Widescreen movies: 1.33X lens for 3-perf 35mm film?

[Gary Palmer]

As Super 35 continues to make a mockery of the 'widescreen' format in
modern cinematography, I wonder if someone - somewhere - hasn't
thought about reviving an idea which (according to an earlier post
which I found on one of the Google forums) was first mooted in a 1975
issue of 'American Cinematographer', in which a 1.33X lens is used on
3-perf 35mm film, thereby creating a squeezed 2.35 image? With today's
advanced optics and technology, surely such technology is viable?
Especially since 1.33X lenses/converters have become available for use
with digital cameras, which squeezes the 2.35 image into the native
1.78 image area. Anything's better than the 'shoot and crop'
philosophy which underpins the ghastly Super 35 format...

Any thoughts on this earth-shattering topic, guys?

[manitou910]

Post by Gary Palmer
As Super 35 continues to make a mockery of the 'widescreen' format in
modern cinematography, I wonder if someone - somewhere - hasn't
thought about reviving an idea which (according to an earlier post
which I found on one of the Google forums) was first mooted in a 1975
issue of 'American Cinematographer', in which a 1.33X lens is used on
3-perf 35mm film, thereby creating a squeezed 2.35 image? With today's
advanced optics and technology, surely such technology is viable?
Especially since 1.33X lenses/converters have become available for use
with digital cameras, which squeezes the 2.35 image into the native
1.78 image area. Anything's better than the 'shoot and crop'
philosophy which underpins the ghastly Super 35 format...
Any thoughts on this earth-shattering topic, guys?

I expect David Mullen can give us an up-to-the-minute answer and comment
on this.

My reaction is that the proposal presumably would result in _some_
increase in vertical resolution (though not as much as for established
4-perf 35mm anamorphic compared with Super-35), but at the expense of
introducing the difficulties associated with anamorphic cinematography.

So it seems we'd be giving with one hand and taking with the other.

The idea certainly is interesting. Still, my view remains that
anamorphic 35 and Super-35 both have thier pros and cons. But in the
hands of a DP and director who know what they want and how to do it,
either can work well.

Vis-a-vis anamorphic processes, I recently watched both the original
Italian and shorter American (English language) versions of "The
Leopard", new DVD set from Criterion.

Very interesting for inumerable reasons, but it's worth noting that the
American version which (IINM) was printed and released only as 35mm
anamorphic _does_ show slight barrel distortion [particularly during
opening credits] compared with the Italian version, which is mastered
from the Technirama original.

The Italian version overall looks better, perhaps because it has been
better preserved. The color is notably superior to the US version
(which, however, is decent [eg, way better than the appalling DVD of
"Star!" released by FOX a few months ago]).

While the DP, who must have been quite young back in 1962 (when the
movie was competing with "Cleopatra" for budget overruns), was involved
in the new release and is interviewed in bonus material (a third disc),
I find it interesting that Visconti subsequently replaced him with
Pasquale de Santis for "The Damned" and "Death In Venice" both of which
IMO have much more fluent and generally superior cinematography compared
with "The Leopard".

I'm aware that part of the difficulty with "The Leopard" was shooting
elaborate interior scenes (especially the ball which is the movie's
final act), apparently entirely in locations and without the
conveniences of a sound stage.

However, even the outdoor photography is very static. The lengthy
battle scenes are interminable and often confusing in the Italian
original. IMO it was wise to make the radical cuts imposed for the US
release, especially since some of the discarded sequences are described
later in the movie by Alain Delon's character.

(Some critics declared the movie to be Italy's "Gone With The Wind", but
frankly I'd say "GWTW" had far more sophisticated cinematography [and
better acting, though the core cast for "The Leopard" is solid], not to
mention being produced more than two decades earlier.)

OTOH, the costumes for "The Leopard" have never been eclipsed, not even
Piero Tosi's subsequent work for Visconti which also was magnificent
(especially Sylvana Mangano's mother in "Death In Venice").

I watched the US version with a friend who is an art historian and
curator. He was in orbit over the costumes and overall mis-en-scene,
and declared Claudia Cardinale's beauty "worthy of Ingres". Her hair,
makeup and clothes seemed modeled on Madame Moitessier who was a
favourite subject of Ingres.






C.

[Gary Palmer]

Post by manitou910
My reaction is that the proposal presumably would result in _some_
increase in vertical resolution (though not as much as for established
4-perf 35mm anamorphic compared with Super-35), but at the expense of
introducing the difficulties associated with anamorphic cinematography.
So it seems we'd be giving with one hand and taking with the other.
The idea certainly is interesting. Still, my view remains that
anamorphic 35 and Super-35 both have thier pros and cons. But in the
hands of a DP and director who know what they want and how to do it,
either can work well.

The big advantage of 3-perf, of course, is that it saves on film
stock, which makes it all the more attractive to studios and
directors, but only when shooting in the bloody awful Super 35 format.
However, the fact that you've got to crop the 1.78 image to reach the
intended 2.35 theatrical ratio must stick in the throats of some
directors and DP's, and the introduction of a 1.33X lens would allow
the creation of full resolution 2.35 whilst also saving on film stock
in a similar manner to current 3-perf S35. You could still apply a
digital intermediate process in post-production for best quality, and
low budget productions would also benefit from the process, with or
without DI.

Unless, of course, studios want to keep the 'open frame' option of
current S35 in order to accommodate TV, which is denied by all and
sundry, but seems blatantly obvious to me...

