hello,
i figured i might start a little discussion about wide screen. i hate it!
now to qualify that. i enjoy films as much as anybody, yet when enjoying a feature, i often see the tops actors heads cut out, or their chin disappears!
i know the format has been around for a long time, but with the advent of digital hdtv, it seems that films will from here on will be getting only "most" of the face.
am i an old ****** because i like to see headroom? not the pores on the persons face?
now i will admit, widescreen for distance shots of mountains, or city scapes cannot be beaten, but in a portrait of an actor, i beleive it detracts so much.
do most people among these forums love widescreen purely because they can fit more onto the edges? happy to sacrifice the top and bottom?
it bugs me to tears when i see an actor standing in the middle of say a room, cannot see their legs, or the floor, or the ceiling, but we can see almost the curvature of the room he is standing in!
can people explain to this undereducated soul the benefits of widescreen when shooting people up close.
i will not even query the lack of tripods in pro films, a shaky shot adds so much!!! [img]graemlins/rain.gif[/img]
Ha, Ha, the wide-screen emperor has no clothes!
I can't really disagree with anything that you've said. Wide Screen proponents do point out that two shots sometimes turn into one shots when they are not letterboxed.
I think they should create instamorph for television screens. The screen would quietly expand and contract depending on the shot. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
I love WidescreeN, 1:66:1 or even 1:85:1 in the theater.
I am not that big a fan of anamorphic films. But you gotta know, nothing screams cinema more than WidescreeN, * "It's not just a film....It's a Motion Picture! "
*Mamut Faringpour
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Why do you have to sacrifice the top and bottom? I mean you can frame someone's face the exact same height wise with 4:3 as with any wider format its just there's extra room on the sides with widescreen. Its not top/bottom your losing, its what are you going to do with the left/right when doing a close up with widescreen?Originally posted by mishkin madness:
do most people among these forums love widescreen purely because they can fit more onto the edges? happy to sacrifice the top and bottom?
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">The benefit is obvious, you get a bigger picture cause there is more on the sides with the height being the same. Whether its better or not is the question. Your right you do loose intimacy with widescreen compared to 4:3. Personally I would prefer a 3:2 aspect ratio as standard and NOT the 16:9 that HD will have. I use to love the real big widescreen like Panavision stuff but now that I've been filming on Super 8 I think the real wide ***** .it bugs me to tears when i see an actor standing in the middle of say a room, cannot see their legs, or the floor, or the ceiling, but we can see almost the curvature of the room he is standing in!
can people explain to this undereducated soul the benefits of widescreen when shooting people up close.
Now the kicker is that when a movie is put on DVD with both Pan & Scan and letterbox versions, why does the Pan Scan show more on the top or bottom than the letterbox? Its real wacky, I was just looking at the ***** City DVD and sure enough the bottom of the image is cropped out on the widescreen when compared to the Pan Scan. And its not just the Dark City DVD cause all discs I have with feature both versions have stuff cropped out on the widescreen. Why?
If it wasn't so much work I'd post frame examples to show my point.
Regardless of what aspect ratio you may be a fan of,it looks like the standard will be 1:77.That's convenient to NO ONE.Like it or not,the standard will go the that and so the super 8 film format will have to adapt.
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Originally posted by mishkin madness:
hello,
i figured i might start a little discussion about wide screen. i hate it!
now to qualify that. i enjoy films as much as anybody, yet when enjoying a feature, i often see the tops actors heads cut out, or their chin disappears!
i know the format has been around for a long time, but with the advent of digital hdtv, it seems that films will from here on will be getting only "most" of the face.
am i an old ****** because i like to see headroom? not the pores on the persons face?
now i will admit, widescreen for distance shots of mountains, or city scapes cannot be beaten, but in a portrait of an actor, i beleive it detracts so much.
do most people among these forums love widescreen purely because they can fit more onto the edges? happy to sacrifice the top and bottom?
it bugs me to tears when i see an actor standing in the middle of say a room, cannot see their legs, or the floor, or the ceiling, but we can see almost the curvature of the room he is standing in!
can people explain to this undereducated soul the benefits of widescreen when shooting people up close.
i will not even query the lack of tripods in pro films, a shaky shot adds so much!!! [img]graemlins/rain.gif[/img]
Do not seem to be able to reply without a quote.
Anyhow, I like widescreen on the TV. At 16:9 very little gets cut off the cinemascope original, and from a DVD the letterboxing of cinemascope on a widescreen TV is quite watcheable.
A bit of a pain, sometimes, when they are showing some old film an widescreen only a portion. Other than that it is not a problem.
Here in the UK because we have 625 line PAL there has been little incentive to romote HDTV. My current TV is a Panasonic with a 100Hz set up and looks pretty good. I have not seen HDTV so cannot compare, but it is certainly better than the old 405 line black and white. Although it was good enough to film the first man on the moon off.
Our digital transmission also switch automatically between widescreen and 4:3. All the mainstream broadcasters seem to use that system. Some of the cheaper ones a sticking with 4:3 only, and on a widescreen TV that is a real pain. I have my TV set to 14:9, which is a reasonable compromise from cliping them to the full 16:9
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">they must have shot normal or super 35mm and cropped to 1.85 or 2.39 ratio, but kept the 4:3 framing for the pan & scan release. sometimes you "shoot to protect", where you try to frame up for multiple aspect ratios at once. pain in the butt.Originally posted by cameraguy:
Now the kicker is that when a movie is put on DVD with both Pan & Scan and letterbox versions, why does the Pan Scan show more on the top or bottom than the letterbox?
personally, i love shooting wide aspect, especially with true anamorphic lenses. i like playing with what we don't see, but assume to be there (that which is cropped out of the top and bottom).
anamorphic lenses have a special look all their own, which is really neat . . .
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks