Jump to content


Photo

A Fistful of Spaghetti


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 22 April 2009 - 10:24 AM

I've been watching it, again. They're running it in 4:3. All those close-ups are really prominent in 4:3. It got me to thinking: Close-ups in widescreen still benefit from the sense of place and expanse all around those close-up'd heads. That automatic interaction of environment and subject intimacy that you can get with 2.40:1 is lost in 4:3. To me, 4:3 close-ups seem claustrophobic in comparison.

Just a notion.
  • 0

#2 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 22 April 2009 - 10:26 AM

Agreed.
Also I think that 2.40:1 is really good for any project wherein it's man -v- his environment, whereas 1.85:1 is perhaps mostly better for man -v- man. Course in the end that's just opinion and can't be used ALL the time... just my own thoughts on the matter. 4:3 screams TV news to me anymore :/
  • 0

#3 Bruce Taylor

Bruce Taylor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 April 2009 - 04:22 PM

I've been watching it, again. They're running it in 4:3.


Can they be prosecuted for that? I saw some of that the last go round, so I swtched channels. In this day and age they can't show 'em as they were intended?

Bruce Taylor
www.indi35.com
  • 0

#4 Hal Smith

Hal Smith
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2280 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • OKC area

Posted 22 April 2009 - 08:34 PM

AMC turned into just another cr*p program source the day they started running commercials. Unlike TCM which is still pretty much about the films, AMC is about making a buck. They're probably running 4:3 because they can get TV prints cheap. I also wonder if they even own the correct projection gear and/or digital boxes to letterbox 1.85:1 and scope. I've got my fingers crossed that someday TCM will go HD!
  • 0

#5 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 22 April 2009 - 08:46 PM

AMC turned into just another cr*p program source the day they started running commercials. Unlike TCM which is still pretty much about the films, AMC is about making a buck. They're probably running 4:3 because they can get TV prints cheap. I also wonder if they even own the correct projection gear and/or digital boxes to letterbox 1.85:1 and scope. I've got my fingers crossed that someday TCM will go HD!


AMC ruins a lot movies with their lame censorship.
  • 0

#6 Giles Sherwood

Giles Sherwood
  • Guests

Posted 24 April 2009 - 10:56 PM

Leone's closeups make fantastic use of the 2:35 space by means of the brims of the cowboy hats especially.
  • 0

#7 Marc Alucard

Marc Alucard
  • Sustaining Members
  • 176 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 April 2009 - 11:28 AM

Broadcasters reframing content should be a crime.

The premium channels on Dish often show films framed 2.35 : 1 down (or up depending on how you look at it) to 16 : 9 to fill the screen.

I feel like I am only seeing 2/3 of the film.

It makes me cringe. I watched "In Bruges" broadcast this way and then bought the DVD to see the content cropped from both sides.
  • 0

#8 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1406 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 25 April 2009 - 12:07 PM

To me, 4:3 close-ups seem claustrophobic in comparison.

Need not necessarily be so, if you observe how they went into the kissing, let's say, with GWTW, 4:3 surrounds the couple very well. A CU can be arranged flat or in depth. 4:3 calls for a deeper awareness, not a broader horizon.
  • 0

#9 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 25 April 2009 - 02:42 PM

Need not necessarily be so, if you observe how they went into the kissing, let's say, with GWTW, 4:3 surrounds the couple very well. A CU can be arranged flat or in depth. 4:3 calls for a deeper awareness, not a broader horizon.

The above example was framed and shot in 4:3, thus the original composition is maintained.
  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19760 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 April 2009 - 03:18 PM

Yes, without getting into the pros and cons of different aspect ratios, what matters is seeing the movie in the format it was composed to be seen in. 4x3 can be a wonderful frame in the hands of a master at composing for it. Look at these frames from "How Green Was My Valley":

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image
  • 0

#11 Peter Moretti

Peter Moretti
  • Sustaining Members
  • 306 posts
  • Other
  • Sherman Oaks, CA

Posted 29 April 2009 - 01:21 PM

Oh come on, we all know it was the singing that made that movie, LOL J/K.

Those are some beautiful stills, w/ very deep focus. And it's interesting how all except maybe the last picture, are of settings with a lot of vertical, instead of horizontal, expansiveness.
  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Opal

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Glidecam

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Opal

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

CineTape

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Wooden Camera