PS. Sadly, I can't comment on the anamorphic photography of THE
LEOPARD, as I haven't seen the movie. But I was interested in your
comments about the 'difficulties associated with anamorphic
photography'. Call me a philistine, but as I've said before, I think
those difficulties (lens flare, distortion, etc.) are part of the
visual language of cinema and aren't really difficulties at all.
However, surely such artefacts would be slightly reduced in a 3-perf
situation, using a 1.33X lens? I mean, they wouldn't be eliminated,
but they'd be reduced.

[manitou910]

Post by Gary Palmer

Post by manitou910
My reaction is that the proposal presumably would result in _some_
increase in vertical resolution (though not as much as for established
4-perf 35mm anamorphic compared with Super-35), but at the expense of
introducing the difficulties associated with anamorphic cinematography.
So it seems we'd be giving with one hand and taking with the other.
The idea certainly is interesting. Still, my view remains that
anamorphic 35 and Super-35 both have thier pros and cons. But in the
hands of a DP and director who know what they want and how to do it,
either can work well.

The big advantage of 3-perf, of course, is that it saves on film
stock, which makes it all the more attractive to studios and
directors, but only when shooting in the bloody awful Super 35 format.
However, the fact that you've got to crop the 1.78 image to reach the
intended 2.35 theatrical ratio must stick in the throats of some
directors and DP's, and the introduction of a 1.33X lens would allow
the creation of full resolution 2.35 whilst also saving on film stock
in a similar manner to current 3-perf S35. You could still apply a
digital intermediate process in post-production for best quality, and
low budget productions would also benefit from the process, with or
without DI.
Unless, of course, studios want to keep the 'open frame' option of
current S35 in order to accommodate TV, which is denied by all and
sundry, but seems blatantly obvious to me...

My impression is that 3-perf Super-35 is quickly becoming the standard
in the US at least for film-shot TV shows -- and they look fantastic in
1080i HDTV.

Post by Gary Palmer
PS. Sadly, I can't comment on the anamorphic photography of THE
LEOPARD, as I haven't seen the movie.

Just to clarify, the movie was not shot on anamorphic 35, but the US
prints were anamorphic print-downs from the Technirama originals. The
'bending' of the opening titles is very obvious, and just isn't there
for the Italian Technirama original.

Post by Gary Palmer
But I was interested in your
comments about the 'difficulties associated with anamorphic
photography'. Call me a philistine, but as I've said before, I think
those difficulties (lens flare, distortion, etc.) are part of the
visual language of cinema and aren't really difficulties at all.

I agree with you on this. The 'difficulty' exists when a less skilled
DP (or perhaps a cheapo producer's budget) limits the crew's ability to
cope properly with the technical challenges of anamorphic.

The bottom line here is that a badly photographed movie will look
terrible no matter what the format. One of the worst photographed
movies of all times is "Song Of Norway" and it was shot in 70mm Super
Panavision and initially released in CINERAMA venues.

OTOH, one of the most beautiful 70mm releases from the 1960s, "Doctor
Zhivago" was photographed in 35mm anamorphic.

Post by Gary Palmer
However, surely such artefacts would be slightly reduced in a 3-perf
situation, using a 1.33X lens? I mean, they wouldn't be eliminated,
but they'd be reduced.

This could well be the case, though it would also depend on the quality
of the anamorphic lenses. Some are much better than others. And when
you propose a new format, don't expect the lens manufacturers to deliver
perfertion right away. Even after a half century Panavision is still
making improvements and refinements to its anamorphic lenses.

I recall reading several years ago in "AC" about a movie which the
director had planned to shoot in anamorphic. However, when the
particular lenses the director and DP had wanted were not available from
Panavision during the production period, they switched to 1.85:1 spherical.






C.

[Gary Palmer]

Post by manitou910
My impression is that 3-perf Super-35 is quickly becoming the standard
in the US at least for film-shot TV shows -- and they look fantastic in
1080i HDTV.

Well, I don't mind 'em using S35 for TV shows, but for movies... well,
I think you know my feelings on this hideous process by now! ;-)

Post by manitou910
Just to clarify, the movie was not shot on anamorphic 35, but the US
prints were anamorphic print-downs from the Technirama originals.

Yes, there was much criticism of the CinemaScope downgrade of the US
prints. But here's the thing: As I understand it, Technirama IS a 35mm
anamorphic process - in essence, VistaVision with an anamorphic
squeeze. Of course, that differentiates it from regular 35mm
anamorphic, but surely it would still result in some kind of
distortion artefacts?

Post by manitou910
I agree with you on this. The 'difficulty' exists when a less skilled
DP (or perhaps a cheapo producer's budget) limits the crew's ability to
cope properly with the technical challenges of anamorphic.

At the same time, too many cheapo (and sometimes not-so-cheapo) movies
use S35 to create images which are basically 1.78/1.85 cropped to
2.35. This is filmmaking at its laziest and most cynical. I mean,
honestly - if these guys want to make television, they should go make
television, and leave movies to people who know what they're doing...

Post by manitou910
And when
you propose a new format, don't expect the lens manufacturers to deliver
perfertion right away. Even after a half century Panavision is still
making improvements and refinements to its anamorphic lenses.

I'm all for giving new technology some leeway. Even S35 was created
with the best intentions, and some of the early S35 movies are
actually pretty good in terms of composition of the 2.35 frame. But
the vast majority of today's S35 offerings look like something else
entirely.

Bottom line: It seems likely the 1.33X adaptors currently being
introduced for digital cameras, along with the Viper Filmstream camera
which alters the pixels (or something) to create a digitally-squeezed
2.37 image within the native HD 1.78 ratio, will become the de facto
standard for digital cinematography: The opportunity is simply too
good to pass up. And while I recognize the differences between digital
capture and 35/65mm film, surely it's only a matter of time before
someone creates a 1.33X lens/adaptor for 3-perf film? 'Shoot and crop'
is simply not a viable format for movies, and never has been.

[Lincoln Spector]

Post by Gary Palmer

Post by manitou910
My impression is that 3-perf Super-35 is quickly becoming the standard
in the US at least for film-shot TV shows -- and they look fantastic in
1080i HDTV.

Well, I don't mind 'em using S35 for TV shows, but for movies... well,
I think you know my feelings on this hideous process by now! ;-)

Post by manitou910
Just to clarify, the movie was not shot on anamorphic 35, but the US
prints were anamorphic print-downs from the Technirama originals.

Yes, there was much criticism of the CinemaScope downgrade of the US
prints. But here's the thing: As I understand it, Technirama IS a 35mm
anamorphic process - in essence, VistaVision with an anamorphic
squeeze. Of course, that differentiates it from regular 35mm
anamorphic, but surely it would still result in some kind of
distortion artefacts?

The artifacts are less, because it's only a 1.5x1 squeeze.

But the objections to the 35mm only, scope-compatible release in the US
wasn't about anamorphic artifacts. These artifacts, after all, are the
result of live action filming through anamorphic lenses, not optical
printing through them. The objections were that the film was meant for 70mm
release, and didn't get that in the US.

Post by Gary Palmer

Post by manitou910
I agree with you on this. The 'difficulty' exists when a less skilled
DP (or perhaps a cheapo producer's budget) limits the crew's ability to
cope properly with the technical challenges of anamorphic.

At the same time, too many cheapo (and sometimes not-so-cheapo) movies
use S35 to create images which are basically 1.78/1.85 cropped to
2.35. This is filmmaking at its laziest and most cynical. I mean,
honestly - if these guys want to make television, they should go make
television, and leave movies to people who know what they're doing...

What you describe is simply bad framing. I've seen bad framing in S35,
anamorphic scope, 1.85, Todd-AO, and Academy. I don't believe you can blame
it on the format.

In the last five years, 13 of the 25 films nominated for the Cinematography
Oscar were shot in Super-35. Only four were shot anamorphically. The
nominations, unlike the actual awards, are voted on by cinematographers.
Clearly they think S-35 is just fine.

Lincoln

[Simon Howson]

Post by Lincoln Spector
What you describe is simply bad framing. I've seen bad framing in S35,
anamorphic scope, 1.85, Todd-AO, and Academy. I don't believe you can blame
it on the format.

In fact a benefit of Super 35 is the fact you can scan the image full frame
during telecining and then go in and change where the frame line is when you
transfer the DVD for example. Where as for anamorphic if it isn't on the
negative then there is no way to fix the shot up.

Post by Lincoln Spector
In the last five years, 13 of the 25 films nominated for the

Cinematography

Post by Lincoln Spector
Oscar were shot in Super-35. Only four were shot anamorphically. The
nominations, unlike the actual awards, are voted on by cinematographers.
Clearly they think S-35 is just fine.
Lincoln

And like with all formats there are some examples of very good Super 35. I
like Seven, Panic Room, Fight Club. Fincher seems to get great DOPs that
know how to light for the format to make it print the best. Like wise The
Age of Innosence, Road to Perdition and American Beauty all looked great in
the cinemas I saw them.

In Australia we have the additional complication of getting junk prints that
look like rubbish and thus probably give Super 35 a bad name. Where as
perhaps Scope prints can be rubbish but still look relatively good in
comparison?

Simon Howson

[Lincoln Spector]

Post by Simon Howson
And like with all formats there are some examples of very good Super 35. I
like Seven, Panic Room, Fight Club. Fincher seems to get great DOPs that
know how to light for the format to make it print the best. Like wise The
Age of Innosence, Road to Perdition and American Beauty all looked great in
the cinemas I saw them.

I believe that Road to Perdition was anamorphic,.

Post by Simon Howson
In Australia we have the additional complication of getting junk prints that
look like rubbish and thus probably give Super 35 a bad name. Where as
perhaps Scope prints can be rubbish but still look relatively good in
comparison?

Bad prints, alas, happen everywhere, even 400 miles north of Hollywood. And
yes, S-35 would be a lot better with better prints. To bad the rebirth of
dye transfer didn't take.

Lincoln

[David Mullen]

Post by Lincoln Spector
I believe that Road to Perdition was anamorphic,.

No, it was Super-35 as were other 2.35 films shot by Conrad Hall ("American
Beauty", "Without Limits") -- I don't think he shot an anamorphic feature
since "Electra Glide in Blue" (1973). He liked to shoot everything at
T/2.0, which would have been hard in anamorphic.

David Mullen, ASC

[Lincoln Spector]

Post by David Mullen

Post by Lincoln Spector
I believe that Road to Perdition was anamorphic,.

No, it was Super-35 as were other 2.35 films shot by Conrad Hall ("American
Beauty", "Without Limits") -- I don't think he shot an anamorphic feature
since "Electra Glide in Blue" (1973). He liked to shoot everything at
T/2.0, which would have been hard in anamorphic.

Oops. Then I have to correct what I wrote earlier. 14 (not 13) of the films
nominated for Best Cinematography in the last 5 years where shot in S-35.

btw, am I the only one who thought Road to Perdition was awfully grim for a
Hope/Cosby comedy?

Lincoln

[Morgan Montague]

Not to mention the age spots on Dorothy Lamour!

