture. Why else would they do it if not in order to show us?

believe me they DO frame the image for a certain aspect ratio even if the camera and effects go OVER the framing. it's done that way as a "safety" margin, and many times they adjust the framing and WHERE the framing is centered at during post process, that way they don't have edges that are un polished or if they decide to move over a big on the frame they don't have to redo that one area. framing is every bit an artform as the actual camera work

[VadiaRotor]

Deciazulado, are you trying to teach me something about professional moviemaking after I actually wrote several articles about that stuff http://www.kinomusic.vadiarotor.tv/about_cinema.htm and I actually deal with it since I am a moviemaker? http://www.kinomusic.vadiarotor.tv/16-9.htm
well, thanks! that's so nice of you

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Everything that you see on an movie theater has ALWAYS extra image in the negative/camera image exposed that you shouldn't/wouldn't see. Everything

I'm sorry to disappoint you but you probably haven't heard anything about anamorphic 35mm movie formats like Panavision, or 2-perf 35mm movies, and you're unaware that if a film was made in these formats, the whole picture with no extra image is shown in cinema. Actually, most of cinema wide screens were made in the 2.35:1 format to expose the full 35mm anamorphic picture.

Also, there is a new theater/screen format called "Digital IMAX", the OAR of which is 1.89:1, and movies like Skyfall and Prometheus were shot in this AR, and the whole picture is shown in digital IMAX theaters (and foon a new movie shot in it comes out, the Hobbit). And if you look closer on the cropped 2.35:1 pictures of these movies you'll definitely notice that the picture was actually composed for 1.89:1 frame, and being cropped to 2.35:1 it looks poor, in terms of composition... my English is not good enough to find the right words to explain it. Sorry

But the point is that if you see the whole picture, you get more of the atmosphere of the action, and since I realized it, I began to hate black bars and love open matte. But in case of anamorphic films I don't mind the picture being wide, because its composition is intact, opposite to Super35 movies.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by VadiaRotor

I'm sorry to disappoint you but you probably haven't heard anything about anamorphic 35mm movie formats like Panavision, or 2-perf 35mm movies, and you're unaware that if a film was made in these formats, the whole picture with no extra image is shown in cinema. Actually, most of cinema wide screens were made in the 2.35:1 format to expose the full 35mm anamorphic picture.

Camera Aperture is not the Projector Aperture even in anamorphic photography. But you're right, I never heard anything from the anamorphic 35mm reels I can see from my chair.

In my opinion, what you consider cropped, to me is the proper framed and tightly composed image, specially when seen on a true CinemaScope size screen, not a tiny 50" 16:9 HDTV :>

Mmm.. btw those Matrix 16:9 vs Scope comparison pics look mighty familiar.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Camera Aperture is not the Projector Aperture even in anamorphic photography. But you're right, I never heard anything from the anamorphic 35mm reels I can see from my chair.

In my opinion, what you consider cropped, to me is the proper framed and tightly composed image, specially when seen on a true CinemaScope size screen, not a tiny 50" 16:9 HDTV :>

Mmm.. btw those Matrix 16:9 vs Scope comparison pics look mighty familiar.

exactly, to get a sculpture you have to chip away all the excess. that's what theatrical framing does

[VadiaRotor]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Camera Aperture is not the Projector Aperture even in anamorphic photography.

Yes, but the difference is very little, almost negligible.

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

In my opinion, what you consider cropped, to me is the proper framed and tightly composed image

In case of anamorphic 35mm film, it's really tightly composed, and I love that framing. I myself use anamorphic optics often, and not only for shooting but also for my vlog (with my digital camera), and I adore it.


So if the composition is proper, I don't mind black bars on the screen.
But it's not the case of 35mm, Super35 or IMAX movies made with spherical lenses, because when the AR of picture is 1.37:1 or 1.33:1 or 1.44:1, the cameramen most often use the Rule of Thirds, which means that when they compose the picture, they put the most important things on the vertical or horizontal lines (which divide the picture in thirds), or on the intersection of that lines, like here



That's because when the spectators look at the picture, their eyes first check out the area of the intersection of those lines, here it's marked with rounds



these rounds or dots or whatever are called hot spots in English or узлы внимания (nodes of attention) in Russian. So if you make a photo or film in 1.33:1 or 1.37:1 or 1.44:1 or 1.5:1, such aspect ratios, you have to place the objects of attention on the lines or the hot spots, and the rest of the area is also needed, because it creates the atmosphere of film or picture, and if you crop it, the viewer won't get the psychological effect of the picture, and the picture won't be as impressive.

