Jump to content

panagiotis agapitou

Basic Member
  • Posts

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by panagiotis agapitou

  1. Check this interview of Leon Vitalli : One of the areas of greatest debate in the DVD community is about aspect ratios. The two films that people talk about the most in terms of aspect ratio are Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut, maybe because those are the ones that have been seen theatrical by the DVD buying audience. But people will go through kind of frame by frame and say "In the trailer of Eyes Wide Shut, you can see a sign on the street that you can't see on the full frame video. You can see an extra character…" So how do you address the differences between the theatrical releases of Eyes Wide Shut and of Full Metal Jacket in the DVD releases? The original video release of Full Metal Jacket was in the supervised hands and owned by Stanley. The thing about Stanley, he was a photographer. That's how he started. He had a still photographer's eye. So when he composed a picture through the camera, he was setting up for what he saw through the camera - the full picture. That was very important to him. It really was. It was an instinct that never ever left him. What he wanted the videos to reflect was how he shot the film through the camera, what was on the original neg and what his composition when he was shooting it was. That's why Full Metal Jacket is in full frame. If people looked, okay? What you get on the video that you didn't get in the theatrical because of the 185 masking, was what Stanley was invisioning. You assume these soldiers in the world that they're in. And he uses wide angle uses to shoot. I mean an 18 millimeter lens was the commonest one. He used 24 sometimes. Wide angle lenses. It was important to him the relationship between things. You can see in Full Metal Jacket how small the people were in relation to this huge landscape. The thing with Eyes Wide Shot, it was how he saw the thing through the camera and how he set it up. That's what he wanted to reflect in his videos. He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture on 1.85. Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested. If full frame was so important why didn't Kubrick release them theatrically that way? After Barry Lyndon, more and more theaters were showing films 1.85 or in Cinemascope even if it wasn't shot that way. He had no control. He couldn't go around every cinema and say "You show this film in 1.66" as you could with Clockwork Orange, because then the projectors had 1.66 mask. With multi-plexes things are different and so they only show a film in 1.85 or in 2.21, the Cinemascope. You know? You cannot put a mask in 1.66 as it should be for Clockwork Orange. You can't put a 1.77 in as it should be for Barry Lyndon and that's what Stanley understood with The Shining onwards. He realized that his films we're going to be shown in 1.85 whether he liked it or not. You can't tell all the theaters now how to show your movies. They say it's 1.85, that's it. Stanley realized that masking for 1.85 would far outweigh having 1.66 projected at 1.85. We did a re-release of Clockwork in the U.K. and it's 1.66. It's composed for 1.66. It's shot in 1.66, and the whole shebang. Well, you know, they had to screen it in 1.85. I can't tell you how much it hurt that film. That must have been awful. It's horrible. It's horrible. It's heartbreaking. I mean, it's heartbreaking. You realize that when we got to The Shining, this was after the release of Barry Lyndon, this is how it was all being done. He realized that the best thing he could do is to at least do it so that he understood that beside the 1.85 frame line, they were going to have the composition that he would want you to see. From The Shining and Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut, Stanley had marks on the camera lens so he could see where the 1.85 lines. He composed his shots for 1.66, which is the full screen, but he wouldn't be hurt by going to 1.85 if he had to do it. So he did the reverse of what most directors do, who look at the 'TV Safe Area', Stanley looked at the '1.85 Safe Area'. Absolutely. Absolutely. (https://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html)
  2. Personally i think that if Kubrick was alive he would compose for 1.78 .. to fit excactly the TVs and Laptops The home release is the important .. the one that most people will see .. The theatrical presentation is a so amazing experience that the crop or bar sacrifice is in fact very little But on a home release is the opposite
  3. Kubrick shot on Standard 35mm Academy on many ratios ... The Killing 1.33 Paths of glory 1.33 Lolita 1.66 Dr strangelove 1.33/1.66 {VARIABLE) Clockwork orange 1.66 Barry Lyndon 1.66 The Shining 1.33 (with framelines to compose also for the 1.85 theatrical) Full metal Jacket 1.33 (with framelines to compose also for the 1.85 theatrical) Eyes Wide shut 1.33 (with framelines to compose also for the 1.85 theatrical) He used the same lenses for 1.33 or the 1.66 (and the 1.85 compromise)... but different framings so if i have the perspective he had i can frame on 1.78 .. it may sound silly .. but it works for me ...