Post by David Mullen

Post by David Mullen

Post by Lincoln Spector
I believe that Road to Perdition was anamorphic,.

No, it was Super-35 as were other 2.35 films shot by Conrad Hall

("American

Post by David Mullen
Beauty", "Without Limits") -- I don't think he shot an anamorphic feature
since "Electra Glide in Blue" (1973). He liked to shoot everything at
T/2.0, which would have been hard in anamorphic.

Oops. Then I have to correct what I wrote earlier. 14 (not 13) of the films
nominated for Best Cinematography in the last 5 years where shot in S-35.
btw, am I the only one who thought Road to Perdition was awfully grim for a
Hope/Cosby comedy?
Lincoln

[David Mullen]

I've been proposing someone make a set of 1.33X anamorphic lenses for
a long time, but no one is listening...

It would have multiple uses, from squeezing 1.78/1.85 onto 1.33, to
squeezing 2.35 onto 3-perf or 16x9 formats, etc. Plus in theory it
should be optically better than a 2X anamorphic lens.

I've asked about using anamorphic lenses on digital cameras and what
I've heard is that images that have to be focused onto the flat plane
of a CCD as opposed to the layers of a film emulsion need to be
telecentric, which lenses like the Zeiss Digi Primes are -- but it's
hard to design an anamorphic lens that puts out a perfectly
telecentric image.

David Mullen, ASC

[Peter H.]

I've been proposing someone make a set of 1.33X anamorphic lenses for a long
time, but no one is listening...
Kodak fielded this as a possible format a few years ago.

As with other proposals which would cause change, the proposal went no where.

[manitou910]

Post by David Mullen
I've been proposing someone make a set of 1.33X anamorphic lenses for
a long time, but no one is listening...
It would have multiple uses, from squeezing 1.78/1.85 onto 1.33, to
squeezing 2.35 onto 3-perf or 16x9 formats, etc. Plus in theory it
should be optically better than a 2X anamorphic lens.
I've asked about using anamorphic lenses on digital cameras and what
I've heard is that images that have to be focused onto the flat plane
of a CCD as opposed to the layers of a film emulsion need to be
telecentric, which lenses like the Zeiss Digi Primes are -- but it's
hard to design an anamorphic lens that puts out a perfectly
telecentric image.

This was a few years ago, but I do recall reading that the BBC liked
using the Sony VX1000 with an anamorphic adaptor for widescreen
documentaries.

For video documentaries, however, the main problem IMO is not so much
the camera format, but the quickie photography which tends to trivialize
subjects which could be breathtakingly beautiful.

I often seen Rudi Maxa's "Smart Travel" on PBS HDTV, but the photography
too often majorly sucks no matter how interesting the show often is. I
can't blame the camera operators since they obviously have no access to
cranes or dollies which are pretty well standard even for low-budget
film making.

But it gets tiresome seeing endless quick-tilt shots up or down to/from
church domes and ceilings etc with fun-house mirror distortion -- even
if the color and reolution are spectacular.






C.

[Simon Howson]

Post by Gary Palmer
As Super 35 continues to make a mockery of the 'widescreen' format in
modern cinematography, I wonder if someone - somewhere - hasn't
thought about reviving an idea which (according to an earlier post
which I found on one of the Google forums) was first mooted in a 1975
issue of 'American Cinematographer', in which a 1.33X lens is used on
3-perf 35mm film, thereby creating a squeezed 2.35 image? With today's
advanced optics and technology, surely such technology is viable?
Especially since 1.33X lenses/converters have become available for use
with digital cameras, which squeezes the 2.35 image into the native
1.78 image area. Anything's better than the 'shoot and crop'
philosophy which underpins the ghastly Super 35 format...
Any thoughts on this earth-shattering topic, guys?

I'm trying to write a short thesis on Super 35. One thing I have been
thinking about lately is that what Super 35 really represents is the end of
anamorphic cinematography. During its time, 35mm anamorphic was a very
elegent solution to creating widescreen films. Consider it compared against
the complexity of Cinerama for example. However these days there are strong
reasons against originating footage with anamorphic lenses. My feeling is
that production wise films can be made faster with spherical lenses. This
may be because it is easier to match lenses for multiple camera shoots, or
it may relate to the greater depth of field of sphericals. So in 1953
anamorphic lenses seemd like a nice way to acheive widescreen, yet skip
forwards to now, where image quality doesn't matter that much, and
anamorphic becomes a more hassel than it is worth.

Yes I realise this post is rather vague!

Simon Howson

[manitou910]

Post by Simon Howson
I'm trying to write a short thesis on Super 35. One thing I have been
thinking about lately is that what Super 35 really represents is the end of
anamorphic cinematography. During its time, 35mm anamorphic was a very
elegent solution to creating widescreen films. Consider it compared against
the complexity of Cinerama for example. However these days there are strong
reasons against originating footage with anamorphic lenses. My feeling is
that production wise films can be made faster with spherical lenses. This
may be because it is easier to match lenses for multiple camera shoots, or
it may relate to the greater depth of field of sphericals. So in 1953
anamorphic lenses seemd like a nice way to acheive widescreen, yet skip
forwards to now, where image quality doesn't matter that much, and
anamorphic becomes a more hassel than it is worth.
Yes I realise this post is rather vague!

Indeed -- what do you mean by image quality not mattering these days?

Unless perhaps you are refering only to resolution which, like it or
not, _is_ less of a defining factor given the dearth of big-scrren
venues and the growth (and technical improvement) for home theater
during the past decade.








C.

[Simon Howson]

Post by manitou910
Unless perhaps you are refering only to resolution which, like it or
not, _is_ less of a defining factor given the dearth of big-scrren
venues and the growth (and technical improvement) for home theater
during the past decade.

Smaller cinema screens is good for Super 35. Yet more so the fact films
these days just often don't look very good. I am thinking hear of the kind
of Matrix inspired making films all a single colour. The sorts of
manipulations that can be easily acheived during a digital intermediate in
post. I am don't think The Matrix used a digital intermediate, but the 2nd
and third films did in order to quickly emulate the look of the first. In
turn, most films that use a digital intermediate are shot in Super 35,
ironically because the image on the negative is relatively small, and thus
can be economically scanned at a high resolution, relative to the area of
film with the widescreen section. I can not think of a Panavision film put
through a D.I. because the anamorphic negative by definition has a great
deal of resolution optically compressed onto it.

Add to this the fact people working with CGI perfer working with material
shot with spherical lenses. So much so that some cinematographers may shoot
a film anamorphic, yet all shots that will feature CGI are Super 35. That to
me is a radical change, using a mix of production formats just to facilitate
a post production process! We aren't talking Godard mixing CinemaScope and
Techniscope because he wanted certain shots with massive depth of field.

Simon Howson

[manitou910]

Post by Simon Howson

Post by manitou910
Unless perhaps you are refering only to resolution which, like it or
not, _is_ less of a defining factor given the dearth of big-scrren
venues and the growth (and technical improvement) for home theater
during the past decade.

Smaller cinema screens is good for Super 35. Yet more so the fact films
these days just often don't look very good. I am thinking hear of the kind
of Matrix inspired making films all a single colour. The sorts of
manipulations that can be easily acheived during a digital intermediate in
post. I am don't think The Matrix used a digital intermediate, but the 2nd
and third films did in order to quickly emulate the look of the first. In
turn, most films that use a digital intermediate are shot in Super 35,
ironically because the image on the negative is relatively small, and thus
can be economically scanned at a high resolution, relative to the area of
film with the widescreen section. I can not think of a Panavision film put
through a D.I. because the anamorphic negative by definition has a great
deal of resolution optically compressed onto it.
Add to this the fact people working with CGI perfer working with material
shot with spherical lenses. So much so that some cinematographers may shoot
a film anamorphic, yet all shots that will feature CGI are Super 35. That to
me is a radical change, using a mix of production formats just to facilitate
a post production process! We aren't talking Godard mixing CinemaScope and
Techniscope because he wanted certain shots with massive depth of field.

For better or worse, flexibility is the name of the game.

Speaking of digital, I finally watched the entire "Star Wars: Attack Of
The Clones" DVD a week or so ago. (I had tried some months back, but
gave up with boredom. What got me through was that I'd unknowingly [!]
taken some video of Villa Balbianello while in Italy during early July,
from the Como-Bellagio ferry and wanted to see how the movie used the
locale. [For people who haven't been there, I can state that Lake Como,
Bellagio and Villa Melzi are truly heaven on earth.])

While the DVD authoring may have been non-stellar, I couldn't help
noting (as I recall people commenting re theatrical presentations,
digital and non-digital) that the movie looked fuzzy and soft.

I wasn't impressed by anything and am not thrilled to hear that Mr.
Lucas is now planning three further such epics.

Even the acting seems to get worse, though it's difficult to blame the
actors when we know their dialog is sometimes changed _after_ production
with digital 'correction' to adjust lip-sync!

Still, Hayden Christensen makes Mark Hammil seem like David Hyde Pierce
and Johnny Depp combined. And Natalie Portman, who I thought quite good
in "Phantom Menace", seemed to be down-acting in order not to embarrass
the kid.






C.

[MitchGross]

This is an interesting concept and one that people such as David Mullen and I
have been putting out there for a while now. A 1.33x anamorphic gets you from
4:3 to 16:9, and from 16:9 to 2:39 (well, within a percentage point anyway). A
professional quality 1.33x anamorphot element would give added life to older
4:3 Beta SP cameras by having them shoot in 16:9 and would yield 2:39 images
from Super-16 and 3-perf 35, all with essentially no wasted image or negative
area.

One problem is finishing. Unless you are finishing to video or go through a
Digital Intermediate it is going to be very difficult to get that 1.33x
squeezed image (on 3-perf 35 or Super-16) to a 2x squeezed 4-perf print. This
would require either going from 1.33x to flat and then to 2x (an extra optical
step) or getting someone to make yet another unique anamorphic element for an
optical printer that would do it in one stage (what would that squeeze factor
be, 1.66x? That's scary math). With either two optical steps in post or one
step that uses a different sqeeze fator than the original photography, I think
it will introduce more abberations and artifacts than it will solve. However a
digital post should work fine.

Mitch

[Peter H.]

One problem is finishing. Unless you are finishing to video or go through a
Digital Intermediate it is going to be very difficult to get that 1.33x
squeezed image (on 3-perf 35 or Super-16) to a 2x squeezed 4-perf print.
BINGO!

[Lincoln Spector]

Post by MitchGross
One problem is finishing. Unless you are finishing to video or go through a
Digital Intermediate it is going to be very difficult to get that 1.33x
squeezed image (on 3-perf 35 or Super-16) to a 2x squeezed 4-perf print.
BINGO!

Is that really so different from one Technirama did, converting a 1.5x
squeeze on the negative to 2.0 for the 35mm release prints?

Lincoln

[David Mullen]

Certainly it's possible to design an anamorphic optical printer lens
to add enough compression to convert a 1.33X squeezed image to a 2X
squeezed image. Just don't see that happening; these days, one would
more like just do the work digitally (with a wide variety of emerging
companies to do the work) rather than commission a special lens for
optical printing which would probably be at one lab only. I don't see
anyone thinking that there would be enough conversion work coming in
to justify the costs of building the lens. I think a lot of people
figure that the optical printer's days are numbered anyway.

David Mullen, ASC

[Simon Howson]

Post by David Mullen
Certainly it's possible to design an anamorphic optical printer lens
to add enough compression to convert a 1.33X squeezed image to a 2X
squeezed image. Just don't see that happening; these days, one would
more like just do the work digitally (with a wide variety of emerging
companies to do the work) rather than commission a special lens for
optical printing which would probably be at one lab only. I don't see
anyone thinking that there would be enough conversion work coming in
to justify the costs of building the lens. I think a lot of people
figure that the optical printer's days are numbered anyway.
David Mullen, ASC

Isn't the whole concept of using anamorphic lenses during cinemtography (or
videography) just one element of complexity that is in the process of being
refined out of film making practices? The fact high end video cameras have
16:9 CCDs effectively means that the standard film aspect ratio will change
if and when HD becomes a production standard (the Panavision Genesis shoots
in Super 35 as standard from memory). Yet consider that even with film
cameras now, Super 35 has effectively changed the standard ratio of film
making by providing a film format that inherently caters for the acqiusition
in a variety of aspect ratios, yet without necessitating a change from 35mm
gauge film, the gauge that has remained a defacto standard for more or less
100 years. Super 35 seems to appeal to the desire for more flexibility, yet
without upsetting a long held norm. The fact Super 35 has become so popular
is because it represents simplicity; spherical lenses, and 35mm film, yet
the potential to produce the three major aspect ratios - 16:9, 1.85 and
2.4:1. Sometimes even for the same film (yeah isn't that great). This type
of extreme versatility isn't offered by any other cinematographic process,
and is inherently not offered by 35mm anamorphic.

Any change to film formats represents a desire for differentiation yet based
around a pragmatic consideration of the economic implications. Consider
that in the 1930s the first approach to wide film was to simply increase the
width of the film. Sure that sounds like the simplest solution, yet
obviously its economic implications at the time were massive, so ultimately
as an experiment, at that time, it failed. Furthermore by 1928 Chretien had
demonstrated, and patented his Hypergonar anamorphic lens, so the invention
was in place during the 1930s for anamorphic widescreen, yet compared with
just making the film bigger, the vagaries of anamorphic optics represented a
degree of complexity that technologically was a bridge too far. In the
1950s Fox could take the innovation, and innovate it into a complete
widescreen system, yet also, crucially, it could diffuse the technology by
making it relatively easy for exhibitors to impliment. Which ironically was
a much more elegant solution compared with forcing exhibitors to get a 70mm
or 63.5mm etc compatible projector.

Cinemascope became the standard because it inherently re-endorsed the status
of 35mm film as the standard film gauge, whilst offering a radically wider
image. Furthermore, Cinemascope actually presented simultaneously a
production, and exhibition format, it opened up the option to shoot films in
all sorts of other ways (65mm, VistaVision, Technirama etc), yet use 35mm,
in the form of anamorphic prints as a cheap widescreen exhibition medium,
which again simply worked to further endorse 35mm gauge as the exhibition
standard.

In the contemporary setting, Super 35 further represents this exploitation
of the 35mm standard. Major films aren't going to be made in anything other
than 35mm film, yet sticking with spherical lenses removes a range of
complexities caused by anamorphic. In the 50's Cinemascope was far superior
to SuperScope, so anamorphic lenses were a necessary production 'evil' to
ensure a high quality image that was used to wow audiences. Yet these days
that isn't required, viewers aren't that descerning, so the problems
proposed by anamorphic production can freely be avoided by directors and
cinemtographers that simply desire more flexibility during shooting, and
digital post production. That is why fundamentally Super 35 represents the
phasing out of anamorphic cinematography. It is possible in the future that
digital projectors may be natively 16:9, and acheive the 2.4:1 widescreen
ratio via an anamorphic projection system, but I don't see why anamorphic as
a production format will be necessary, given that it complicates photography
and post production processes.

I realise I am repeating things that most people in this forum know, but I'm
just trying to build an argument based on what has gone previous in terms
widescreen technologies in an attempt to see how they may inform our
perspective of future developments.

Simon Howson

[Gary Palmer]

"Isn't the whole concept of using anamorphic lenses during
cinemtography (or videography) just one element of complexity that is
in the process of being refined out of film making practices?"

God, I hope not!! ;-)

Simon, your argument is well-reasoned, but it ignores one important
factor: The changing nature of television, part of the 'economic
equation' which drives the current film industry. The rise of VHS (and
now DVD) has helped facilitate that change, prompting a radical shift
toward 16:9 and hi-def programming, a significant upgrade in terms of
picture quality and presentation. This, in turn, has created a
burgeoning home theater industry, which will eventually - inevitably -
lead to the introduction of 21:9 displays. Such monitors may not be on
the horizon just yet, but they are definitely on the way, along with
home videos, TV broadcasts and Internet transmissions that will be
optimized for 'super-wide' presentations. There's no reason why the
first wave of HD-DVD's can't be optimized for 21:9 (the players can
reconfigure the discs for current 16:9 sets, with no devaluation in
picture quality), unless studios are simply interested in screwing
more money out of the consumer by re-selling titles in new formats
once these super-wide monitors become available. People will say:
"These things don't exist yet, we have to concentrate on what's
available today!" But that's a short-sighted argument which grossly
underestimates the pace at which modern technology is driving the home
theater market. Regular TV broadcasts may remain at 1.78 for the
forseeable future, but home theater is heading toward 21:9 as
standard, and that represents a significant chunk of the consumer
base, created by current and ongoing improvements in video technology.

The fact that 1.33x adaptors have become available for digital
cameras, and that the Viper Filmstream actually reconfigures pixels in
a manner that squeezes 2.37 images into a 1.78 frame, is equally
significant. New technology is being developed to optimize the
potential of digital cinematography, and if 35mm production is heading
toward the wholesale implementation of 3-perf, as some are predicting,
then the idea of continuing to create 2.35 images on 35mm film by
cropping the 1.78 frame would be crazy, not when a viable alternative
(the development of a 1.33x lens) has clearly presented itself.
Otherwise, as I've said before, we're simply trading one rotten
concept (cropping a 1.37 frame to render a 1.85 image) for another
(cropping 1.78 to get 2.35).

(An argument against the creation of 1.33x lenses in the face of
similar technology for digital cameras is that the resolution of 35mm
film is much greater than digital video. Clearly, this won't be the
case forever, and users of 35mm have an obligation to optimize the
material at their disposal, not simply to pander to one medium whilst
attempting to create images for another. As I said before, if
filmmakers want to make television, let them make television, not TV
images masquerading as 'cinema').

3-perf production may not be embraced by everyone in the filmmaking
community, though it may become standard because of the current state
of theatrical exhibition and the short shelf life of product before it
enters the home theater arena. But consider this: If 3-perf DOES
become the industry standard, then it follows that projectors should
be modified accordingly, as Jim Nason suggested in an earlier post, to
project using the 3-perf pulldown. That would reduce (or eliminate)
the need for optical/digital printing for 'scope' movies: They would
be filmed using a 1.33x lens, and projected with a corresponding lens
in theaters, whether or not they've been subjected to a digital
intermediate process in post-production. (1.85 movies wouldn't be
affected, as the 1.78 format of regular 3-perf is easily reconfigured
on current 1.85 screens).

I dunno. Maybe all this is just wishful thinking on my part. The idea
of a movie format which is neither one ratio or another, which 'opens
the frame' in such a way as to compromise the optimal ratio (it's
SUPPOSED to be 2.35, but it ends up looking like cropped 1.78 - which
is what it is, really), is anathema to me, and the opposite of what
'cinema' is supposed to be about. When I watch a movie on TV, I want
it to look 'different' from television, otherwise it might just as
well BE television. As home theater technology changes, I hope the
need for a 'one-process-fits-all' format is finally discarded.
Cropping an image to create a theatrical ratio may have been OK in
ages past when there was no alternative (I'm speaking primarily of the
1.85 format), but to do that for 2.35 when the technology - including
television - is constantly changing to accommodate cinematic ratios,
seems like madness.

"Super 35 represents the phasing out of anamorphic cinematography. It
is possible in the future that digital projectors may be natively
16:9, and acheive the 2.4:1 widescreen ratio via an anamorphic
projection system, but I don't see why anamorphic as a production
format will be necessary, given that it complicates photography and
post production processes."

All photographic processes - including 1.85 - have their problems. If
filmmakers were to discard the OPTIMAL FORMAT for widescreen
photography in favor of a format with its own set of distinct problems
(no less troublesome than anamorphic), it would be disastrous. And
don't let anyone fool you: Presenting Super 35 movies on video or TV
at anything other than the theatrical ratio represents an unacceptable
compromise of the original image. The image isn't simply 'opened up',
as commonly believed - it's reframed, altered and cropped in a way
that is often just as ruinous as pan-scanning an anamorphic image. The
idea that S35 origination provides a 'cure-all' for TV presentation is
a myth. Again, people will say: "Yes, but you lose half the picture
with anamorphic, while you GAIN part of the picture with S35 when it's
opened up on TV". True, but it distorts the original composition and
crops the sides, and some films are clearly reframed from shot to
shot, to 'optimize' the framing for another medium. It's simply not
true that S35 is somehow 'better' for TV presentation. And at the same
time, it encourages a devaluation of the 2.35 frame for theatrical
exhibition, when the director and DP is framing for one ratio and,
er... 'protecting' for another. In which case, why bother with
'widescreen' at all?

[George Shelps]

Post by Gary Palmer
Again, people will say: "Yes, but you lose
half the picture with anamorphic, while
you GAIN part of the picture with S35
when it's opened up on TV". True, but it
distorts the original composition and
crops the sides, and some films are
clearly reframed from shot to shot, to
'optimize' the framing for another
medium. It's simply not true that S35 is
somehow 'better' for TV presentation.

My one comment on this relates to
SEABISCUIT, a movie I happen to
love, and which I saw theatrically
in Super 35 scope and then owned on letter-boxed DVD.

I happened to watch the recent HBO cablecast in the uncropped
format...and
the result was a series of sloppy compositions which undermined the
effect of the movie.

I don't think it's really possible to frame
for both scope and standard frame
aspect ratios with any sort of artistic
consistency.

(The downgrading of scope as an
artistic tool results in compositions
that fail to use space as an expressive
device even in anamorphic films. If
you look at any of the scope films of
the mid-50s or early 60s, you see
widescreen space used to express
ideas, feelings, character relationships.

No more!)









