Aspect Ratios - The Director's Vision

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I believe Raintree County is one too (MGM Camera 65).

There's actually a dispute on this one. Michael Coate always claimed that there's no proof any 70mm prints were ever made. In70mm.com (a European site) claims the opposite: that no 35mm prints were ever made (although that seems a bit incredulous to me.) But Variety did list this as a 70mm film and it was indeed shot in MGM Camera 65.

[Deciazulado]

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

There's actually a dispute on this one. Michael Coate always claimed that there's no proof any 70mm prints were ever made. In70mm.com (a European site) claims the opposite: that no 35mm prints were ever made (although that seems a bit incredulous to me.) But Variety did list this as a 70mm film and it was indeed shot in MGM Camera 65.

RE: Raintree County.

I was an avid film buff at the time. Either no 70mm prints were made, or I couldn't find them ... in either the San Francisco Bay Area or in L.A. I absolutely saw a 35 mm print.

I always wondered if Elizabeth Taylor and Mike Todd (who were married to each other at the time) had little talks about this. Taylor was in Raintree, and Todd had marketed Todd-AO, the first modern 70mm process, with a more comfortable AR, IMO. Perhaps Raintree couldn't be shown in 70 mm because Todd's Around the World in 80 Days(1956) was still running (it ended up running well into its second year) in the only available 70mm theaters. They ended up equipping more theaters for Todd-AO so South Pacific could run in 70mm, while 80 Days ran on and on, still in 70mm

But, as you say, Raintree was shot on 65 mm film, the first film in Camera 65 (essentially an imprint for Ultra Panavision 70), and was very widely advertised as being in Camera 65, "Window to the World." My movie, photography and audiophile friends were sorely disappointed when it came out in 35mm, and looked and sounded no better than CinemaScope. A few years later Ben-Hur demonstrated that, in 70mm, Camera 65 had a "walk into it" or "reach out and touch it" quality (far superior to any BD I've ever seen, anywhere).

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by garyrc

But, as you say, Raintree was shot on 65 mm film, the first film in Camera 65 (essentially an imprint for Ultra Panavision 70), and was very widely advertised as being in Camera 65, "Window to the World." My movie, photography and audiophile friends were sorely disappointed when it came out in 35mm, and looked and sounded no better than CinemaScope. A few years later Ben-Hur demonstrated that, in 70mm, Camera 65 had a "walk into it" or "reach out and touch it" quality (far superior to any BD I've ever seen, anywhere).

Am I the only one salivating at what Ben-Hur could/may look like on BD this year?

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Am I the only one salivating at what Ben-Hur could/may look like on BD this year?

No, you're not the only one! I hope they capture the incredible PQ and AQ of this film. I hope they care as much as we do.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by garyrc

RE: Raintree County.

I was an avid film buff at the time. Either no 70mm prints were made, or I couldn't find them ... in either the San Francisco Bay Area or in L.A. I absolutely saw a 35 mm print.

I always wondered if Elizabeth Taylor and Mike Todd (who were married to each other at the time) had little talks about this. Taylor was in Raintree, and Todd had marketed Todd-AO, the first modern 70mm process, with a more comfortable AR, IMO. Perhaps Raintree couldn't be shown in 70 mm because Todd's Around the World in 80 Days(1956) was still running (it ended up running well into its second year) in the only available 70mm theaters. They ended up equipping more theaters for Todd-AO so South Pacific could run in 70mm, while 80 Days ran on and on, still in 70mm

But, as you say, Raintree was shot on 65 mm film, the first film in Camera 65 (essentially an imprint for Ultra Panavision 70), and was very widely advertised as being in Camera 65, "Window to the World." My movie, photography and audiophile friends were sorely disappointed when it came out in 35mm, and looked and sounded no better than CinemaScope. A few years later Ben-Hur demonstrated that, in 70mm, Camera 65 had a "walk into it" or "reach out and touch it" quality (far superior to any BD I've ever seen, anywhere).

Actually, I made a mistake. in70mm.com did not state that no 35mm prints were made. What they actually said was,

"the few theaters then equipped to show 70mm were tied up with Todd's "Around the World in 80 Days" and committed to follow it with "South Pacific". While it's understandable why MGM didn't go to the expense of setting up the Brown Theater in Louisville, KY, where the film premiered, for the process, why they didn't do so for the New York and/or Los Angeles theaters in which it was roadshown is a subject for further research. Thus this film has never been publicly shown in 70mm."

But they also say this:

However, cinematographer John Hora remembers seeing a 70mm print at MGM when he was a USC Cinema student in the early Sixties

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

But they also say this:

...Quote:
However, cinematographer John Hora remembers seeing a 70mm print at MGM when he was a USC Cinema student in the early Sixties

[I transferred the above quote (supplied by ZoetMB) to this post manually, because the program's quote function wouldn't let me do it normally]

It's quite plausible that the people at MGM made a 70mm print of Raintree for themselves, and did not release any. I saw a 70 mm print of Operation Crossbow on display (not projected, just on display on a couple of reels with the film hanging from them) at MGM in 1965, but never could find it in 70mm in a theater.

Here's an idea: they could make 70 mm prints now

Also, I'm not sure I accept the notion that 70 mm is too expensive to use today... film costs are rather reasonable compared to the salaries given to some actors (and sometimes directors). If an actor or director wanted to do a film in 70mm, they could make a contribution. While it is true that most 65mm cameras are cumbersome, Fricke seemed to do just fine shooting Baraka in 70mm Todd-AO around the world (no nuance intended).

[e-milosz]

(I am sorry for posting it here but I am also frustrated by the fact that this forum not only not allow new users to write new posts but also DOES NOT say why I can't do it, waste of time, congratulations admin)

I am sorry, I googled many information about aspec ratio but could not find sensible practical explenation.

Why TV and DVD/Blu-Ray disk viewers/customers are ignored for such a long time?

Is it so expensive to release different than cinema spect ratio for Blu-Ray customers?

Many people will say that the frame would need to be cropped on sides but this is not true! In fact, quite OPPOSITE!

Some time ago I found screen shots from 1:33:1 (4:3) version of Harry potter and compared with the same scene/frame on 2.35:1. It was a scene when they are passing table with cakes although in 2.35:1 you can't even see the cakes! The sides are cropped but just slightly so 16:9 would give ideal superior looking result on 16:9 TV.

How come the movie could be formated to 4:3 and for some reason the same tape can't be converted to 16:9. The whole world is waiting for it.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by e-milosz

(I am sorry for posting it here but I am also frustrated by the fact that this forum not only not allow new users to write new posts but also DOES NOT say why I can't do it, waste of time, congratulations admin)

I am sorry, I googled many information about aspec ratio but could not find sensible practical explenation.

Why TV and DVD/Blu-Ray disk viewers/customers are ignored for such a long time?

Is it so expensive to release different than cinema spect ratio for Blu-Ray customers?

Many people will say that the frame would need to be cropped on sides but this is not true! In fact, quite OPPOSITE!

Some time ago I found screen shots from 1:33:1 (4:3) version of Harry potter and compared with the same scene/frame on 2.35:1. It was a scene when they are passing table with cakes although in 2.35:1 you can't even see the cakes! The sides are cropped but just slightly so 16:9 would give ideal superior looking result on 16:9 TV.

How come the movie could be formated to 4:3 and for some reason the same tape can't be converted to 16:9. The whole world is waiting for it.

First, read the very first post in this thread. And second, we don't want 2.35 images cropped on Blu-ray. We want to see the entire image the way it was intended to be seen.

[e-milosz]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

First, read the very first post in this thread. And second, we don't want 2.35 images cropped on Blu-ray. We want to see the entire image the way it was intended to be seen.

First, I've read first post and second i am not talking about cropping the already cropped format (from original 35mm film).

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

We want to see the entire image the way it was intended to be seen.