The picture of The Matrix was composed just like that. When you make closeups using the Rule of Thirds, you place eyes on the top horizontal line (because the eye expression is important), and the mouth on the bottom line (because it's important what the character says), and when such picture is cropped from 4:3 to 2.35:1 or even to 2.4:1, the composition is ruined, like here



If the cameraman wanted to show teeth (as you say), I'm sure he would film a smiling horse, but he obviously wanted to show something else, that's why he filmed Hugo Weaving instead.




The open matte 16:9 version of such films partially restores the composition, and gives the ambience feeling.

See this

The Shining opening credit - YouTube

and this

THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) - Bank Robbery Scene - YouTube

the manner in which these scenes were originally made gives you a sense of space, ambience, atmosphere, and if you see such pictures on a big screen (like IMAX) you have the illusion of participance. But when such picture is cropped, you lose the magical ambience feeling, and you always remember that you're just watching a movie and this is it, the cinema-magic is gone.

So if a Super35 4:3 picture is cropped to 2.35:1, it looks NOT OK.

See Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shot in 4:3, the picture is amazing and it looks just properly, but in the cropped 1.85:1 version, it looks ordinarily and almost boring.
Or see Troy in 16:9, it looks like a masterpiece. But after that, seeing the 2.35:1 version, you realize that the composition is almost ruined by the kitschy black bars painted over it.
In the case of Super35, the 2.35:1 composition is not tight, it's just wrong. See good films made in anamorphic format, like Die Hard, 300, Pearl Harbor, Drive, Inception, Contact etc, that's where the composition is tight and right.

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

especially when seen on a true CinemaScope size screen, not a tiny 50" 16:9 HDTV

the actual size matters less than the area of your view it takes. So if you watch a movie on a 50" screen and it covers 40 degrees of your view, that's bigger than when you see it in cinema on the last row where the screen covers, say, 37 degrees.

(btw, wow! my English turned out to be sufficient to explain that! Time for me to go to Hollywood! haha!)

[VadiaRotor]

Originally Posted by wormraper

exactly, to get a sculpture you have to chip away all the excess. that's what theatrical framing does

film is not a sculpture, film is a picture, and these pictures wouldn't make much sense if they were cropped to fit the theatrical 2.35:1 screen. They'd look poor.

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

Appreciation for black bars increases as a person matures in movie watching.

That's the weirdest bad joke I've ever read.
Well, maybe the second weirdest, 'cause the first in my list is "A man walks into a bar with a slab of asphalt under his arm, and says: A beer please, and one for the road".

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by VadiaRotor

So if the composition is proper, I don't mind black bars on the screen.
But it's not the case of 35mm, Super35 or IMAX movies made with spherical lenses, because when the AR of picture is 1.37:1 or 1.33:1 or 1.44:1, the cameramen most often use the Rule of Thirds, which means that when they compose the picture, they put the most important things on the vertical or horizontal lines (which divide the picture in thirds), or on the intersection of that lines, like here



That's because when the spectators look at the picture, their eyes first check out the area of the intersection of those lines, here it's marked with rounds



these rounds or dots or whatever are called hot spots in English or узлы внимания (nodes of attention) in Russian. So if you make a photo or film in 1.33:1 or 1.37:1 or 1.44:1 or 1.5:1, such aspect ratios, you have to place the objects of attention on the lines or the hot spots, and the rest of the area is also needed, because it creates the atmosphere of film or picture, and if you crop it, the viewer won't get the psychological effect of the picture, and the picture won't be as impressive.

The picture of The Matrix was composed just like that. When you make closeups using the Rule of Thirds, you place eyes on the top horizontal line (because the eye expression is important), and the mouth on the bottom line (because it's important what the character says), and when such picture is cropped from 4:3 to 2.35:1 or even to 2.4:1, the composition is ruined, like here

You see this is where you're totally wrong. Yes he composes with the rules of thirds (or the rules of cinema blocking because moving cinematography is not exactly still photography or static paintings ), etc etc, BUT the Cameraman for a Super-35 shot film intended for Anamorphic 35mm Projection doesn't compose for the full Super-35 4:3 Camera Aperture (or even for the 16:9 image you see in broadcast versions). He composes the image within the 2.39 Scope ratio area using the 2.39 groundglass markings in the Super-35 Camera Viewfinder.


