Jump to content


Photo

Fandango- kevin Reynolds


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 stephen solar

stephen solar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 July 2013 - 11:14 PM

So i was watching this personal favorite and I read the tech specs which are spherical ,1.85 format. My question is when they printed this DI'd to dvd did they stretch 4:3 to get to 16x9?


  • 0

#2 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 July 2013 - 11:55 PM

If the original film was 1.85:1, then all that would have been necessary is a slight left and right crop to reduce it to 1.78:1 or 16:9.


  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 July 2013 - 12:41 AM

"Fandango" was a 1985 movie so wouldn't have gone through a D.I.  On DVD, you're seeing a video transfer (telecine) of the film, probably off of a timed 35mm I.P.

 

Here's a diagram showing the 4-perf 35mm format used for 1.85:

apertures4P.jpg

 

Back then, you would have exposed Full Aperture or Academy Aperture (both 4x3, Academy being slightly smaller and shifted to the right to make room for the optical soundtrack) and composed for cropping to 1.85.  Then the projector matte would have masked the print image to that 1.85 area on the 4-perf 35mm composite print.  The 4x3 TV version would have used the taller 4x3 Academy area for the transfer, perhaps doing some reframing when a mic boom or other piece of equipment poked into the shot; they would have also made a letterboxed version cropped to the 1.85 theatrical area.

 

Today, you're more likely to shoot 3-perf 35mm for a 1.85 movie (or 16x9 digital) and then go through a D.I. to create a 4-perf 35mm negative for printing.  3-perf 35mm has a native 16x9 (1.78) shape so the 1.85 area sits just inside that very snugly.

 

Here's an example from something I shot in 3-perf 35mm -- this is from the 16x9 home video version letterboxed to 1.85.  You can see how little waste there is cropping 1.78 to 1.85:

 

jb45.jpg

 

The whole 1.78 area without these 1.85 borders was also recorded to 4-perf 35mm internegative for making the 35mm release prints -- the 1.85 projector matte would have then masked the image down to 1.85.  You generally don't want to transfer actual 1.85 letterboxing to film for 1.85 projection because odds are high that with the slightest misframing by the projectionist some portion of the black borders would appear on screen.  On the other hand, if you were making a DCP, then you'd just create a 1.85 file.


  • 0

#4 stephen solar

stephen solar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 July 2013 - 06:51 PM

That's very interesting, as always, thanks for the detailed answer Mr. Mullen.


  • 0


Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Opal

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Technodolly

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport