|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Apparently, no one is intelligent enough... posted by Carl Eber on December 18, 2001 at 17:53:17:
"All movie producers, studio executives, etc., know that widescreen televisions are not 2.35:1, and surely they must know that 35mm Kodak (or any other) film frames shot with Panaflex motion picture cameras is NOT "2.35:1", but is much closer to (if not exactly) "16:9", or anywhere between 1.75:1 and 1.85 or even .95, to 1 (and in some cases is even close to 1.33:1)."First, film in and of itself has no aspect ratio. The aspect ratio is a combination of the motion picture camera film gate mask and lens used - anamorphic making a squeezed image, or circular making an unsqueezed image. The format can be whatever the camera is setup for - 1.85:1, 2.2:1, 2.35:1, etc., with the appropriate matching lens.
Secondly, a motion picture is not shot to fit television as its major market. Films are shot to be projected in a motion picture theater. Many directors and DPs choose the 2.35:1 format (Panavision) as it gives more visual impact than the 1.85:1 format. In use, the formats are the same height and the theater simply draws back the masking curtains on the right and left sides of the screen when changing from 1:85 to the 2:35 format.
Lastly, many directors use a 1:85 safe action area in the 2:35 format so to allow better translation of the image when it is rescaled for television in the 16:9 format or panned and scanned for 4:3 television format.
Follow Ups:
"Lastly, many directors use a 1:85 safe action area in the 2:35 format so to allow better translation of the image when it is rescaled for television in the 16:9 format or panned and scanned for 4:3 television format"I am aware of this. My complaint was that if the original happened to be 1.85:1, then why modify it when producing the DVD?
"Secondly, a motion picture is not shot to fit television as its major market. Films are shot to be projected in a motion picture theater."
I'm also aware of this. My point was that if the original was shot at 1.85:1, why modify it to be 2.35:1 for the DVD release, regardless of whether or not the "official" stated original aspect was supposed to be 2.35:1. You yourself said it was shot at 1.85:1, so what would occur in order to make this image 2.35:1? Wouldn't the top and bottom need to be cropped when mastering the DVD? (my point, complaint, and reason for this entire thread)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: