What aspect ratio would you prefer "Titanic" in?

[42041]

Originally Posted by aiman04

I stand corrected. So what they're showing now in IMAX is cropped then. I want 2.39:1 on blu-ray.

No, it was shot Super 35. Cameron hates anamorphic. Super 35 produces anamorphic prints from a spherical negative. That specification on imdb's site refers to the theatrical prints, not the photography.

I want Titanic in OAR. I get why Cameron would open-matte the movie for giant IMAX screens but on blu-ray it would look completely wrong.

[notops]

Originally Posted by aiman04

I stand corrected. So what they're showing now in IMAX is cropped then. I want 2.39:1 on blu-ray.

IMDB is WRONG! Titanic was definitely shot Super 35 (yes, IMDB has and continues to be a fallible source of information). Some of the FX shots were finished in a 2.39:1 ratio, but as Cameron stated about the Full Screen VHS release: "Expect to see more of people's hats and shoes". That, my friends, perfectly sums up Super 35 with the mattes opened up.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by notops

IMDB is WRONG! Titanic was definitely shot Super 35 (yes, IMDB has and continues to be a fallible source of information). Some of the FX shots were finished in a 2.39:1 ratio, but as Cameron stated about the Full Screen VHS release: "Expect to see more of people's hats and shoes". That, my friends, perfectly sums up Super 35 with the mattes opened up.

That's all fine and dandy, but what was shown in theaters? I rest my case. If he wants to release a 1.78:1 version for 3D that's fine, but the 2.39:1 OAR should be included for 2D.

[42041]

Originally Posted by notops

With the opened mattes, there would be significantly less cropping of the top of people's heads (something many Super 35-shot movies are notorious for)

Huh? The framing is up to the cinematographer. If people's heads are cut off that's how they're supposed to be. Super35 doesn't just haphazardly cut the image in half.

[notops]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

You obviously don't understand the term original aspect ratio. If a director wants to change it for the home video release that's fine, but he or she needs to include the original ratio as well.

If you read my post thoroughly, you would have understood that I was talking about 3D presentations. Have you ever bought a 3D blu that didn't also have a 2D version included? Obviously, the 2D disc would be OAR.

...and thanks for the glibness. I have every understanding of OAR. Cameron did not put out an open matte version in 2D, so what led you to believe I was talking about a 2D open-matte Blu Ray?

[aiman04]

Originally Posted by 42041

No, it was shot Super 35. Cameron hates anamorphic. Super 35 produces anamorphic prints from a spherical negative. That specification on imdb's site refers to the theatrical prints, not the photography.

I want Titanic in OAR. I get why Cameron would open-matte the movie for giant IMAX screens but on blu-ray it would look completely wrong.

Thanks for clearing that up. Prints for theater presentations don't matter. All right, so it was shot Super35?

Okay then, my preference is OAR, but I always fear for cropping more than that.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by notops

If you read my post thoroughly, you would have understood that I was talking about 3D presentations. Have you ever bought a 3D blu that didn't also have a 2D version included? Obviously, the 2D disc would be OAR.

...and thanks for the glibness. I have every understanding of OAR. Cameron did not put out an open matte version in 2D, so what led you to believe I was talking about a 2D open-matte Blu Ray?

I was verifying that with my subsequent post, which you can see above. If he wants to release the 3D version only in 1.78:1 I have no problem with that as long as the 2D version is included in 2.39:1.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by notops

IMDB is WRONG! Titanic was definitely shot Super 35 (yes, IMDB has and continues to be a fallible source of information). Some of the FX shots were finished in a 2.39:1 ratio, but as Cameron stated about the Full Screen VHS release: "Expect to see more of people's hats and shoes". That, my friends, perfectly sums up Super 35 with the mattes opened up.

But if I am not wrong, opening the frame to 1.85:1 would only work for non-VFX shots. Having been composed for 2.39:1, VFX shots could only be turned into 1.85:1 by cropping the sides off.

Or am I wrong?

[notops]

Originally Posted by 42041

Huh? The framing is up to the cinematographer. If people's heads are cut off that's how they're supposed to be. Super35 doesn't just haphazardly cut the image in half.

Who said it was done haphazardly? And do you honestly think a perfectionist like Cameron (the man who has publicly stated he prefers the 1.37:1 framing of the Super 35 shot The Abyss) would just let the cinematographer frame up his shots?

[aiman04]

Originally Posted by notops

IMDB is WRONG! Titanic was definitely shot Super 35 (yes, IMDB has and continues to be a fallible source of information). Some of the FX shots were finished in a 2.39:1 ratio, but as Cameron stated about the Full Screen VHS release: "Expect to see more of people's hats and shoes". That, my friends, perfectly sums up Super 35 with the mattes opened up.

Hey don't shout at me, I'm just responding to a post. And I never knew about Cameron's statement about that, thanks. And that's why we have these forums, we can share what we know while learning something.

