James Cameron sometimes shoots a movie at 1.33:1, and then crops it for the theatrical release, rather than for the video release.
Wash: So, two days in a hospital? That's awful. Don't you just hate doctors? Simon: Hey. Wash: I mean, present company excluded. Jayne: Let's not be excluding people. That'd be rude.
'Ariel'
Buffista Movies 3: Panned and Scanned
A place to talk about movies--Old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
Tom Scola - Jan 28, 2005 6:11:19 am PST #8539 of 10001
Remember that the frontier of the Rebellion is everywhere. And even the smallest act of insurrection pushes our lines forward.
JZ - Jan 28, 2005 6:11:35 am PST #8540 of 10001
See? I gave everybody here an opportunity to tell me what a bad person I am and nobody did, because I fuckin' rule.
In going forth and Googling, I stumbled upon this discussion on DVD Talk Forum, the gist of which seems to be that the guy who brought the suit is an idiot who doesn't understand anything about filmmaking or editing and is just wrong in his understanding of widescreen formatting. But the whole discussion is very filmtechgeek heavy and I'm totally incompetent to judge whether the folks on that forum are right and settlement-guy is an idiot, or whether he in fact is right and they're all pompous and full of shit.
Any chance Jessica, Fiona or one of the other people who actually work in this industry could take a look at that forum and translate it into non-tech?
Frankenbuddha - Jan 28, 2005 6:15:47 am PST #8541 of 10001
"We are the Goon Squad and we're coming to town...Beep! Beep!" - David Bowie, "Fashion"
Aspect ratio isn't format-dependent -- you can shoot 1.33:1 35mm or 1.85:1 video. The vast majority of theatrically released films post-1950's are 1.85:1 or wider, regardless of the medium they were shot in. (I didn't see 24HPP, so for all I know, it was released in 1.33, but I doubt it. The DVD details on IMDB say 1.85.)
I can never keep this stuff straight. I've read primers on this ("Aspect Ratios for Dummies" basically), and everytime I think I finally understand all the different permutations, something else comes along to confuse me and make my head hurt.
tommyrot - Jan 28, 2005 6:19:14 am PST #8542 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
the gist of which seems to be that the guy who brought the suit is an idiot who doesn't understand anything about filmmaking or editing and is just wrong in his understanding of widescreen formatting.
But if he was wrong, why did he win the court case (or make a settlement, if it was settled out of court)?
OK, I suppose he could be wrong and still get a settlement. Less likely, but it still happens.
Jessica - Jan 28, 2005 6:42:19 am PST #8543 of 10001
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
Any chance Jessica, Fiona or one of the other people who actually work in this industry could take a look at that forum and translate it into non-tech?
This post seems to be the clearest post on the matter.
Knowing this is all probably bullshit is a HUGE relief.
JZ - Jan 28, 2005 6:43:48 am PST #8544 of 10001
See? I gave everybody here an opportunity to tell me what a bad person I am and nobody did, because I fuckin' rule.
Thanks, Jess.
gives Bull Durham et al. little loving pats and puts them back on the DVD shelf
Steph L. - Jan 28, 2005 6:45:09 am PST #8545 of 10001
I look more rad than Lutheranism
they're not defective, they're open matte....it is technically accurate that the cases for the discs were labelled in a misleading way. They indicate, wrongly, that there is more picture on either side when, as you know, this would not be the case with open matte movies.
Um. What does that mean? I don't know what "open matte" is.
Jessica - Jan 28, 2005 6:56:06 am PST #8546 of 10001
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
Basically, MGM's fullscreen versions aren't pan-n-scan, so they show the entire width of the film, plus the bits that were supposed to be matted out by the projectionist.
§ ita § - Jan 28, 2005 6:58:34 am PST #8547 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
That makes me feel a bit better.
Because with the number of times I've seen TPB in theatres, and my carping about cuts in scenes that not only have no dialog -- they also have no actors -- to not notice the framing would have been even worse than, you know, believing I'd not noticed the framing.
Doesn't open matte lead to lots of boom mics and stuff in the frames?
tommyrot - Jan 28, 2005 7:00:03 am PST #8548 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
Yay us! for figuring this out. (For values of 'us' me.)
I wonder if the slashdot folks figured this out before us? Pro'lly, as there are only about a thousand times more of them....