He uses this area to compose (which is marked in the groundglass):

super35.gif

Not this area:



See for example ARRI 2.35 S-35 groundglass :

[Show spoiler]s35arrigglass.jpg

In any case I applied the bars on your comparison pic and the guys face came basically in the middle on the right third with the side in shadow to the left of it and the side in light to the right of it, with the middle of his eyes more or less on the upper right third point, for a moving subject.

inyourfacesquared.jpg

Originally Posted by VadiaRotor

See Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shot in 4:3, the picture is amazing and it looks just properly, but in the cropped 1.85:1 version, it looks ordinarily and almost boring.

I saw it in the Cinema in 1.85 when it originally ran and it didn't look boring, it felt (like most Kubrick films) as if I was there witnessing it and psychologically engaging. On 4:3 on a 50" screen, less engaging, distant, with the actors feeling small and remote inside a lot of background (With all the extra area) so to me in 4:3 it becomes more like a TV Movie of the Week.

Originally Posted by VadiaRotor

In the case of Super35, the 2.35:1 composition is not tight, it's just wrong. See good films made in anamorphic format, like Die Hard, 300, Pearl Harbor, Drive, Inception, Contact etc, that's where the composition is tight and right.

But you see, you keep assuming they are composed differently, when both Anamorphic films shot in anamorphic and Anamorphic films shot in Super 35 use a 2.39 shape rectangle on the viewfinder to compose them for the Cinema 2.39 screen so they are composed the same. You think they are doing otherwise.

Originally Posted by VadiaRotor

the actual size matters less than the area of your view it takes. So if you watch a movie on a 50" screen and it covers 40 degrees of your view, that's bigger than when you see it in cinema on the last row where the screen covers, say, 37 degrees.

Yeah that's quite obvious, and if I watch this from the next bulding's window it looks like a cel phone and if I watch a 50" TV from 2 feet away it's as big as like watching a movie screen.

The point is: I watch movies at 2PH (~ 28º x 62º for Scope movies) and if you sit in the middle of the theater so do you. And the point I was making is that when you watch a movie on a 50" HDTV from a sofa on the typical room you watch the TV at 4PH, and since Super 35 movies are letterboxed you watch them smaller still, at more than 5PHs (~ 9º x 21º for Scope movies) so in the same field of view you watch the movie in the theater (28º x 62º), on the HDTV, the movie is surrounded by 88% black pressing on the image, the height only filling 9º, So what you have to look up and down on a movie screen is now occupying a very narrow slit (letterbox) on your field of view and it may feel cramped to you. while if you're watching that same "moving painting" that you have to look up and down to see whole on the theater screen you won't feel it or it's composition, "cramped" . Did any of you feel the Harry Potter movies or the LotR movies etc cramped when watching them on the theater screen??

Originally Posted by VadiaRotor

film is not a sculpture, film is a picture, and these pictures wouldn't make much sense if they were cropped to fit the theatrical 2.35:1 screen. They'd look poor.

And film is not still photography. A 2.39 movie is made to be watched in 2.39

scoped,jpg.jpg






May I ask, what is the password... for the house?

[VadiaRotor]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

On 4:3 on a 50" screen, less engaging, distant, with the actors feeling small and remote inside a lot of background (With all the extra area)

So you don't get the point of Kubrick films. They're not only about plot and emotion, they're primarily about visual experience. And if you watch Eyes Wide Shut on bigger screen, the actor's won't feel remote and distant, and the background would help you engage, because location is about the background, and if you don't get enough of the background, you don't really feel the meaning of locations in the scenes.

