How to letterbox his films

[mutinyco]

1.66 is still the European standard. Yeah, he preferred 1.33. But it looks better in 1.85. Try my tips and see.

[sphinx]

eyes wide shut looks fantastic when cropped; i just tried it

[MacGuffin]

EWS is the trickiest. Again, it should be cropped to 1.66:1. However, you need to crop more of the bottom than the top. A good reference is the shot behind Nicole when Sandor Szavost approaches her. Use the top of her head as a reference, then bring the bottom close to the edge of the table, though with a drop of room.

Okay, now how do you get rid of the digital people in the orgy scene?

[sphinx]

the uncensored version is available everywhere on the internet, so theoretically you could splice it into your current copy of ews if you have a dvd burner.  at least they don't look incredibly fake, however it is very convenient.  kubrick must be rolling in his grave at that

[mutinyco]

Or you could buy yourself an all region DVD player, then get the European version...

[bonanzataz]

i remember when they reissued snow white a while back the screen was 1.33:1 and the sides of the screen not being used were just black. my first encounter with aspect ratios at a young age.

[Keener]

I watched Touch of Evil the other night and I actually enjoyed it as is. I think I liked that specific movie that way more than I would in widescreen. So bizarre.

[mutinyco]

I don't know what version of Touch of Evil you saw, but the restored DVD is 1.85 widecreen.

[Keener]

I don't know what version of Touch of Evil you saw, but the restored DVD is 1.85 widecreen.

Really? I need to get ahold of that then. I saw the VHS which was the restored version (the one they edited best they could to fit Orson's original vision from his letters to the studio). I liked alot of the shots as was but now I must seek down this 1.85 you speak of.

[jokerspath]

Okay, now how do you get rid of the digital people in the orgy scene?

the uncensored version is available everywhere on the internet, so theoretically you could splice it into your current copy of ews if you have a dvd burner.  at least they don't look incredibly fake, however it is very convenient.  kubrick must be rolling in his grave at that

Aha, does this mean I will show some raunchy caps soon?

Anyone want to post caps of the non-censored version vs. the censored version?

aw

[cowboykurtis]

mutinyco,

im sorry to say partner, but you dont know what you're talking about. a full double perf 35mm camera negative is 1.85, not 1.33. when shooting 1.33 they use a tv safe ground glass and then crop the image later. with 2.35 its either anamorphic: it squeezes the image onto the negative and then unsqueezes it when projected or its single perf super 35mm (2.40). there is no existing camera negative that has a 1.33 aspect ratio in 35mm. double perf. 16mm is close (1.66), and super 16(single perf) is utilizing the whole neg area which is about 1.79( close to 1.85). its never cropped in the theater bucko. before you call me wizard, know what you're talking about, buddy.

[mutinyco]

I am correcting you. Because you are wrong. A 35mm camera negative looks exactly like the 35mm negavitve you'd shoot in a 35mm still camera. It's 35mm. It doesn't look anything like 1.85, 1.66, or 2.35 anamorphic (2.4 Super-35). These aspect ratios came about only after TV became a major competitor to the movies. They started experimenting with various screen sizes, including 70mm and Cinerama, which consisted of multiple projectors creating a giant image. This is also when 3-D came into vogue.

Eventually, they settled on 1.85 for North America and 1.66 just about everywhere else -- notwithstanding anamorphic, which, as you explained, is a squeezed image.

But yes, these DVDs are presented in the original camera negative aspect ratio. As well, double perf 16mm is 1.33, not 1.66 as you said. Super-16 is 1.66, not 1.79. 1.79 is 16:9 digital widescreen.

Most filmmakers shoot using the full camera negative, with a glass to show the outline of their preferred aspect ratio for composition. This is done because, among other things, if a hair or a piece of dust winds up in the gate it will most likely stick at the bottom. If you use a 1.85 plate in your camera as you shoot, then that hair will be part of your final image. If you shoot with the full negative, you can crop it out. Same goes for boom mics, hense my example of poor projection cropping in theaters.

[SoNowThen]

I was under the impression that Super-16mm was 1.85:1....

why would it be 1.66:1??

[Duck Sauce]

Rename this thread "How to Vandalize a Picasso and more"

[jokerspath]

Well, if its no problem, would you post it?  

aw