|
|
Posted by Jonathan Brisby on 05/14/07 04:06
They have curtains for covering up the White screen when they project
a movie that fills all of the vertical area and not the horizontal.
They do not use the curtains to cover up any of the image. When on
home viewing the width is kept the same while the height changes. You
get the full picture.
Scope is what's important, they are not going film something in 2.35:1
all the way from beginning to end because one scene would look really
good, this is where lenses come in. If they can fit a shot in the
ratio they chose they put on a different lens to get a larger area.
For example in "Logan's Run" Ernest Laszlo couldn't get a full shot of
the Carrousel sequence with what he had available. He ended up using a
prototype 18mm, T/1.7 lens from Todd-AO and a prototype 24mm, T/2.3
lens. Two different lenses just for that scene and others for the rest
of the picture and aspect ratio never changes
And they don't "reset aspects"; framing/matting is done after if they
are shooting on film with larger exposures. There are many places you
can learn about cameras, film and lenses. You might enjoy learning
about them. Plus a little note, not all movies are constant ratio.
Simply because your final master uses one kind of film doesn't mean
you can't block out areas to change the ratio.
If you want to cut off parts of the picture that were intended to be
seen go ahead, I'm not going to yell at you or say shame on you like
some others might, I'm just saying try to watch it the way it's meant
for a little while and you might find out you like it better.
>
>In a theater curtains or the like are used to shape the screen
>to the image. There MUST be a reason they choose to do so.
>
>My preference is to do the same thing at home using a video
>projector, a 4:3 screen, and movable matting which together
>would yield a wide enough picture to satisfy my personal
>enjoyment.
>
>However, I didn't happen to do this, although it might have
>proven less expensive. Yet it was a strong contender for
>setting up the viewing area.
>
>I'm using a 1080 LCD. Some letterboxed and pillar-boxed videos
>can be aspect modified by ~10% increments and nothing is lost
>(which I might have noticed anyway). Some can not. Let's face
>it, if the cinematographer and/or director are committed to a
>single scene that benefits from cinemascope, the entire film
>will be cinemascope. I'll use "Gangs of New York" as an
>example. Beside the scene in which the two gangs enter the
>street from opposite ends of the wide screen, when else was the
>width of the image at all of value to content? And could the
>director have not panned the camera to achieve an even more
>dramatic scene? Scorsese is a schlock with a sympathy Oscar;-0)
>
>I get the feeling, when viewing SOME DVDs, that the
>director/cinematographer simply forgot to reset the aspect from
>whomever last rented the camera - 2.35 framed as 4:3, come on!
>It's like watching golf on HDTV;-0)
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|