|
|
Posted by Lincoln Spector on 10/20/05 23:19
"moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote in message
news:%AT5f.1652$fm7.1538@fe06.lga...
>
> Lincoln Spector wrote:
>
>>>Whoa... didn't he make the studio sign an oath in bile that EYES WIDE
>>>SHUT would *never* hit video in other than 4:3? (If not, what am I
>>>thinking of...) Odd, of course, since his magnum opus (imo) 2001:ASO was
>>>one of the first movies in Super-Panavision's 2.85:1 ... vs. today's norm
>>>of 2.35:1 ... (all facts unchecked, btw...)
>>
>> And wrong.
>
> (Yes, I wasn't bragging. E.g., 'Super'Panavision didn't sound right...)
>
>> I think you're confusing SuperPanavision with UltraPanavision,
>> which had a negative ratio of 2.76:1--and it's possible that no films
>> were actually commercially projected that wide. Like all SuperPanavision
>> films, 2001 was shot (and originally shown) in 2:21, with an awareness
>> that the 35mm reduction prints for the later wide release would be
>> vertically cropped to 2.35.
>
> All right, this *is* at odds with my recall... which is that 2001 was
> shown in Cinerama theaters (where I saw it) with Ultra's aspect ratio,
> i.e., only slightly less elongated than Cinerama's original 3-strip
> amalgam. In fact, I thought was 2001 the *first* such
> production/presentation...
It was a Cinerama presentation, but by 1968 that pretty much just meant a
70mm film projected onto a Cinerama screen. And when you're projecting onto
that steep a curve, aspect ratio gets all confused. The sides of the image
get horizontally elongated, and the shape resembles more of a bowtie than a
rectangle. The UltraPanavision "Cinerama" films, like Mad, Mad World, were
released in recitified prints that got around that horizontal elongation,
but that wasn't the case with 2001. For a better discussion than I can give
you, go to http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcr6.htm.
Lincoln
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|