Black bar haters MUST SEE THIS!

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by VadiaRotor

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

connection... yes, I freelance film edit, I have many friends who ARE independent film directors (quite a few of them are in sundance this year), My wife is an actor... so I'd say I have a connection.

you have an opinion how something should be shot. that's fine. but there are a MYRIAD of different reasons to adjust a film's aspect ratio or to trim what shows up in the final version. I've seen directors cut things down and cut things up a million times trying to get it to look just right to them, sometimes that ratio changes a minute amount but believe me, 99% of directors go into a movie KNOWING what aspect ratio the film is going to come out as. in the indy world not as much as Hollywood, but still a large chunk of them do...

lastly, if the directors INTEND to shoot in open matte, then who the hell is making all these changes for ALL these movies??? some random intern??? believe you me framing and cropping is one of the BIGGEST things a director is involved in, I know of no director who just walks away and lets someone else do it for him.

I know you may not like it, but all you have described so far... is your opinion on how it SHOULD be, without a single shred of proof to the contrary.

[VadiaRotor]

Originally Posted by wormraper

who the hell is making all these changes for ALL these movies??? some random intern???

the results of cropping most of the Super35 movies looks like their picture was really cropped by a random person or not very intelligent intern

Originally Posted by wormraper

framing and cropping is one of the BIGGEST things a director is involved in

yes, but in fact, viewers see the film, the story with the "eyes" of a cameraman, so his role is very important, too. Directors just make sure the mise-en-scène is right, and the rest is cameramen's work.

Originally Posted by wormraper

I know of no director who just walks away and lets someone else do it for him.

Quentin Tarantino! when he made Reservoir Dogs, he trusted all decisions concerning visual aspects of picture to the cameraman, Andrzej Sekula. The cameraman made all decisions of how the film would look, and Quentin was concerned only about drama and good acting when he was shooting.

But when Quentin shot Death Proof, he himself directed the photography, he made the film in Super35 3-perf format, in 16:9 AR. Of course, the film was shown in theaters cropped to 2.39:1, but it was released on video almost exclusively with its full 16:9 picture, and looking at that picture you can clearly see that it was composed exactly for the whole 16:9 aperture (of course, you would see that if you have any idea about right composition).

Same story with the Underworld (2003 movie), it was also made in 3-perf Super35, and when you watch the full 16:9 picture, you see that it surely was composed for the whole aperture. Also if you watch its sequel, Underworld: Evolution, and compare the cropped 2.35:1 version (where the picture looks not just heavily cropped but indeed butchered) and the normal open matte 16:9 version, where the framing is beautiful and nothing fells off the frame, you'd begin to hate black bars and cropping.

Film might be considered similar to sculpture only in terms of editing, but certainly not picture cropping, because in that case, it might be similar to antique sculptures with their hands and heads cut off by ignorant medieval vandals.

http://stat17.privet.ru/lr/0a04f61b9...68a769f60c4a46


Most directors agree to show their pictures cropped just to meet the theatrical standards, and then release the pictures in different formats on video and for TV showing, but some of them just don't care about that (you can see it in their interviews).

Just tell me what kind of proof of my words you want to see, and you'll have it.
But as I said before, the Rule of Thirds is not my invention, I just state the fact that it's widely used in cinematography, I can tell you about other rules of composition and give as many examples of their usage as you want.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by VadiaRotor

the results of cropping most of the Super35 movies looks like their picture was really cropped by a random person or not very intelligent intern


yes, but in fact, viewers see the film, the story with the "eyes" of a cameraman, so his role is very important, too. Directors just make sure the mise-en-scène is right, and the rest is cameramen's work.


Quentin Tarantino! when he made Reservoir Dogs, he trusted all decisions concerning visual aspects of picture to the cameraman, Andrzej Sekula. The cameraman made all decisions of how the film would look, and Quentin was concerned only about drama and good acting when he was shooting.

But when Quentin shot Death Proof, he himself directed the photography, he made the film in Super35 3-perf format, in 16:9 AR. Of course, the film was shown in theaters cropped to 2.39:1, but it was released on video almost exclusively with its full 16:9 picture, and looking at that picture you can clearly see that it was composed exactly for the whole 16:9 aperture (of course, you would see that if you have any idea about right composition).

Same story with the Underworld (2003 movie), it was also made in 3-perf Super35, and when you watch the full 16:9 picture, you see that it surely was composed for the whole aperture. Also if you watch its sequel, Underworld: Evolution, and compare the cropped 2.35:1 version (where the picture looks not just heavily cropped but indeed butchered) and the normal open matte 16:9 version, where the framing is beautiful and nothing fells off the frame, you'd begin to hate black bars and cropping.