[scorpiontail60]

Anyone who would rather stare at solid black bars than expanded picture is being quite ridiculous.

Do you guys all wear special glasses to block out portions of your vision in real life too? "Real life's composition just doesn't look right, man! Lemme just tweak my eyes' aspect ratio..."

Open matte all the way baby. Cameron is really good about bringing out expanded picture versions of his films, so I hope he doesn't decide to disappoint us all with a cropped to 2.39:1 Titanic just to appease all the OAR babies.

[notops]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

But if I am not wrong, opening the frame to 1.85:1 would only work for non-VFX shots. Having been composed for 2.39:1, VFX shots could only be turned into 1.85:1 by cropping the sides off.

Or am I wrong?

Since I have yet to watch the open-matte 3D version I cannot say how he handled that situation. However, since the background plates were shot on a 1.33:1 negative, he could potentially go back and have the FX shots re-processed using the full info on the plates.

This is only speculation, as I have not yet seen it. But to answer your question, cropping is not the only solution.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Anyone who would rather stare at solid black bars than expanded picture is being quite ridiculous.

I think that single quote, along with your use of the term "OAR babies", speak for itself.

[42041]

Originally Posted by notops

Who said it was done haphazardly? And do you honestly think a perfectionist like Cameron (the man who has publicly stated he prefers the 1.37:1 framing of the Super 35 shot The Abyss) would just let the cinematographer frame up his shots?

Well, that's implicit in "super35 is notorious for cropping off people's heads". If there's a problem with Super35 cropping off people's heads, that's a compositional issue with that particular film, or the scope AR in general, not the format; there's nothing stopping the DP/operator/director from using wider shots.

[notops]

Originally Posted by 42041

Well, that's implicit in "super35 is notorious for cropping off people's heads". If there's a problem with Super35 cropping off people's heads, that's a compositional issue with that particular film, or the scope AR in general, not the format; there's nothing stopping the DP/operator/director from using wider shots.

Totally in agreement with you. Perhaps I should have said "Directors who choose to frame their movies in Super 35 scope are notorious for cropping off peoples heads to appease all ratios the films can be presented in (2.39, 1.77, 1.37)." Sorry for the confusion.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by notops

Since I have yet to watch the open-matte 3D version I cannot say how he handled that situation. However, since the background plates were shot on a 1.33:1 negative, he could potentially go back and have the FX shots re-processed using the full info on the plates.

This is only speculation, as I have not yet seen it. But to answer your question, cropping is not the only solution.

Well, he could have recomposed all the VFX shots for the IMAX 3-D re-release, sure, but I have heard nothing of such a huge and high-cost undertake. Then again, I guess it's something that would not be beyond Cameron.

(as a side note, as far as I know, the only digital tinkering on the re-release is the correction of a star field that was not location's accurate)

[42041]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Do you guys all wear special glasses to block out portions of your vision in real life too? "Real life's composition just doesn't look right, man! Lemme just tweak my eyes' aspect ratio..."

I don't see the relevance of this analogy, movies are not real life. When you're taking a photo, do you try to include everything you possibly can around you? Is the artistic quality of your photo proportional to how wide of a lens you use? Personally I just go for the stuff I want in my photo.

Personally I find the Avatar blu-ray's AR annoying, larger image or not. When i saw the film in theaters it was scope. The open matte version has too much headroom/negative space and it bugs me.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Do you guys all wear special glasses to block out portions of your vision in real life too? "Real life's composition just doesn't look right, man! Lemme just tweak my eyes' aspect ratio..."

Originally Posted by 42041

I don't see the relevance of this analogy, movies are not real life. When you're taking a photo, do you try to include everything you possibly can around you? Is the artistic quality of your photo proportional to how wide of a lens you use? Personally I just go for the stuff I want in my photo.

Oh, no, no, you've got it all WRONG!

As this other quote from him explains...

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Anyone who would rather stare at solid black bars than expanded picture is being quite ridiculous.

... it is NOT about such an ignorant thing as frame composition, but about FILLING THE DAMNED SCREEN!

Hope I clarified that for you.

[aiman04]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

Well, he could have recomposed all the VFX shots for the IMAX 3-D re-release, sure, but I have heard nothing of such a huge and high-cost undertake. Then again, I guess it's something that would not be beyond Cameron.

(as a side note, as far as I know, the only digital tinkering on the re-release is the correction of a star field that was not location's accurate)

Yeah, it would cost a lot and we would've heard something. But looking at how much money they're bringing in with this movie, it's not impossible. They did finish up the footage for the extended edition of Avatar. And this is James Cameron we're talking about.

[joenostalgia23]

They opened up the mattes for the 3D version, and I think the 3D version should be in 1.85-1.77 because the extra vertical space actually helps with depth and objects.

But the 2D film MUST be presented in scope as that is the OAR. There's no purpose for that negative space in 2D, it's just excess that was supposed to be cut off.