New “Justice League” 4:3???

[Ravi Kiran]

19 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Yea but digital IMAX screens aren't inherently 1.43:1 (the native aspect ratio of 15 perf), but now a days they're mostly 1.9:1 making them more matted than 1.85:1. So the theory that it was for an IMAX release, kinda makes no sense. Also... why not shoot 3 perf if that were the case. You save a bunch of money and get more time on each roll. It kinda seems like such a waste. 

The IMAX reasoning for presenting it at 4:3 seems like a retroactive justification since it was originally framed for 1.85:1, according to the DOP. Plus, I can't imagine that 35mm blown up to a true IMAX screen would look great, if the presentations I've seen are any indication. If IMAX was the intention from the start, why not shoot at least some of it at 15/70, or on a 6K/8K digital camera?

For those who have seen the Snyder cut, does the framing look like standard open matte framing, with excess headroom, above the 1.85:1 area?

[Tyler Purcell]

5 hours ago, Ravi Kiran said:

The IMAX reasoning for presenting it at 4:3 seems like a retroactive justification since it was originally framed for 1.85:1, according to the DOP. Plus, I can't imagine that 35mm blown up to a true IMAX screen would look great, if the presentations I've seen are any indication. If IMAX was the intention from the start, why not shoot at least some of it at 15/70, or on a 6K/8K digital camera?

It would look like crap blown up full screen IMAX. Most IMAX movies are shot with the actors in the center of the frame,  rather than high because raising your neck up to see faces kinda sucks and honestly you don't want to see faces that close anyway. For me, with no disrespect intended, the film looks like a made for TV movie from the late 90's early 2000's. It's not framed any differently than something made for broadcast TV.  Just watch the original Law and Order series. 

5 hours ago, Ravi Kiran said:

For those who have seen the Snyder cut, does the framing look like standard open matte framing, with excess headroom, above the 1.85:1 area?

Yes, SOME shots, but not all. There are plenty of tops of heads cut off shots in 4x3. 

[Justin Hayward]

I stand corrected.  The 4:3 with extra headroom looks better in my opinion.  Ugh... ?

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Justin Hayward

[Tyler Purcell]

16 minutes ago, Justin Hayward said:

I stand corrected.  The 4:3 with extra headroom looks better in my opinion.  Ugh... ?

Ya know, it does. I really thought the 4:3 aspect was cool. Too bad the movie wasn't lol ?

[Stephen Perera]

As a Hasselblad film photographer and an owner of a 16mm Aaton that I shoot at 4:3 ratio I found the framing of this film excellent.....anything with people in it looks better with this format in my opinion.....I found the bars on the side less annoying that the bars top and bottom that you get with very wide aspect ratios......I thought the texture of the film using 500T specially was superb and the cold high contrast vibe really cool......other than that it's not my kind of film at all......in contrast I watched the 1967 film Two For The Road with Albert Finney and Audrey Hepburn on Amazon Prime video yesterday and was enchanted by it and thought the editing was superb......definately recommend you all watch it........

Edited March 28, 2021 by Stephen Perera

[Abdul Rahman Jamous]

15 hours ago, Stephen Perera said:

I found the bars on the side less annoying that the bars top and bottom that you get with very wide aspect ratios.

so true!