Jump to content


Isn't fullscreen much better than wide screen?


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Christopher Sheneman

Christopher Sheneman
  • Guests

Posted 18 November 2012 - 08:51 AM

I don't care if it's "cutting" off part of the scene. Stop putting part of the scene where it's being "cut off" (problem solved, huh?)
Can you imagine people tossing their rectagulaer LCD screens for new square ones! I love 1.33:1 - I think wide screen is 1.33:1.


Posted Image

Posted Image
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 November 2012 - 09:57 AM

You think all movies should be chopped up to fit the shape of your screen regardless of composition?
  • 1

#3 Alan Rencher

Alan Rencher
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 November 2012 - 03:42 PM

You want an entire industry to change because you can't invest in a better projector / screen combo?

Edited by Alan Rencher, 18 November 2012 - 03:42 PM.

  • 0

#4 Christopher Sheneman

Christopher Sheneman
  • Guests

Posted 18 November 2012 - 07:39 PM

The proof is in the pictures, fellas.
  • 0

#5 Alex Birrell

Alex Birrell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Student
  • London, UK

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:24 AM

I see you are a student. Well, I'm a film student too and for the past two semesters I've been forced to shoot in 4:3 16mm and it felt like having one of my eyes cut out! We're moving onto 1.85 in January but for me it'll always be full scope all the way!
  • 0

#6 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1405 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:28 PM

Christopher Sheneman, you are not alone. I second your view. I am fond of 4:3. It is the oldest standard still alive.
  • 0

#7 Jean-Louis Seguin

Jean-Louis Seguin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Other
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 19 November 2012 - 03:25 PM

I don't care if it's "cutting" off part of the scene. Stop putting part of the scene where it's being "cut off" (problem solved, huh?)
Can you imagine people tossing their rectagulaer LCD screens for new square ones! I love 1.33:1 - I think wide screen is 1.33:1.



It's funny that you should put up a frame of Barton Fink as an example of 1.33:1. See:

http://www.rogerdeak....php?f=2&t=1774

Cheers,
Jean-Louis
  • 0

#8 Simon Miya

Simon Miya
  • Sustaining Members
  • 82 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, OR

Posted 19 November 2012 - 05:11 PM

Upgrade your equipment. Your screen shape is outdated ;)
  • 0

#9 Christopher Sheneman

Christopher Sheneman
  • Guests

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:47 AM

It's funny that you should put up a frame of Barton Fink as an example of 1.33:1. See:

http://www.rogerdeak....php?f=2&t=1774

Cheers,
Jean-Louis


Interesting. I read the Roger Deakins thread. I understand this-

A)The Netflix Barton Fink is 1.37:1, but the original is 1.66:1 but was going to be 1.85:1 but for some reason wasn't.
B) Deakins was/is afraid of booms and lights appearing in the frame so he used a 1.66:1 mask for protection
BUT
C) Now he leaves said boom and lights in the frame because studios demand full academy framing and no masks and he's composing the intended frame using microphone and lights as a mask?

Glad that's cleared up, anyways I'm glad Netflix for presenting the film the way they did, one of the Roger Deakin's thread posters noted the film emulated the films of the past, 40's etc..I agree. It wouldn't have the same emotional impact in wider screen. And for me- I can see more of the actor's faces- this film is all about the acting. Watch the film on Netflix and know the truth!
  • 0

#10 Paul Bartok

Paul Bartok
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:49 PM

I really dislike 4:3 or anything similar, this is something I feel particularly strong about the only time I think it works is with IMAX 70mm, 1.87 is great for home viewing, and 2.35/39 is best for cinema experience or even on bluray, 4:3 was good for VHS.
  • 0

#11 Mathew Rudenberg

Mathew Rudenberg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:36 PM

With all due respect, it seems silly to make the argument that any format is better then another. Selection of the screen shape is a complex decision made by the cinematographer and the director in order to best tell the story through visuals.

For example, Gus van Sant and the sadly departed Harris Savides chose to shoot Gerry 2:35, and then the following year shot Elephant 1.33.

To appreciate a cinematographer's work one should watch a film in the format it was shot and framed in.
  • 0

#12 Paul Bartok

Paul Bartok
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 20 November 2012 - 06:56 PM

I totally agree with Matt that its a dp and directors vision, but still find that certain aspect ratios are more pleasing to the eye in certain viewing mediums. Like to me personally 1.33 is of puting.
  • 0

#13 Christopher Sheneman

Christopher Sheneman
  • Guests

Posted 21 November 2012 - 03:37 AM

With all due respect, it seems silly to make the argument that any format is better then another. Selection of the screen shape is a complex decision made by the cinematographer and the director in order to best tell the story through visuals.

For example, Gus van Sant and the sadly departed Harris Savides chose to shoot Gerry 2:35, and then the following year shot Elephant 1.33.

To appreciate a cinematographer's work one should watch a film in the format it was shot and framed in.


Public space itself is getting smaller and certainly they was a time for "wide" (2.35:1, even 1.85:1) but that time has passed. Long gone are the wrap-around screens from pre-1970's- the Cinerama screens and drive-in's.
And really look at those pictures again, it's at home- it's a 50" or less throw. That's the future- smaller "home" theaters. And which ratio really serves the stories best? Beyond your nostalgic bias or unrealistic expectations- It's 4:3. The people's ratio!