  4. I want my framing and compotition to be on 1.78 ... that's why i'm asking what equipment will i need tell me something more ... i have never experience with 35mm cameras ... when i see via the viewfinder .. the frame lines is just like the "safe margins" .. or they hard mate the frame so i see ONLY what is is inside the 1.78 area it's confusing for me to compose with lines and the outisde area be visible ..
  5. Hello David .. thanks for answering !! 1.I want to use the Standard 35mm Academy becouse I'm studying Kubrick's focal lengths and i want to have it excactly like him .. 2. i think 1.78 on 3perf uses the super35 area 3. i prefer the 1.78 becouse is the standard for TVs .. Laptops .. cells etc .. there would be a theatrical presentation and i'll put black side bars on the 1.85 projection frame
  6. so for 4 Perf on Standard Acafemy i need this mask on the ARRICAM/ARRIFLEX 535b .. right ?? and wich ground glass ?? The 1.78 trans or the 1.78 + 1.55. + 1.33 CCG
  7. I need the N35 1.78 (20.95 x 11.78) right ?? (the 20.95 is the Academy with .. right ??
  8. Yes it was an exterior set .. nuit the cars were real ;)
  9. I want to frame the compositions in 1.78 'cause is now the worlwide standard for modern tvs .. cell phones .. tablet etc So The theatrical 1.85 masking is an unavoided compromise ...
  10. Yes i know .. but still are noisy streets .. people .. cars etc ...
  11. A little help 'cause i'm new to that .. 1. Which of these tools i need to shoot 1.78 on Academy on a 4perf 535B ? 2. Can i shoot also 4perf Academy 1.78 on an ARRICAM LT ? (I read that arricam does not support Academy .. only Super35 and i'm a bit confused) 3. If a can shoot 4perf 1.78 academy on ARRICAM LT .. which tools i need ?? Thanks again ...
  12. Also Kubrick used Moviecam on steadycam when Tom Crouse meets and chat with Domino prostitue on NY streets An outdoor scene with lots of street noise And kubrick always prefered to record live dialogue even on noisy places There is a backstage photo of that scene but i can not find it
  13. That's very interesting guys .. Also BL II is at 26db Check also this old thread
  14. Thanks !! It seems that shooting 1.78 on Academy could only be with 4perf .. I'll study the pdf later .. thanks again
  15. That means i can use 3perf for 1.78 on standard ... right ?
  16. Kubrick used the BL II on Garett Brown's steadycam on the shining .. except the fast shots of the maze .. as Brown says on "the steadycam and the shining article" :" Now the maze became an unpleasant place in which to work. It was hot, corrosive and a difficult spot in which to breathe. The speed of the shots stepped up, since everything now happened at nearly a run. To lighten the load we switched to the Arri IIc from Joe Dunton Cameras and constructed a special underslung cage for it." Kubrick used arri 535B on eyes wide shut ... which is lighter than the BL II .. And i am wondering why the ultimate perfectionist he prefered the Moviecam SL on steadycam ?? Theoritically the 535B isn't better than Moviecam SL ??
  17. There is a recent true dialogue between producer and the cinematographer .. ''I got you an Alexa ... why you want also and Da Vinci)
  18. There is this old one ... https://variety.com/2009/digital/features/is-it-really-cheaper-to-shoot-in-digital-1118008522/ And a 2015 indie experience https://www.moviemaker.com/archives/moviemaking/cinematography/film-v-s-digital-is-the-expense-of-shooting-on-film-a-misconception What's your thoughts generally (not only on the articles...)
  19. According to these for 1:1.78 ratio you can use just 3 perfs I'm planing to shoot with an ARRI 535B on Academy format on 1.78 ratio .. But i don't know yet if the camera would be on 3perfs or 4perfs What would be the ideal ? The 535B to be on 3 or 4 perfs ? Which mode will give me better image quality ? Also if i shoot in 3perf for film economy .. would be most difficult (and expensive) for post production to print it for projection on standard 35 film ? Thanks again !!
  20. Personally i think the best home release is the 1998 MGM/1999 WARNER DVD unrestored edition (I have not seen the legendary critirion laserdisc release)
  21. Thanks again David !! I did not notuce that fall-off on Kubrick's movies !! That may be the answer to Garett Brown's commentary on the shining http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=76505
  22. Thank so much David for your extended analysis !! Tell me something more please .. I have read that the digital sensors (instead of film) requests the light rays going ''straight'' on them ..tele-centric not on an angle And that some lenses like the old standard primes .. 'cause of their design.. send their edge-rays on an angle .. and the digital sensors (instead of film) can not capture these rays .. so they give a viggnet effect That happens on the edge-rays OUTSIDE the era of the of the standard 35mm frame ?? If mean if i use standard primes on Alexa .. on my 20.96mm width frame .. will i have that problem ?? Thanks again David !! I appreciate your help !!
  23. Thank you very very much David !!! (it's the cropped frame you suggested me on this http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=75594&p=489741 ) Please give me some infos about the porthole effect .. i'm a bit confused This happen to digital sensor with size BIGGER than the standard 35mm film sizen of 20.96mm ??
×
×
  • Create New...