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

And film is not still photography.

film is 24 still photographies every second, and if the picture is composed right, any frame of the film, any screenshot you may take, must look self-sufficient and beautiful enough to place it in a frame and exhibit on biennale like a separate piece of art. Otherwise the film is not artful enough.

this is art

[Show spoiler]
http://unoeil.files.wordpress.com/20...ole-kidman.jpg
http://deepfocusfilms.weebly.com/upl...57443_orig.jpg

and this is crap (I mean not the films but the screenshots of their cropped pictures)

[Show spoiler]
http://www.reallykidfriendly.com/wp-...om-YouTube.jpg
http://www.hdclub.ua/files/film_rele...ed4c28d3e1.png

http://pics.kz/s3/b1/66/df/98/b166df...83878bd47e.png

[wormraper]

lol, sorry all you'd doing is voicing how YOU want them to shoot.... sorry, how they frame it for theater is how the DIRECTOR wants it to look. that's ALL that matters... end of story. literally. What you think looks better and what the director thinks look better aren't the same thing

[VadiaRotor]

Originally Posted by wormraper

how they frame it for theater is how the DIRECTOR wants it to look. that's ALL that matters...

you can't know how exactly director wanted to make the picture unless you ask him (unfortunately, now we can't ask Stanley Kubrick), but certainly, if he wanted to make it different, he'd film it differently

but I'm only writing here obvious things, not what I guess or what I think, but what's obvious

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by VadiaRotor

you can't know how exactly director wanted to make the picture unless you ask him (unfortunately, now we can't ask Stanley Kubrick), but certainly, if he wanted to make it different, he'd film it differently

but I'm only writing here obvious things, not what I guess or what I think, but what's obvious

actually no, you're saying how YOU think the picture looks better, not how others or even the director may think. nothing but opinion on what you THINK looks better.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by VadiaRotor

you can't know how exactly director wanted to make the picture unless you ask him (unfortunately, now we can't ask Stanley Kubrick), but certainly, if he wanted to make it different, he'd film it differently

but I'm only writing here obvious things, not what I guess or what I think, but what's obvious

There are SMPTE standards and professionals tend to follow them. Otherwise film making and film projection wouldn't work.

[VadiaRotor]

Originally Posted by wormraper

actually no, you're saying how YOU think the picture looks better. nothing but opinion on what you THINK looks better.

that could be an endless dispute unless you stop judging and try to get to the point.

I must say, the rule of thirds is not my invention, I just tell you about it and state the fact that this rule is widely used by cameramen, and I give you some examples of its usage. To accept my explanations or not - it's your choice. But if you chose to deny it, can you give me some FACTS and EXAMPLES to prove me wrong?

If you can't, let's end the dispute and acknowledge that I'm right.
If you prove me wrong and convince me that I'm mistaking, I'll change my opinion. I'm not arrogant.

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

There are SMPTE standards and professionals tend to follow them. Otherwise film making and film projection wouldn't work.

Do you think that I deny it?
Can you quote where exactly I was likely to deny it?

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by VadiaRotor

that could be an endless dispute unless you stop judging and try to get to the point.

I must say, the rule of thirds is not my invention, I just tell you about it and state the fact that this rule is widely used by cameramen, and I give you some examples of its usage. To accept my explanations or not - it's your choice. But if you chose to deny it, can you give me some FACTS and EXAMPLES to prove me wrong?

If you can't, let's end the dispute and acknowledge that I'm right.
If you prove me wrong and convince me that I'm mistaking, I'll change my opinion. I'm not arrogant.


Do you think that I deny it?
Can you quote where exactly I was likely to deny it?

lol, that's because it IS an endless debate. it's ALL subjective based on what the director wants to do at that time. end of story. you are taking this from an camera artist's viewpoint and not a storytellers viewpoint. A story teller takes a picture and cuts it up and twists it every which way to tell his story, how it's portrayed tells a piece of the story, ugly pictures can tell a story that pretty symmetrical ones can not. welcome to film making. where nothing is objective

[stevo4264]

Originally Posted by wormraper

lol, that's because it IS an endless debate. it's ALL subjective based on what the director wants to do at that time. end of story. you are taking this from an camera artist's viewpoint and not a storytellers viewpoint. A story teller takes a picture and cuts it up and twists it every which way to tell his story, how it's portrayed tells a piece of the story, ugly pictures can tell a story that pretty symmetrical ones can not. welcome to film making. where nothing is objective

[VadiaRotor]

Originally Posted by wormraper

welcome to film making. where nothing is objective

tell me, do you have any connection to filmmaking? or are you just a filmwatcher? it would explain very much.