Return of Anamorphic?

[Paul Bruening]

I worked on a corporate gig once shooting for 4:1, it was meant to work as a video bar at the top of a website, I suppose it was fitting for that situation.

 

I'm now reminded of a short Svetland Cvetko shot here in SF called "On a Tuesday". They shot S35, 3.18:1 (protecting for 2.35), and I've been interesting in seeing it ever since I read about it in AC mag.

 

AC Article: http://www.theasc.com/magazine_dynamic/Jul...Takes/page1.php

 

Trailer: http://www.onatuesday-theshort.com/OnATuesday_Trailer.html

 

We've entertained the idea of 1-perf pulldown in an anamorphic thread, here, before. It would yield a framing of 1:4.78 in flat.

 

The framing in On a Tuesday looked fine. I assume since it was composed for that, it seemed natural to view it that way. It makes you wonder why more conventions like that aren't broken given that the internet doesn't care what you frame in.

[Tom Jensen]

So then, if you found yourself teaching a course one day on composition in which you presented framings in 2.40 by Gordon Willis, and if one of your students then raised his or her hand to ask how the intended meaning in a particular composition was supported by the 2.40 framing, versus how that meaning might have been changed if the composition had been composed in 1.85, then your answer would have to be, "We are talking about an artist here. We don't question the choices made by an artist, so your question is pointless." ???

 

Stevie,

The "meaning" isn't the frame size. The frame size just gives you more information on the sides. The meaning comes from the composition with n that frame. It comes from the story and what the storytellers are saying. It comes from the script. It comes from the location and it comes from the elements of composition from within the frame. Not the frame. Anamorphic is simply a tool in the DP's tool bag.

[Guest stevie wara]

Stevie,

The "meaning" isn't the frame size. The frame size just gives you more information on the sides. The meaning comes from the composition with n that frame. It comes from the story and what the storytellers are saying. It comes from the script. It comes from the location and it comes from the elements of composition from within the frame. Not the frame. Anamorphic is simply a tool in the DP's tool bag.

 

 

Hi Tom,

 

I see what you're saying. But information affects meaning, does it not? So then wouldn't "more information on the sides" have an effect on meaning, just as the other various elements you have listed?

 

I'm replying to you here, since this time, you haven't referred to me as a troll, although considering the over-the-top wording of my original post, I suppose I could have been called something worse. Maybe I should have added a smiley.

 

I don't necessarily hate 2.39. It's just not a format that generally fits my eye. My main concern, however, refers back to Ravi Kiran's original posts. Personally, I think it would be tragic if the cinema gravitated increasingly towards 2.39 (as apparently is now the case in India). I tend to view this as a renewed effort in filmmaking to differentiate itself from television. But I could be totally wrong about this; there could certainly be other reasons why.

[jacob thomas]

Stevie,

The "meaning" isn't the frame size. The frame size just gives you more information on the sides. The meaning comes from the composition with n that frame. It comes from the story and what the storytellers are saying. It comes from the script. It comes from the location and it comes from the elements of composition from within the frame. Not the frame. Anamorphic is simply a tool in the DP's tool bag.

 

I think that was the question... what situations call for the anamorphic/2.35 tool to come out of the bag? and is it a good tool?

 

Personally I love 2.35... but it's an interesting question. Westerns seem to make use of it in a number of ways: highlighting the landscape and the lone figure within it, creating distance between characters, giving a larger horizontal frame for characters to cross, etc.

Edited January 27, 2010 by jacob thomas

[Tom Jensen]

It's an artistic decision. There is no right or wrong answer. Some movies just lend themselves to anamorphic.

[John Sprung]

Depending what aspect ratio you're shooting, you wouldn't just compose the shots differently, you'd block the scenes differently. For instance, the classic scope long lens three guys walking towards camera doesn't work in any narrower format.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Paul Bruening]

Also, Stevie, consider the psychological experience of differing formats (I mean on the big screen, here). Wider presentations use more of our peripheral vision. That makes a richer experience over the opposite format of 4:3. As well, wider formats require more eye tracking to keep up with screen content. These two aspects of wide screen make the movie more involving simply by requiring the brain to invest more effort. In a 4:3 image, rarely is there enough content variation vertically to justify the better vertical field of view. Even in 4:3 most information (subjects) will vary side-to-side. Since that's the case, widescreen gets more out of the normal composition and staging inherent to movies.

[John Sprung]

... rarely is there enough content variation vertically to justify the better vertical field of view. ...

 

Yup, and the reason is gravity.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Saul Rodgar]

I think that was the question... what situations call for the anamorphic/2.35 tool to come out of the bag? and is it a good tool?

 

Agreed, that really seems to have been the question to ask. Although the reasons for directors to use anamorphic or 2.40 aspect ratio can be completely as subjective as, "because I like it." So there is still not right or wrong here, which is what I imagine David alluded to when he said "Don't second guess the DP's (or director's) choices." ;)

[Matt Read]

I see what you're saying. But information affects meaning, does it not? So then wouldn't "more information on the sides" have an effect on meaning, just as the other various elements you have listed?

You're not really thinking about what Tom said correctly. The cinematographer has chosen to compose a shot a certain way for a reason, and the aspect ratio he/she is using will affect the composition. An image composed for 4:3 is not the same as a 2.40 image that has had the sides cropped off.

 

Consider this hypothetical situation. A cinematographer is hired to a film that is to be shot two ways, with an aspect ratio of 2.40 and an aspect ratio of 4:3. All other aspects of the film will remain the same. Same director, same script, same production design, same locations, same crew, same actors, etc. In all likelihood, the cinematographer would not choose the same camera position, camera height, camera moves, focal length lens or framing (vertical or horizontal) to cover the same action for both the 2.40 and 4:3 coverage. In fact, for the same scene, it's entirely possible that the cinematographer would cover it with a different number of setups for 2.40 and 4:3.

 

It's not a matter of 2.40 showing more on the sides than 4:3, the aspect ratio can influence WHAT a cinematographer chooses to show.

 

Take another look at the first shot from "The Parallax View" that David posted earlier (two guys throwing a third guy off of the Space Needle, framed to the extreme right, with a cityscape of Seattle filling the left 3/4 of the frame). If for some reason, Gordon Willis was to have shot "The Parallax View" in 4:3 instead of 2.40, for this shot he would not have simply kept the camera in the same position with the same focal length lens as it is when framed for 2.40. I would imagine that he would use a wider lens and/or back the camera up some, not to achieve the same horizontal framing, but to compose an image that gave the same sense of isolation that the original does. My guess is that there would be significantly more sky if Willis composed the same shot for 4:3; the people would still be framed to the right side, but they would be smaller (taking up less space in the frame vertically), but still occupying approximately the same percentage of the total frame area as in 2.40. This would all be done to keep the meaning of the shot the same. If you were to simply crop the 2.40 frame down to 4:3 (but keeping the people in the frame, obviously), it would not have the same meaning as it was originally intended to (which is why so many people, myself included, loathe pan-and-scan).

 

So, to say that 2.40 shows MORE information to the sides than 4:3 is wrong; it simply shows DIFFERENT information in order to convey the same meaning.

[Paul Bruening]

Anamorphic is such a silly format.

[Vincent Sweeney]

"Once Upon a Time in the West", THAT'S the film that makes me wanna shoot a western in anamorphic :)

 

And they shot that in 2perf Techniscope, which brings up a small point: A production might be, partially anyway, saving money by shooting 2perf and 2.4 is inherently your frame then.

 

 

That was some masterful use of 2.4 in that film. Did you see a print of it Jonathan?

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

Haven't seen a print, no

[Satsuki Murashige]

Haven't seen a print, no

It shows up every once in a while at the Castro Theatre in SF. I saw a print in moderately good condition several years ago- it did not look very sharp unfortunately, but to be expected given the limitations of format and available glass at the time.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

It shows up every once in a while at the Castro Theatre in SF. I saw a print in moderately good condition several years ago- it did not look very sharp unfortunately, but to be expected given the limitations of format and available glass at the time.

 

Yeah, I've seen it crop up at the Castro too, just haven't made it out. Too bad it isn't that great a print :/

[Guest stevie wara]

Consider this hypothetical situation. A cinematographer is hired to a film that is to be shot two ways, with an aspect ratio of 2.40 and an aspect ratio of 4:3. All other aspects of the film will remain the same. Same director, same script, same production design, same locations, same crew, same actors, etc. In all likelihood, the cinematographer would not choose the same camera position, camera height, camera moves, focal length lens or framing (vertical or horizontal) to cover the same action for both the 2.40 and 4:3 coverage. In fact, for the same scene, it's entirely possible that the cinematographer would cover it with a different number of setups for 2.40 and 4:3.

 

It's not a matter of 2.40 showing more on the sides than 4:3, the aspect ratio can influence WHAT a cinematographer chooses to show.

 

 

 

Matt,

 

When I have found myself annoyed by a particular framing in a very wide format, I have almost never thought the composition could be improved through a crop on the sides. It has almost always been an issue of desiring more on the top or the bottom.

 

Your hypothetical comes as a surprise to me. I had not considered so many other factors in play by the mere choice of aspect ratio. This all seems so kind of obvious now that you've stated it so clearly.

 

I appreciate your thought experiment for The Parallax View. Thank you for taking the time to show how you have thought this through as a DP. It's been really quite helpful.

[Matt Read]

Matt,

 

When I have found myself annoyed by a particular framing in a very wide format, I have almost never thought the composition could be improved through a crop on the sides. It has almost always been an issue of desiring more on the top or the bottom.

Whatever the case may be, you can't simply crop off or add on part of the frame without affect how the audience perceives and feels about the image. The cinematographer has composed the frame within the confines of the chosen aspect ratio for a reason. That's not to say that cinematographers are infallible; certainly over the years there have been individual shots that could have been improved had they been shot in a different aspect ratio, but I don't think it would be correct to say that a certain film would be better off if shot with a different aspect ratio. Films are works of art and no art is perfect, otherwise a computer could do it. Just because you disagree with a choice made by an artist does not mean the choice is invalid. Try to understand why the artist made that choice and, if after thorough investigation, you cannot find a reason, then it may be that you have discovered a poor or unmotivated choice. But, returning to 2.40 again, there are so many other examples of when it has been a good and motivated choice, that it is impossible to dismiss it completely.

 

As other people have suggested, it seems to me that your problem with 2.40 comes from watching movies on a 4:3 TV and seeing them letterboxed, especially since you say you want more on the top and/or bottom of the frame. I think the more you see 2.40 movies in a theater, the more you will be able to appreciate the aspect ratio. More so than other aspect ratios, I would say that 2.40 is meant to be seen in theaters. Even if you can't see them in a theater, watch some of the 2.40 films that have been mentioned in this discussion and go out and see new 2.40 films. Really pay attention to how the cinematographer uses the 2.40 frame and what's in it (or not in it) to tell the story. Try your best to ignore the letterboxing and tunnel-vision yourself onto the image.

 

The more you watch and the more you understand, the more you'll appreciate.