Yes, this is what I am trying to find out why directors want us to see less, to not make the most of the established TV 16:9 standard.
Also not sure if it is just about 'indended to be seen', it would be hard for director to say: I want it more like full frame 4:5 or 16:9 to make it more comfortable to everyone. It's practical but can director make such decision for a blockbuster?

The bottom line is that for example Harry Potter or many other movies 10 years ago were released also as 4:5. Which format then is the real intention?
Could 16:9 not be a great average?

Also, changing from 2.35 to 16:9 would never mean seeing less, the width is the same anyway, it's just about adding or allowing us to see more top and bottom from the cropped frame.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by e-milosz

Many people will say that the frame would need to be cropped on sides but this is not true! In fact, quite OPPOSITE!

Some time ago I found screen shots from 1:33:1 (4:3) version of Harry potter and compared with the same scene/frame on 2.35:1. It was a scene when they are passing table with cakes although in 2.35:1 you can't even see the cakes! The sides are cropped but just slightly so 16:9 would give ideal superior looking result on 16:9 TV.

How come the movie could be formated to 4:3 and for some reason the same tape can't be converted to 16:9. The whole world is waiting for it.

You also are not taking into account that not all the shots in a Super35 Harry Potter, particularly those with visual effects (like the Quiddich match or Harry's confrontation with Voldemort) are going to be severely cropped at 1.33 and still cropped at 1.78 (16x9). The director and everyone who made the film had 2.35 in mind, just because there is extra information doesn't mean it was intended for audiences to see. If he wanted you to see it in the theater he would have framed it differently to begin with.

Anything with anamorphic 35MM, like Transformers, Batman Begins, STAR TREK, films by Clint Eastwood, etc. will be cropped: period.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by e-milosz

I am sorry, I googled many information about aspec ratio but could not find sensible practical explenation.

Why TV and DVD/Blu-Ray disk viewers/customers are ignored for such a long time?

Is it so expensive to release different than cinema spect ratio for Blu-Ray customers?

Many people will say that the frame would need to be cropped on sides but this is not true! In fact, quite OPPOSITE!

Some time ago I found screen shots from 1:33:1 (4:3) version of Harry potter and compared with the same scene/frame on 2.35:1. It was a scene when they are passing table with cakes although in 2.35:1 you can't even see the cakes! The sides are cropped but just slightly so 16:9 would give ideal superior looking result on 16:9 TV.

How come the movie could be formated to 4:3 and for some reason the same tape can't be converted to 16:9. The whole world is waiting for it.

Originally Posted by e-milosz

First, I've read first post and second i am not talking about cropping the already cropped format (from original 35mm film).


Yes, this is what I am trying to find out why directors want us to see less, to not make the most of the established TV 16:9 standard.
Also not sure if it is just about 'indended to be seen', it would be hard for director to say: I want it more like full frame 4:5 or 16:9 to make it more comfortable to everyone. It's practical but can director make such decision for a blockbuster?

The bottom line is that for example Harry Potter or many other movies 10 years ago were released also as 4:5. Which format then is the real intention?
Could 16:9 not be a great average?

Also, changing from 2.35 to 16:9 would never mean seeing less, the width is the same anyway, it's just about adding or allowing us to see more top and bottom from the cropped frame.

These films that you're thinking of, are shot with the Super 35 format which exposes images on the old Silent film full aperture 1.33 format (which happen to be the biggest available "hole" on a 35mm camera) :



but the shots are composed with the theatrical aspect ratio in mind (The director shoots the action framing within that red rectangle) :

2.39super35.gif

And this is what is projected in theaters.


The extra image above and below on the negative is just that: extra image, which is not meant to be seen by the moviegoer. One of the reasons for doing it this way is that fot TV broadcasts which are a different shape than Cinemas ratios, instead of having to cut part of the intended picture to fit it on the TV, they can show the extra empty image to fit it by filling the tv screen with something, which is the lesser of the two evils.


What do you think the director wants you to see on the theater and your tv?

This ambiguous loosely framed image exposed automatically on the camera with extra background,

S35.jpg

or this tightly framed , carefully composed dramatic image?


projection.jpg