I predict "square" will come back into vogue once people figure it -up and down instead of left and right.
I think a lot of us saw that silent film "The Artist" in theaters, didn't you find the ratio to be very pleasing?
  • 0

#14 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 21 November 2012 - 02:55 PM

I predict "square" will come back into vogue once people figure it -up and down instead of left and right.
I think a lot of us saw that silent film "The Artist" in theaters, didn't you find the ratio to be very pleasing?


Definitely think 4:3 will one day have a resurgance as a trendy ratio, just think it will probably be a loooooong time from now!
I'm expecting a scope phase long before 4:3. At the moment 4:3 still has strange associations for a lot of people, but as you suggest, some people really like it and why not! :)

Anyway just wanted to mention that "Fish Tank" is a recent film shot in Academy 35mm, so you might want to check that out.

love

Freya
  • 0

#15 Kemalettin Sert

Kemalettin Sert
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Istanbul

Posted 21 November 2012 - 10:04 PM

1.33 is so gradma's format...WS gives real cinematic feeling to me
  • 0

#16 Robert Lewis

Robert Lewis
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Other
  • United Kingdom

Posted 22 November 2012 - 04:01 AM

The format used for filming is important of course, but it is not the be or end all of things. The way in which a film is projected is important too.

Many cinemas in the UK, when cinemascope was introduced, had full cinemascope format screens installed. Those were the ones which had a fixed top masking and side masking which was opened to facilitate the projection of films produced in cinemascope. In those cinemas the positive attributes of the format were obvious.

However, in many cinemas, there were constraints on the installation of cinemascope screens and so films shot in cinemascope format were shown in format, but on screens on which only the top masking was adjustable. In these cinemas the screen had only top masking which was variable and films shot in cinemascope appeared to be only half the height (and therefore size) of the 4:3 format films. In short there was no benefit in the visual appearance of films shot in cinemascope, but rather substantial disbenefit.

Some cinemas had screens with limited variation of the side masking and variable top masking, and so there was some benefit, but not full benefit to be seen when watching a film shot in cinemascope.

I believe, therefore, that the original format of a film is therefore only part of the story. The way in which it is projected is also important. I think the two images shown in the opening posting well illustrates this point.

All this having been said, I have to say that I do not have a problem in watching a film shot in any particular format. I think it is not the format which makes a film, but the way in which all the qualities of a good film are brought together. The format in which it is shot is but one of these rather than a matter of fashion.

Edited by Robert Lewis, 22 November 2012 - 04:03 AM.

  • 0

#17 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:09 AM

In short there was no benefit in the visual appearance of films shot in cinemascope, but rather substantial disbenefit.

Well, they would have had a brighter image in not one but two regards...

Firstly, scope uses the full frame so all the light is focused through the frame and on to the screen, no light wasted simply heating up a hard mask in the projector.

Secondly, to have a smaller projection as you point out, they would have to use a relatively longer lens which in turn projects a image of not only greater resolution per unit area but also a greater density/luminous flux.

:)

But yeh, I agree the bringing er... in of the masking for 'glorious scope' really is completely backwards huh - the modern version is the regular scam of IMAX.

Edited by Chris Millar, 22 November 2012 - 08:10 AM.

  • 0

#18 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1599 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:04 AM

I really enjoyed watching The Dark Knight at Imax switching from wide-screen 'normal' to full-screen 65mm for the action sequences..

Why can't we all just live together in harmony B)

I'd love to see a movie shot in "Vertiscope" portrait framing (anamorphic sideways)
  • 0

#19 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:53 PM

Most aspects (i.e. certainly all the popular ones) can be be composed for with no real fuss or pretension and as Dom points out, even switches mid film are accommodated with anticipation.

Just go with the flow ;)
  • 0

#20 Nate Opgenorth

Nate Opgenorth
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Syracuse, NY

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:45 PM

4:3...I never liked the format, respect it but don't like it one bit. Shooting an older movie? Shoot 1.66:1, way better than a box sitting in my field of view. I'm forever a fan of scope, especially anamorphic scope, watch a movie like Heat and just seeing all that beautiful fine grain with those beautiful anamorphic "artifacts" gets me going. Maybe one day Vittorio Storaro's dream of 2:1 will be the standard ;)

You think all movies should be chopped up to fit the shape of your screen regardless of composition?

I sense tension with this...haha.


I really enjoyed watching The Dark Knight at Imax switching from wide-screen 'normal' to full-screen 65mm for the action sequences..

Why can't we all just live together in harmony B)

I'd love to see a movie shot in "Vertiscope" portrait framing (anamorphic sideways)

Oh I loved The Dark Knight switching back and forth, hardly annoying as I felt this feeling of the scene feeling more grand and then realized I was in a 65mm scene and then gently put back into 35mm...Christopher Nolan really knows what he wants and I can't imagine watching his work in some jammed up way like a 4:3 crop for the entire thing! Got allot of respect and love his views on film and CGI use.

  • 0


CineTape

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Opal

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

CineLab

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly