Guest Christopher Wedding Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 (edited) DSHEEHY brought up a point in the INSIDE MAN topic that he thought some framing didn't give enough head room. Actually I didn't notice it in that movie....but I did notice it in V for Vendetta. It bothered me the entire film and left me wondering if the SuperWide aspect ratio 2.35 or more:1 means bigger 'hair cuts' in the frame. Can anyone else comment on this? I'm wondering what the aspect ratio actually was on this. Also, maybe it was some sort of narrative theme, I noticed the Head Honcho Gov Guy had his eyes at the top of the frame practically the whole time, maybe a visual que to his greatness or power status within the film....but I'm not sure if it worked since everyone else seemed to be missing half a head. (I know I exagerate a bit, but not too much.) Edited March 31, 2006 by Christopher Wedding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 DSHEEHY brought up a point in the INSIDE MAN topic that he thought some framing didn't give enough head room. Actually I didn't notice it in that movie....but I did notice it in V for Vendetta. It bothered me the entire film and left me wondering if the SuperWide aspect ratio 2.35 or more:1 means bigger 'hair cuts' in the frame. Can anyone else comment on this? I'm wondering what the aspect ratio actually was on this. Also, maybe it was some sort of narrative theme, I noticed the Head Honcho Gov Guy had his eyes at the top of the frame practically the whole time, maybe a visual que to his greatness or power status within the film....but I'm not sure if it worked since everyone else seemed to be missing half a head. (I know I exagerate a bit, but not too much.) It was shot Panavision anormorpic, sounds like bad projection to me . john holland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Sheehy Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I noticed it in V for Vendetta as well. I considered that it may be a projection problem, but I couldn't see any spill-over outside or above the screen. It may have been a problem with projection, but it came across just looking like poor framing. I only noticed it in some shots. If it had been a projection issue, wouldn't the framing have looked off throughout the movie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matti Poutanen Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 DSHEEHY brought up a point in the INSIDE MAN topic that he thought some framing didn't give enough head room. Actually I didn't notice it in that movie....but I did notice it in V for Vendetta. It bothered me the entire film and left me wondering if the SuperWide aspect ratio 2.35 or more:1 means bigger 'hair cuts' in the frame. Can anyone else comment on this? I'm wondering what the aspect ratio actually was on this. Also, maybe it was some sort of narrative theme, I noticed the Head Honcho Gov Guy had his eyes at the top of the frame practically the whole time, maybe a visual que to his greatness or power status within the film....but I'm not sure if it worked since everyone else seemed to be missing half a head. (I know I exagerate a bit, but not too much.) To me the framing of "Head Honcho Gov Guy" was completely deliberate and worked out well. He was like Big Brother (not the reality show...), not a person but something larger than life, something so big and powerful that he can't even fit to your screen! His closeups were meant to be intimidating and frightening to the people of London, to keep the masses under control, and this was something I felt also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Glenn Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 To me the framing of "Head Honcho Gov Guy" was completely deliberate and worked out well. He was like Big Brother (not the reality show...), not a person but something larger than life, something so big and powerful that he can't even fit to your screen! His closeups were meant to be intimidating and frightening to the people of London, to keep the masses under control, and this was something I felt also. I thought the way teleconferences were done was the best element of the whole film.. Brilliant idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted April 11, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 11, 2006 It was shot Panavision anormorpic, sounds like bad projection to me . Nope. It was shot super 35. (Cool flick, by the way.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hayes Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I may be wrong but I am under the impression that if you shoot super 35 or anamorphic there is no picture above or below the frame so an improperly projected image would end up being cropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted April 11, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 11, 2006 As far as I know that is indeed the case. There is very little picture information over and under the scope frame that gets masked off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted April 11, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 11, 2006 Hi, Even with conservative 2.4:1 backing plates in the projector, the flash of splices can still be visible with anamorphic. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now