As for as I can see, none of the equipment is in the shots during any of the films.
I'm glad they didn't shoot in 2.35, I don't see a point to that format. You cut of part of the top and bottom to trick people into thinking they are getting more picture and don't tell me it's a lens thing, because I've seen the field monitors when they're showing how they made the film and I see the markers for the 2.35:1 look. TVs are 1.78 and film can work at 1.85, why not just film everything at 1.85?
Not all films done in matted widescreen will have exposed equipment, but there are some films that do.
In addition, you need to know that there are more ways to film than just Super 35.
If you're filming in the Panavision format, your aspect ratio at the minimum is 2.35:1.
As for field monitors, you are aware that filmmakers have used simultaneous video taps for recording footage on standard NTSC or PAL videotape for immediate evaluation in lieu of waiting for the film to be processed?
As for just filming everything at 1.85:1 just so that everything will just fit on a TV: filmmakers do not make movies for TV, they make movies for the big screen.
How a film is going to look on TV is a distant consideration to the filmmakers during production.
And, filmmakers usually prefer a choice of aspect ratios because some films benefit from a wider canvas for greater visual scope (Ben-Hur) while others may be better served with a narrower ratio (12 Angry Men).
Both of those films were shot before movies were on TV. In my opinion 2.35:1 doesn't really work for mid to close up shots with just one person in frame.
Do you know why the Watchmen was shown at iMax when it wasn't shot on iMax cameras?
I mean the story was great, but if I'd known it wasn't shot on the iMax camera, I wouldn't have gone to see it at the iMax and paid more for the same experience.
A marking gimmick? What ripp off. From you've told me, movie studios seem very arrogant. I mean if they are going to play marketing tricks on people, they should stop whining about people coping(remaking) the smallest part of a movie.
2.35:1 has always looked to me like the top and bottom are missing, but that's just me.
It's a rip off if the film wasn't originally shot in IMAX, but it's not unusual for anybody to do what they can to earn as much money from their product as possible.
Gimmicks are one way to do that, but gimmicks are not endemic to the movie business.
If there is a film you want to see, go and see it in a theater you're comfortable going to. If the film is presented in the way that it was intended at all theaters, the experience should ideally be the same no matter where you go to watch it.
Of course, another thing to consider is that not all films use mattes to achieve a widescreen effect, particularly if the photography uses anamorphic lenses, which makes efficient use of the resolution of the film frame while still achieving a scope widescreen aspect ratio (Panavision, Cinemascope, and Todd-AO 35MM are examples).
Super 35 sacrifices resolution to achieve widescreen aspects, but it's simpler, easier to use, less expensive, and has a greater depth of field.
I thought that an anamorphic lens compresses the horizonal into a 1.37:1 frame, I didn't know that it worked like a wide angle for the sides of the film.
Anamorphic processes (Panavision, CinemaScope) do compress the horizontal to fit a wide frame into a narrow space, which results in a distortion of the image but allows more efficient use of the available resolution.
But, you have to undo the squeeze, such as using corrective optics on the film projector, in order to make the shapes look right. Otherwise, people will look vertically stretched/horizontally compressed.
Other times, those top and bottom mattes may be covering up information you actually don't want to see.
An example: a film in Super 35 with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio and the setting is in the medieval times. You're in a castle and there is a sword fight between two knights. Take the top and bottom mattes off and you may see light rigging and a mic boom on the top and wires and other junk on the bottom, which kills the illusion that you are in the past.
You may see more information in the open matted transfer, but understand that more does not necessarily mean better.
The cinematographer typically does not make compromises in composition between the intended theatrical ratio and and a fullframe ratio.
For example, with a tight one shot set up in 1.85:1, the composition may be set to make the audience perceive "claustrophobia" if that's the intent. If you open it up by taking the top and bottom mattes off, you eliminate the illusion.
What I'm trying to show here, is that VFX shots were Pan & scan, where as non VFX shots where open matte 1.37:1. The 1.85:1 version has the top and bottom cut off on the non VFX shots.
Well, of course the VFX shots will be panned and scanned.
The visual effects are going to be done with respect to the intended aspect ratio of the film.
This is coupled with the fact that BTTF 2 makes use of VistaVision in its VFX shots, including scenes where the actors interact with themselves in the same frame. VistaVision has higher resolution, so film grain is minimized in compositing to Super 35 in 1.85:1.
VistaVision is not natively 1.37:1, so VFX shots must be P&Sed.
The Director and DOP would have known that they were going to release a 4:3 version for VHS and TV, so they could simply have chosen open matte to over come the pan scan thing. But I don't why they didn't just use open matte for VFX, even if Vista is a higher res, in the 80s I can only imagine that film could be scanned at 2k or lower.
The problem with composing the shot is that you have to make decisions within a fixed set of dimensions. It's almost impossible to make compromises in composition that will allow you to maintain visual intent if you're trying to compose between two different aspect ratios.
As for no open matte for VFX, that's because the VFX team is concentrating only on the original aspect ratio for the same reason, plus it would cost more money to produce one shot in 1.85:1 and then another in 4:3.
As for scanning film at "2k or lower" in the 1980s, they couldn't scan film digitally like today as it was expensive and impractical back then.
In fact, VFX shots that involved the use of the Vista Glide that enabled Michael J. Fox to interact with himself as different characters in one scene has been obsolete for years. One example of the digital way of doing the same thing is the film "Multiplicity."
VFX, as impressive looking as it was back then, was still largely done in "low tech ways."
Compositing is combining multiple elements into one, whether it be done in CGI or done by combining multiple filmed elements optically in the "analogue domain."
would it be possible to overlap the versions so it's easier to see which version shows more picture.
Really wish more open matte movies had a full frame option available on dvd or blu ray.
Knightmessenger 11 months ago
@Knightmessenger I could do that, but I'd have to split the shots up which would be a bit of a pain and I can't find the original files.
The 'Original' '86 Transformers offers that on it's DVD release, but more should, I agree.
TVperson1 11 months ago
As for as I can see, none of the equipment is in the shots during any of the films.
I'm glad they didn't shoot in 2.35, I don't see a point to that format. You cut of part of the top and bottom to trick people into thinking they are getting more picture and don't tell me it's a lens thing, because I've seen the field monitors when they're showing how they made the film and I see the markers for the 2.35:1 look. TVs are 1.78 and film can work at 1.85, why not just film everything at 1.85?
TVperson1 2 years ago
Not all films done in matted widescreen will have exposed equipment, but there are some films that do.
In addition, you need to know that there are more ways to film than just Super 35.
If you're filming in the Panavision format, your aspect ratio at the minimum is 2.35:1.
As for field monitors, you are aware that filmmakers have used simultaneous video taps for recording footage on standard NTSC or PAL videotape for immediate evaluation in lieu of waiting for the film to be processed?
Watcher3223 2 years ago
Well yes, but it's clear that the lens can see the top and botton of the frame and film aspect of the camera can't.
TVperson1 2 years ago
As for just filming everything at 1.85:1 just so that everything will just fit on a TV: filmmakers do not make movies for TV, they make movies for the big screen.
How a film is going to look on TV is a distant consideration to the filmmakers during production.
And, filmmakers usually prefer a choice of aspect ratios because some films benefit from a wider canvas for greater visual scope (Ben-Hur) while others may be better served with a narrower ratio (12 Angry Men).
Watcher3223 2 years ago
Both of those films were shot before movies were on TV. In my opinion 2.35:1 doesn't really work for mid to close up shots with just one person in frame.
Do you know why the Watchmen was shown at iMax when it wasn't shot on iMax cameras?
I mean the story was great, but if I'd known it wasn't shot on the iMax camera, I wouldn't have gone to see it at the iMax and paid more for the same experience.
TVperson1 2 years ago
Simple: unless a film was originally shot in that format, an IMAX version of a film is ultimately a marketing gimmick.
As for a one shot in 2.35:1, there are ways to compose to make it work, such as setting up a shot that concentrates the focus on the subject.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
A marking gimmick? What ripp off. From you've told me, movie studios seem very arrogant. I mean if they are going to play marketing tricks on people, they should stop whining about people coping(remaking) the smallest part of a movie.
2.35:1 has always looked to me like the top and bottom are missing, but that's just me.
TVperson1 2 years ago
It's a rip off if the film wasn't originally shot in IMAX, but it's not unusual for anybody to do what they can to earn as much money from their product as possible.
Gimmicks are one way to do that, but gimmicks are not endemic to the movie business.
