How to letterbox his films

Started by mutinyco, June 22, 2003, 09:36:03 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6
User actions

bonanzataz

#15
June 22, 2003, 01:28:41 PM
Quote from: Pis anyone actually reading what is being said, jesus, this ratio crap is the boringest thing that no one EVER SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND.

it's been explained so many times i wanna lock this thread and cut myself.

yeah, but people like controversy, even when there is none.
The corpses all hang headless and limp bodies with no surprises and the blood drains down like devil's rain we'll bathe tonight I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls Demon I am and face I peel to see your skin turned inside out, 'cause gotta have you on my wall gotta have you on my wall, 'cause I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls collect the heads of little girls and put 'em on my wall hack the heads off little girls and put 'em on my wall I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls

Keener

#16
June 22, 2003, 01:28:45 PM
Quote from: Pis anyone actually reading what is being said, jesus, this ratio crap is the boringest thing that no one EVER SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND.

it's been explained so many times i wanna lock this thread and cut myself.

Didn't Mommy and Daddy show you enough attention when you were a child?
Alabama Film Forum
Uniting film lovers and filmmakers of Alabama

Pubrick

#17
June 22, 2003, 01:29:43 PM
i am in a world of shit.
under the paving stones.

SoNowThen

#18
June 22, 2003, 02:11:26 PM
I thought I read somewhere that Kubrick's assistant said Stanley decided (after final cut) of The Shining, that he wanted to have it 1:33, rather than 1:85 as they first intended, and when he was made aware of the helicopter shadow, he felt it didn't bother him that much.

This is not something I "think", it's something I read.

So, I guess the point was that he decided after the fact to have these dvd's in 1:33. I dunno if that's true. One time I questioned it, and several people here bit off my head for looking for a "conspiracy". Now, mutinyco is basically saying that the dvd's are NOT what was intended. So what is the fucking truth? Will we ever know?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

mutinyco

...
#19
June 22, 2003, 02:32:56 PM
What I'm saying is that he intended the DVDs to be in 1.33. Nobody screens theatrical films in 1.33, unless its an old film prior to the 1950s. His films were cropped at 1.85 and 1.66 in theaters.

His ratio of 1.33 is simply the image prior to cropping. He liked it because he liked height, and as somebody with a background in still photography, this is the negative ratio.

I think they look better with the theatrical cropping. I think they feel more dynamic.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

bonanzataz

#20
June 22, 2003, 02:36:29 PM
i like them full screen because the image is harder hitting, but i wouldn't complain if they were wide. i would probably prefer them wide if they were being screened, but in my living room, i like the full (where it applies).
The corpses all hang headless and limp bodies with no surprises and the blood drains down like devil's rain we'll bathe tonight I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls Demon I am and face I peel to see your skin turned inside out, 'cause gotta have you on my wall gotta have you on my wall, 'cause I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls collect the heads of little girls and put 'em on my wall hack the heads off little girls and put 'em on my wall I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls

SoNowThen

#21
June 22, 2003, 03:03:39 PM
I'd like to see FMJ in 1:66. Aside from that, the other two are fine for me.

I'm gonna shoot my first feature in 1.33:1, and have it projected that way as well. It just suits the story so much more than widescreen would.

Then after that, everything else will be anamorphic. If anybody cares...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Cecil

#22
June 22, 2003, 03:07:54 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenI'm gonna shoot my first feature in 1.33:1, and have it projected that way as well.

aside from maybe art house theatres, do some cinemas still project at 1.33 or even 1.66? would the studio let you crop the sides so that you get your 1.33 even though its being projected at 1.85?

mutinyco

...
#23
June 22, 2003, 03:18:14 PM
The theaters wouldn't crop anything. The image is already 1.33. The last movie I saw in 1.33 was Blair Witch. Good luck.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Cecil

#24
June 22, 2003, 03:21:58 PM
Quote from: mutinycoThe theaters wouldn't crop anything.

yes but you need to put the lens on the projector: either flat or scope. what is being masked would end up being above and under the screen anyway. so it would need to be cropped on the side and projected 1.85

mutinyco

...
#25
June 22, 2003, 03:34:48 PM
That's incorrect. There's more than one aspect ratio a flat lens can have. Ever see any documentaries? Ever see an old film in the theater? Nothing's being cropped. It's simply a square image.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

mutinyco

...
#26
June 22, 2003, 03:41:09 PM
Besides, it isn't the lens that does the actual cropping, there's a separate plate that does that. Ever see a projected image get shifted on the screen to fit correctly?
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

#27
June 22, 2003, 04:21:49 PM
I used to hate 1.33:1, even in the old films that actually shot in that ratio. I just could never get into the framing. But then I started watching early Godard stuff, and I finally found someone who frames in a cool way for 1.33. Sure, I know that lots of other masters used this ratio, but it's particularily Godard that has excited me to the possibilities of the full frame. ANd now, re-examining the Kubrick stuff, even though it's WAY different from how I would frame, it is of course a thing of beauty.

But like I said, 1 in 1.33:1, then all the rest in 2.35:1. I love the wide-widescreen the best.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

mutinyco

...
#28
June 22, 2003, 04:34:39 PM
Most filmmakers nowadays shoot in Super-35, not anamorphic. Super-35 is flat. It's also 2.4 instead of 2.35. Some still use anamorphic, like Wes Anderson. He likes the round shape. Others find the lens too bulky, and it doesn't have good depth of focus, which hurts if you like shooting with low light levels.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Cecil

#29
June 22, 2003, 06:06:33 PM
Quote from: mutinycoThat's incorrect. There's more than one aspect ratio a flat lens can have. Ever see any documentaries? Ever see an old film in the theater? Nothing's being cropped. It's simply a square image.

yes i know, but what im saying is that most theatres, if not all, are not even equiped to show a film in anything else than 1.85 or scope. thats why kubrick had to have his films projected in 1.85 (well after 1.66 dissapeared at least).
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6
User actions