Isn't fullscreen much better than wide screen?

[Guest Christopher Sheneman]

I don't care if it's "cutting" off part of the scene. Stop putting part of the scene where it's being "cut off" (problem solved, huh?)

Can you imagine people tossing their rectagulaer LCD screens for new square ones! I love 1.33:1 - I think wide screen is 1.33:1.

 

 

 

[David Mullen ASC]

You think all movies should be chopped up to fit the shape of your screen regardless of composition?

[Alan Rencher]

You want an entire industry to change because you can't invest in a better projector / screen combo?

Edited November 18, 2012 by Alan Rencher

[Guest Christopher Sheneman]

The proof is in the pictures, fellas.

[Alex Birrell]

I see you are a student. Well, I'm a film student too and for the past two semesters I've been forced to shoot in 4:3 16mm and it felt like having one of my eyes cut out! We're moving onto 1.85 in January but for me it'll always be full scope all the way!

[Simon Wyss]

Christopher Sheneman, you are not alone. I second your view. I am fond of 4:3. It is the oldest standard still alive.

[Jean-Louis Seguin]

I don't care if it's "cutting" off part of the scene. Stop putting part of the scene where it's being "cut off" (problem solved, huh?)

Can you imagine people tossing their rectagulaer LCD screens for new square ones! I love 1.33:1 - I think wide screen is 1.33:1.

 

 

It's funny that you should put up a frame of Barton Fink as an example of 1.33:1. See:

 

http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1774

 

Cheers,

Jean-Louis

[Simon Miya]

Upgrade your equipment. Your screen shape is outdated ;)

[Guest Christopher Sheneman]

It's funny that you should put up a frame of Barton Fink as an example of 1.33:1. See:

 

http://www.rogerdeak....php?f=2&t=1774

 

Cheers,

Jean-Louis

 

Interesting. I read the Roger Deakins thread. I understand this-

 

A)The Netflix Barton Fink is 1.37:1, but the original is 1.66:1 but was going to be 1.85:1 but for some reason wasn't.

B) Deakins was/is afraid of booms and lights appearing in the frame so he used a 1.66:1 mask for protection

BUT

C) Now he leaves said boom and lights in the frame because studios demand full academy framing and no masks and he's composing the intended frame using microphone and lights as a mask?

 

Glad that's cleared up, anyways I'm glad Netflix for presenting the film the way they did, one of the Roger Deakin's thread posters noted the film emulated the films of the past, 40's etc..I agree. It wouldn't have the same emotional impact in wider screen. And for me- I can see more of the actor's faces- this film is all about the acting. Watch the film on Netflix and know the truth!

[Paul Bartok]

I really dislike 4:3 or anything similar, this is something I feel particularly strong about the only time I think it works is with IMAX 70mm, 1.87 is great for home viewing, and 2.35/39 is best for cinema experience or even on bluray, 4:3 was good for VHS.

[Mathew Rudenberg]

With all due respect, it seems silly to make the argument that any format is better then another. Selection of the screen shape is a complex decision made by the cinematographer and the director in order to best tell the story through visuals.

 

For example, Gus van Sant and the sadly departed Harris Savides chose to shoot Gerry 2:35, and then the following year shot Elephant 1.33.

 

To appreciate a cinematographer's work one should watch a film in the format it was shot and framed in.

[Paul Bartok]

I totally agree with Matt that its a dp and directors vision, but still find that certain aspect ratios are more pleasing to the eye in certain viewing mediums. Like to me personally 1.33 is of puting.

[Guest Christopher Sheneman]

With all due respect, it seems silly to make the argument that any format is better then another. Selection of the screen shape is a complex decision made by the cinematographer and the director in order to best tell the story through visuals.

 

For example, Gus van Sant and the sadly departed Harris Savides chose to shoot Gerry 2:35, and then the following year shot Elephant 1.33.

 

To appreciate a cinematographer's work one should watch a film in the format it was shot and framed in.