Film might be considered similar to sculpture only in terms of editing, but certainly not picture cropping, because in that case, it might be similar to antique sculptures with their hands and heads cut off by ignorant medieval vandals.

http://stat17.privet.ru/lr/0a04f61b9...68a769f60c4a46


Most directors agree to show their pictures cropped just to meet the theatrical standards, and then release the pictures in different formats on video and for TV showing, but some of them just don't care about that (you can see it in their interviews).

Just tell me what kind of proof of my words you want to see, and you'll have it.
But as I said before, the Rule of Thirds is not my invention, I just state the fact that it's widely used in cinematography, I can tell you about other rules of composition and give as many examples of their usage as you want.

lol, by proof I mean verified statements from Directors (the gods of the film, the end and be end of all in a film, the cameraman is his lackey not his boss) stating that they are forced to crop or that a 2.39:1 film is NOT his intended vision. (and I'm not talking about a unique situation like deathproof where it was shown theatrically as a double feature and was cropped to 2.39:1 in order for it to not stand out as "different" from Planet Terror)

I can list dozens of films off the top of my head that are ruined by open matte. lord of the rings : return of the king being most obvious. It loses it's epic feeling and there's a TON of wasted head space in the open matter version, very annoying as an editor to see that type of framing. "A fish called wanda" where an entire gag is ruined because the open matte shows too much. "Alien Resurrection" where TWO boom mikes are shown on screen at the same time time. the list goes on

you've obviously got a bias and no amount of reason will dissuade you. you state that many directors are "forced" to show their screens cropped to meet theatrical standards, yet you praise open matte which is pretty much 1.85:1 ..... A THEATRICAL standard.... sorry but after working with enough directors you can tell when someone's blowing bull sh!t around. I'm done with this one, it's pretty obvious at this point that you're just f@cking with us or refusing to see it from anything but a camerman's point of view (the camerman being minion of the director subject to his wills).

have a nice day

[Damage Inc.]

What's all this racist talk of Black Bars?!

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

What's all this racist talk of Black Bars?!

that's African-American bars thank you very much!!!

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by wormraper

that's African-American bars thank you very much!!!

Aboriginal Australian black bars where I'm from

[Deciazulado]

We're still going on about this?

Closing by the Projectionist Antidefamation FUD Society. (The PAFUDS)

but before that a few words from our sponsors

Originally Posted by VadiaRotor

the results of cropping most of the Super35 movies looks like their picture was really cropped by a random person or not very intelligent intern

Like it's been mentioned, that is your opinion. Not the opinion, intention, and product that is shot, printed and released by professionals and watched by millions on Cinemas the world over.

But when Quentin shot Death Proof, he himself directed the photography, he made the film in Super35 3-perf format, in 16:9 AR. Of course, the film was shown in theaters cropped to 2.39:1, but it was released on video almost exclusively with its full 16:9 picture, and looking at that picture you can clearly see that it was composed exactly for the whole 16:9 aperture (of course, you would see that if you have any idea about right composition).

Aren't you talking about Roberto Rodríguez and Planet Terror?

Same story with the Underworld (2003 movie), it was also made in 3-perf Super35, and when you watch the full 16:9 picture, you see that it surely was composed for the whole aperture. Also if you watch its sequel, Underworld: Evolution, and compare the cropped 2.35:1 version (where the picture looks not just heavily cropped but indeed butchered) and the normal open matte 16:9 version, where the framing is beautiful and nothing fells off the frame, you'd begin to hate black bars and cropping.

Again, your opinion, and not the filmmaker's who made them and released them, and probably most people who watched them and enjoyed them sitting on a theater. The only place you don't see it in anything not like the theater is in broadcast TV or even in old SD DVD to fill your screens! (I have Underworld in FULL SUPER ULTRA OPEN MATTE 1.33 DVD! Your cropped 1.78 Broadcast version is butchered beyond control!). You enjoy seeing the extra image filling your 16:9 HDTV screen but again that's your preference. Not how it was meant to be seen.

Most directors agree to show their pictures cropped just to meet the theatrical standards, and then release the pictures in different formats on video and for TV showing, but some of them just don't care about that (you can see it in their interviews).

You keep saying this "disparate". If the director wants the film in standard widescreen ratio he composes for standard widescreen and releases it in standard widescreen. Standard widescreen is a theatrical standard format and all movie theaters can project it. There's nothing stopping them from doing so. No need for their film to be hijacked by the secret Scope Illuminati Projection Society!! (SIPS)

You have things backwards: they are shown open matte on TV to FILL THE TV SCREENS because BROADCASTERS PREFER THAT. (Your argument but put right side up.)

Just tell me what kind of proof of my words you want to see, and you'll have it.
But as I said before, the Rule of Thirds is not my invention, I just state the fact that it's widely used in cinematography, I can tell you about other rules of composition and give as many examples of their usage as you want.

And SMPTE standards is not my invention and they are widely used in cinematography and followed by professionals in shooting, printing and projecting films.