Scope aspect ratio on the F900

[Tomas Koolhaas]

Hello everyone,

I am currently prepping a shoot on the F900, I believe the project lends itself to being shot in the 2:35:1 aspect ratio, as does the director, I was planning to use the in-camera scope setting (I know this crops the image wasting some of the resolution, but I do not have an anamorphic adaptor so have little choice if we want to shoot 2:35). The issue has arisen where the editor of the project has chimed in on the issue, and is scaring the director with horror stories about not being able to show his film at festivals if we shoot in 2:35. I tried to tell the director that digital projectors can project 2:35 as easily as they would a 1:85 project, but I think he has some reservations now due to the editor's meddlings.

My question to everyone is whether you think that there is even a remote posibility that any festivals will a) have any problem screening a 2:35 image (surely not?) and B) whether (as the editor claimed) festival screeners would be prejudice against the project because if viewed on a 4:3 television a large portion of the screen would be covered by the letterbox (surely festival screeners can appreciate a nicely framed 2:35 image even letterboxed on a 4:3 television??) any ideas of experiences anyone has had would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers.

Tomas.

[Keith Mottram]

your editor's on acid....

[David Mullen ASC]

2.35 complicates digital projection but most festivals can handle it -- it just may be projected letterboxed at some places.

 

If you're talking about DLP-Cinema projectors, the best thing is to create two HD tapes, one that is letterboxed to 2.35 and one where the 2.35 area has been stretched to fill 16x9 HD. Then if the DLP-Cinema projector comes with a 1.9X anamorphic lens, you can properly show the stretched version. If the projector only comes with its 1.5X anamorphic lens (which is how it handles 16x9 since the DMD chip in the DLP projector is 1280 x 1040 pixels I think, something like 1.25 : 1), then you can either project it letterboxed or zoom the image so that the 2.35 portion fills the screen (losing 30% of your screen brightness but usually it looks fine.)

 

For basic video projectors showing digital betacam tapes, etc., you'd have to show it letterboxed.

[Tomas Koolhaas]

Thank you both very much for your replies,

David, I will definately make two different HD versions as you suggested. This should solve any problems for festivals that use DLP projectors.

However, I believe there are various festivals that only allow D.Beta versions for projection, do you think that festival organizers would be hesitant to screen a letterboxed 2.35 image at their festivals? are you aware of any prejudices against 2.35 letterboxing on submissions for entry (which would presumably be watched on 4:3 T.V sets).

I understand that these are somewhat hypothetical questions as Perhaps no-one on this forum actually selects for festivals, but I wonder if any one is aware of, or has had any experiences with any prejudices against 2.35 letterboxing.

Thank you very much.

Tomas.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see why a festival would object -- I'd only say that standard def video projection at film festivals usually looks like CRAP, regardless of letterboxing issues...

 

Certainly one of the MAJOR points of 2.35 projection is that it looks horizontally BIGGER and more impressive than 1.85 projection, so if it really looks like you can't even get decent scope presentations at the film festival level and don't get theatrical distribution in 35mm scope prints either, then there's not much point in bothering with scope because it's not going to look more impressive than 1.85, just smaller vertically.

 

Luckily the major festivals have been doing HD projection lately, but I do recall some crappy NTSC presentations of my HD features at the Hollywood Film Festival. Personally if I shot in HD and the festivals only wanted to screen a beta tape, I'd be tempted to opt out.

[Tomas Koolhaas]

Thanks for your reply David,

Although it seems that the Editor has prevailed and the Director is too scared to shoot scope now. It seems a shame as the director actually suggested shooting in scope himself, it was not something I pushed on him.

Although I do think shots of downtown LA exteriors (our intended location) usually lend themselves to an aspect ratio with more lateral information rather than vertical, I am not going to argue this point to the death with various members of the crew (who really shouldn't be involved in D.P/Director discussions anyway), we shoot on friday so if he wants 1.85 then that's what he'll get.

I think I'm going to start a new topic about people ( editors for example) meddling in D.P. issues and see what experiences other people on the forum have had and how they have dealt with them.

Thanks again for the helpful replies.

Tomas.

[nchopp]

Thanks for your reply David,

Although it seems that the Editor has prevailed and the Director is too scared to shoot scope now. It seems a shame as the director actually suggested shooting in scope himself, it was not something I pushed on him.

Although I do think shots of downtown LA exteriors (our intended location) usually lend themselves to an aspect ratio with more lateral information rather than vertical, I am not going to argue this point to the death with various members of the crew (who really shouldn't be involved in D.P/Director discussions anyway), we shoot on friday so if he wants 1.85 then that's what he'll get.

I think I'm going to start a new topic about people ( editors for example) meddling in D.P. issues and see what experiences other people on the forum have had and how they have dealt with them.

Thanks again for the helpful replies.

Tomas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Punch them in the face. Particularly someone who is so far removed from the visual cinematography aspect. Just ridiculous.

[Tomas Koolhaas]

Hello everyone,

Just an update on the shoot with the 2.35/16:9 D.P/Editor battle, which wrapped on monday- The first shot of the first day was a wide shot of a car under a bridge in downtown LA (Magic hour, Very nice composition, lot's of diagonal and horizontal lines in the surroundings).

Even though I had grudgingly agreed to shoot 1.85, just for the hell of it I showed the director what the shot would look like in regular 16:9 mode then switched the camera to VISAT2 and showed him again. To my great surprise he instantly told me we HAD to shoot 2.35 and that he would make sure the Editor didn't bother me about it again. VICTORY!!!

this is one battle that I am proud to have won on behalf of all cinematographers against all the un-imaginative people out there who try to stifle our creativity due to their own insecurities. This proved to be the case, as later-on in the shoot the editor told me he only was worried about 2.35 because he had never edited a 2.35 project and didn't know how to deal with this aspect ratio on his editing software. I reassured him it was all going to be O.K. and thought to myself that it was lucky I didn't take Nchopp's advice, even though it was very tempting at times.hehe.

 

Punch them in the face. Particularly someone who is so far removed from the visual cinematography aspect. Just ridiculous.

 

Cheers everyone, thanks again for the replies and advice, much apreciated!

Tomas.

[David Mullen ASC]

Shoot a framing chart and have the editor set-up a display monitor masked with black tape to your 2.35 lines.