 

Public space itself is getting smaller and certainly they was a time for "wide" (2.35:1, even 1.85:1) but that time has passed. Long gone are the wrap-around screens from pre-1970's- the Cinerama screens and drive-in's.

And really look at those pictures again, it's at home- it's a 50" or less throw. That's the future- smaller "home" theaters. And which ratio really serves the stories best? Beyond your nostalgic bias or unrealistic expectations- It's 4:3. The people's ratio!

 

I predict "square" will come back into vogue once people figure it -up and down instead of left and right.

I think a lot of us saw that silent film "The Artist" in theaters, didn't you find the ratio to be very pleasing?

[Freya Black]

I predict "square" will come back into vogue once people figure it -up and down instead of left and right.

I think a lot of us saw that silent film "The Artist" in theaters, didn't you find the ratio to be very pleasing?

 

Definitely think 4:3 will one day have a resurgance as a trendy ratio, just think it will probably be a loooooong time from now!

I'm expecting a scope phase long before 4:3. At the moment 4:3 still has strange associations for a lot of people, but as you suggest, some people really like it and why not! :)

 

Anyway just wanted to mention that "Fish Tank" is a recent film shot in Academy 35mm, so you might want to check that out.

 

love

 

Freya

[Kemalettin Sert]

1.33 is so gradma's format...WS gives real cinematic feeling to me

[Robert Lewis]

The format used for filming is important of course, but it is not the be or end all of things. The way in which a film is projected is important too.

 

Many cinemas in the UK, when cinemascope was introduced, had full cinemascope format screens installed. Those were the ones which had a fixed top masking and side masking which was opened to facilitate the projection of films produced in cinemascope. In those cinemas the positive attributes of the format were obvious.

 

However, in many cinemas, there were constraints on the installation of cinemascope screens and so films shot in cinemascope format were shown in format, but on screens on which only the top masking was adjustable. In these cinemas the screen had only top masking which was variable and films shot in cinemascope appeared to be only half the height (and therefore size) of the 4:3 format films. In short there was no benefit in the visual appearance of films shot in cinemascope, but rather substantial disbenefit.

 

Some cinemas had screens with limited variation of the side masking and variable top masking, and so there was some benefit, but not full benefit to be seen when watching a film shot in cinemascope.

 

I believe, therefore, that the original format of a film is therefore only part of the story. The way in which it is projected is also important. I think the two images shown in the opening posting well illustrates this point.

 

All this having been said, I have to say that I do not have a problem in watching a film shot in any particular format. I think it is not the format which makes a film, but the way in which all the qualities of a good film are brought together. The format in which it is shot is but one of these rather than a matter of fashion.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Robert Lewis

[Chris Millar]

In short there was no benefit in the visual appearance of films shot in cinemascope, but rather substantial disbenefit.

Well, they would have had a brighter image in not one but two regards...

 

Firstly, scope uses the full frame so all the light is focused through the frame and on to the screen, no light wasted simply heating up a hard mask in the projector.

 

Secondly, to have a smaller projection as you point out, they would have to use a relatively longer lens which in turn projects a image of not only greater resolution per unit area but also a greater density/luminous flux.

 

:)

 

But yeh, I agree the bringing er... in of the masking for 'glorious scope' really is completely backwards huh - the modern version is the regular scam of IMAX.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Chris Millar

[Dom Jaeger]

I really enjoyed watching The Dark Knight at Imax switching from wide-screen 'normal' to full-screen 65mm for the action sequences..

 

Why can't we all just live together in harmony B)

 

I'd love to see a movie shot in "Vertiscope" portrait framing (anamorphic sideways)

[Chris Millar]

Most aspects (i.e. certainly all the popular ones) can be be composed for with no real fuss or pretension and as Dom points out, even switches mid film are accommodated with anticipation.