If there is a film you want to see, go and see it in a theater you're comfortable going to. If the film is presented in the way that it was intended at all theaters, the experience should ideally be the same no matter where you go to watch it.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
Of course, another thing to consider is that not all films use mattes to achieve a widescreen effect, particularly if the photography uses anamorphic lenses, which makes efficient use of the resolution of the film frame while still achieving a scope widescreen aspect ratio (Panavision, Cinemascope, and Todd-AO 35MM are examples).
Super 35 sacrifices resolution to achieve widescreen aspects, but it's simpler, easier to use, less expensive, and has a greater depth of field.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
I thought that an anamorphic lens compresses the horizonal into a 1.37:1 frame, I didn't know that it worked like a wide angle for the sides of the film.
TVperson1 2 years ago
Anamorphic processes (Panavision, CinemaScope) do compress the horizontal to fit a wide frame into a narrow space, which results in a distortion of the image but allows more efficient use of the available resolution.
But, you have to undo the squeeze, such as using corrective optics on the film projector, in order to make the shapes look right. Otherwise, people will look vertically stretched/horizontally compressed.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
To clarify the distortion, the squeezing causes geometric distortion, which results in shapes looking squeezed horizontally.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
Other times, those top and bottom mattes may be covering up information you actually don't want to see.
An example: a film in Super 35 with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio and the setting is in the medieval times. You're in a castle and there is a sword fight between two knights. Take the top and bottom mattes off and you may see light rigging and a mic boom on the top and wires and other junk on the bottom, which kills the illusion that you are in the past.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
I'm not saying you take the black bars away, I'm saying that if you frame the shot for 1.85:1, you won't need black bars.
TVperson1 2 years ago
You may see more information in the open matted transfer, but understand that more does not necessarily mean better.
The cinematographer typically does not make compromises in composition between the intended theatrical ratio and and a fullframe ratio.
For example, with a tight one shot set up in 1.85:1, the composition may be set to make the audience perceive "claustrophobia" if that's the intent. If you open it up by taking the top and bottom mattes off, you eliminate the illusion.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
What I'm trying to show here, is that VFX shots were Pan & scan, where as non VFX shots where open matte 1.37:1. The 1.85:1 version has the top and bottom cut off on the non VFX shots.
TVperson1 2 years ago
Well, of course the VFX shots will be panned and scanned.
The visual effects are going to be done with respect to the intended aspect ratio of the film.
This is coupled with the fact that BTTF 2 makes use of VistaVision in its VFX shots, including scenes where the actors interact with themselves in the same frame. VistaVision has higher resolution, so film grain is minimized in compositing to Super 35 in 1.85:1.
VistaVision is not natively 1.37:1, so VFX shots must be P&Sed.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
The Director and DOP would have known that they were going to release a 4:3 version for VHS and TV, so they could simply have chosen open matte to over come the pan scan thing. But I don't why they didn't just use open matte for VFX, even if Vista is a higher res, in the 80s I can only imagine that film could be scanned at 2k or lower.
TVperson1 2 years ago
The problem with composing the shot is that you have to make decisions within a fixed set of dimensions. It's almost impossible to make compromises in composition that will allow you to maintain visual intent if you're trying to compose between two different aspect ratios.
As for no open matte for VFX, that's because the VFX team is concentrating only on the original aspect ratio for the same reason, plus it would cost more money to produce one shot in 1.85:1 and then another in 4:3.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
As for scanning film at "2k or lower" in the 1980s, they couldn't scan film digitally like today as it was expensive and impractical back then.
In fact, VFX shots that involved the use of the Vista Glide that enabled Michael J. Fox to interact with himself as different characters in one scene has been obsolete for years. One example of the digital way of doing the same thing is the film "Multiplicity."
VFX, as impressive looking as it was back then, was still largely done in "low tech ways."
Watcher3223 2 years ago
Ah, but TV shows shot in widescreen are all shot within a 4:3 safe frame, so that analogue tv can have the sides cut for some reason.
I didn't know that compositing was possible without computers. I assumed they could scan at 1280x1024 anamorphic in bitmap sequence.
TVperson1 2 years ago
Compositing is combining multiple elements into one, whether it be done in CGI or done by combining multiple filmed elements optically in the "analogue domain."
Watcher3223 2 years ago
Some really good info on the Vista Glide can be found on Google.
Definitely check it out.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
I could only find 1 site and it didn't have much info.
TVperson1 2 years ago
Hmm.
Well, another is to check the special features of the BTTF 2 DVD.
Watcher3223 2 years ago