 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? posted by Carl Eber on December 17, 2001 at 20:07:50:
Will hereby be given to the cinematographer of The Phantom Menace, David Tattersall:"The Phantom Menace was produced in anamorphic (2.4:1 aspect ratio) format, to provide a feeling of cinematic scope. Tattersall says he prefers the optical quality of an anamorphic final show print to the Super 35 format, which uses spherical lenses and a smaller negative area."
Read the whole article:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/images/spring99/phantom.shtmlSuppose this will end the discussion?
Best,
Thom
Follow Ups:
I appreciate this info, and am thinking of trying to e-mail Tattersall myself...the quote (the part in parenthesis naming the aspect ratio) is Kodak's and not his...they make the film after all, and not the camera.I thank for this link Thom! I'm indebted to you for taking the time...take care, and Happy Holidays!
Will your email read something like this?Dear Tattersall,
Everyone tells me that Phantom Menace was shot 2.35:1. I did an Internet search and every single source confirmed that it was shot 2.35:1. I even saw a direct quote from you on the Kodak site, but I KNOW THAT EVERYONE (INCLUDING YOU) IS WRONG AND IT WAS SHOT 1.85:1.
I don't understand all this aspect ratio stuff. I just know that I'm tired of getting ripped off with these narrow DVD pictures. I'm also tired of being called an idiot, so I'll pay you a lot to agree with me.
I'll be forever indebted to you...take care, and Happy Holidays!
Actually the Kodak site (and it's out-of-context quote in this thread) claim "2.4:1" (and this is NOT Tattersall's own quote, but Kodak's, within the context of this brief article), so I guess even if there's a possiblity that it was shot (together with all the complete CG frames such as the Pod Race that didn't originate in the natural world through a film camera) wider than 1.85:1......then 2.35:1 must NOT be "original apsect ratio" after all, not that any of this matters to you in the least, Morgan. Admit it, you haven't actually seen this movie in the theater, on broadcast tv, OR even the DVD...right? Or, I forgot, you don't have the gray matter to actually discuss anything relevant...So again, why the hell are you still in my thread? Your presence is repugnant Morgan...
might be something like:Dear CarlEber,
If stupidity was patentable, you'd be one of the world's richest men. Of course I shot Phantom Menace in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. No, I don't think you have director potential. Directors need to be able to distinguish between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. Good luck with your pig farming down there in Tennessee.
Respectfully yours
Tatersall
I don't farm at all, but I'd be willing to give your carreer a try...that of "renting" one's wife, sister, daughter, and mother out to crack dealers on street corners...sounds lucrative!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]