 

Just go with the flow ;)

[Nate Opgenorth]

4:3...I never liked the format, respect it but don't like it one bit. Shooting an older movie? Shoot 1.66:1, way better than a box sitting in my field of view. I'm forever a fan of scope, especially anamorphic scope, watch a movie like Heat and just seeing all that beautiful fine grain with those beautiful anamorphic "artifacts" gets me going. Maybe one day Vittorio Storaro's dream of 2:1 will be the standard ;)

You think all movies should be chopped up to fit the shape of your screen regardless of composition?

I sense tension with this...haha.

 

I really enjoyed watching The Dark Knight at Imax switching from wide-screen 'normal' to full-screen 65mm for the action sequences..

 

Why can't we all just live together in harmony B)

 

I'd love to see a movie shot in "Vertiscope" portrait framing (anamorphic sideways)

Oh I loved The Dark Knight switching back and forth, hardly annoying as I felt this feeling of the scene feeling more grand and then realized I was in a 65mm scene and then gently put back into 35mm...Christopher Nolan really knows what he wants and I can't imagine watching his work in some jammed up way like a 4:3 crop for the entire thing! Got allot of respect and love his views on film and CGI use.

[Bill DiPietra]

As much as I like 4:3, there is a time and place for it just like anything else. So many of my favorite films were shot either in scope or 65mm that I immediately switch to another channel when I see one of them on cable, panned and scanned. Can you watch 2001 in a 4:3 ratio? I sure can't.

 

Then again, there are plenty of foreign films like The Seventh Seal that I absolutely adore which were shot in 1.37:1. But it doesn't feel like a 4:3 ratio because the shots were so carefully composed to fit the aspect ratio. And that is the mark of good filmmaking. After all, we're talking about Bergman, here.

 

But everytime I see Gone With the Wind on cable I wish widescreen had been fully accepted during the Silent Era so that a film like that would have had a better chance of being photographed in a panoramanic format.

[Paul Bartok]

I think It's extremely disrespectful to change the aspect ratio of a completed film just so it fits your monitor.

 

Speaking of 4:3 allot of VFX is shot at 1.78 for more plate size for things like more tracking data and resizing etc. I wonder why they don't shoot in 4:3 for more shots and then crop down to 1.78 or 2.35 the negative size is huge plus the info you could get would be allot.

[David Mullen ASC]

There is no right or wrong or good or bad aspect ratio, there is just the one used by the artist to compose the image, which is how it should be displayed, whether in a book or on the wall of a gallery or in a movie theater or on your screen at home. Now if the artist themselves wants to crop & reframe for different displays, that's up to them, but nobody else should be doing it without their input.

[Frank Gollner]

I've always wondered why the aspect ratio of 1.33:1 or 4:3 was settled upon in the early days of cinema, with the Lumiere Brothers in Europe and Edison and Co State side.

 

Does anybody know?

 

Did it have anything to do with the then state of lens manufacturing, poor by todays standards, which resulted in optics that could only direct the light to an aspect ratio approximating a square, without resulting in some vignetting?

 

Thanks in advance for any insight.

[Dom Jaeger]

I've always wondered why the aspect ratio of 1.33:1 or 4:3 was settled upon in the early days of cinema, with the Lumiere Brothers in Europe and Edison and Co State side.

 

Does anybody know?

 

Did it have anything to do with the then state of lens manufacturing, poor by todays standards, which resulted in optics that could only direct the light to an aspect ratio approximating a square, without resulting in some vignetting?

 

Thanks in advance for any insight.

 

There's no definitive answer, mostly it's credited to Edison who, while designing his Kinetoscope in 1891, apocryphally made a rectangle with his fingers and told his assistant to make the frame "this big". Presumably, having chosen a 1" wide image area within the 35mm film width, Edison (or his assistant Dickson) chose a height ratio that would divide evenly into 600 to maximise the number of frames that would fit in a 50' (or 600") roll. The Lumieres probably based their aspect ratio on Edison's.

 

Early photography used a variety of aspect ratios, though full-plate daguerreotypes and tintypes were generally 6.5" by 8.5" which is close to 4:3. If you look at the work of a pioneer like Muybridge, he used everything from 4:3 to 3:1.