__________________________________


"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
__William Faulkner

[Lloyd Fonvielle]

Post by George Shelps
I don't think it's really possible to frame
for both scope and standard frame
aspect ratios with any sort of artistic
consistency.
(The downgrading of scope as an
artistic tool results in compositions
that fail to use space as an expressive
device even in anamorphic films. If
you look at any of the scope films of
the mid-50s or early 60s, you see
widescreen space used to express
ideas, feelings, character relationships.
No more!)

This is so true. Composing in widescreen in order to protect legibility
in the cropped TV format has severely limited the expressive range of
movies. It's a shock to watch a movie like "Lawrence Of Arabia" on a
big screen, every inch of which is used to full effect -- it almost
seems as though you're experiencing a different medium.

[Simon Howson]

Post by Gary Palmer
"Isn't the whole concept of using anamorphic lenses during
cinemtography (or videography) just one element of complexity that is
in the process of being refined out of film making practices?"
God, I hope not!! ;-)

I hope not too, I gave The Passion of the Christ one star in my review for
being shot in anamorphic ;-)

The best part of Heaven's Gate is seeing Zigsmond get carried away with the
anamorphic format, diffusion, and lots of smoke/dust. Forget about the story
:-)

Post by Gary Palmer
Simon, your argument is well-reasoned, but it ignores one important
factor: The changing nature of television, part of the 'economic
equation' which drives the current film industry. The rise of VHS (and

I realist exhibition (either theatrical, or more importantly TV) is an
essential consideration. However still will sets really jump from now 1.78:1
all the way up to 2.4:1? Isn't it more likely they will change to 2.00:1?
Wasn't 16.9 selected because it was cheaper to build a set only slightly
wider than 4:3? Of course CRTs are still important, in 5 - 10 years we will
all be on plasmas or LCDs or using projectors.

Post by Gary Palmer
now DVD) has helped facilitate that change, prompting a radical shift
toward 16:9 and hi-def programming, a significant upgrade in terms of
picture quality and presentation. This, in turn, has created a
burgeoning home theater industry, which will eventually - inevitably -
lead to the introduction of 21:9 displays. Such monitors may not be on
the horizon just yet, but they are definitely on the way, along with
home videos, TV broadcasts and Internet transmissions that will be
optimized for 'super-wide' presentations. There's no reason why the
first wave of HD-DVD's can't be optimized for 21:9 (the players can
reconfigure the discs for current 16:9 sets, with no devaluation in
picture quality), unless studios are simply interested in screwing
more money out of the consumer by re-selling titles in new formats
"These things don't exist yet, we have to concentrate on what's
available today!" But that's a short-sighted argument which grossly
underestimates the pace at which modern technology is driving the home
theater market. Regular TV broadcasts may remain at 1.78 for the
forseeable future, but home theater is heading toward 21:9 as
standard, and that represents a significant chunk of the consumer
base, created by current and ongoing improvements in video technology.

Consider the infrastructure that TV stations have spent on 16:9, will they
really start filming tennis matches in 2.4:1? I love proper widescreen, but
to me most TV shows just won't work in widescreen, which is another reason
1.78:1 is an adequate compromise. I have only owned a widescreen TV for 4 or
5 months, and it is small by todays standards - 76cm. But it is amazing how
much more comfortable 1.78:1 is, or should I say natural.?.. It is a better
format, EVEN THOUGH most shows are still shot with a 4:3 safe action area,
and the widescreen isn't REALLY used properly - it works well for lateral
sporting events though (football matches where the action is going back and
forth sideways), where as for tennis for example, where you are stuck on one
side of the net, you just see more of the ground on either side of the
court. They don't actually zoom in closer, which would place parts of the
court outside the 4:3 safe action area.

Post by Gary Palmer
The fact that 1.33x adaptors have become available for digital
cameras, and that the Viper Filmstream actually reconfigures pixels in
a manner that squeezes 2.37 images into a 1.78 frame, is equally
significant. New technology is being developed to optimize the

So it uses a proper widescreen (my description of 'Scope) version of 16:9
enhancement that we have on current DVDs. However again, doesn't this just
mean the exhibition format can be optimised for 'Scope, without meaning the
production format needs to use anamorphic lenses? I mean it can use
anamorphic lenses, yet they can be avoided simply by cropping - the way
Super 35 works today. (again I don't necessarily think that is good, but you
know whatever is cheap and good enough is what film technology seems to go
with)

Post by Gary Palmer
potential of digital cinematography, and if 35mm production is heading
toward the wholesale implementation of 3-perf, as some are predicting,
then the idea of continuing to create 2.35 images on 35mm film by
cropping the 1.78 frame would be crazy, not when a viable alternative
(the development of a 1.33x lens) has clearly presented itself.
Otherwise, as I've said before, we're simply trading one rotten
concept (cropping a 1.37 frame to render a 1.85 image) for another
(cropping 1.78 to get 2.35).

I agree they are both rotten, but I just get the horrible feeling that
cropping footage shot with spherical lenses is more likely.

Post by Gary Palmer
(An argument against the creation of 1.33x lenses in the face of
similar technology for digital cameras is that the resolution of 35mm
film is much greater than digital video. Clearly, this won't be the
case forever, and users of 35mm have an obligation to optimize the
material at their disposal, not simply to pander to one medium whilst
attempting to create images for another. As I said before, if
filmmakers want to make television, let them make television, not TV
images masquerading as 'cinema').

Most Super 35 films are glorfied TV, just with lots of stedicam shots... I
have tried to talk about why some directors/DOPs consider anamorphic lenses
more naturalistic - because they shoot a wider horizontal viewing angle,
rather than vertical. Which I vaguely recall reading is what human vision
does. I mean Cinerama was promoted because it used such wide angle lenses,
yet tall film frames that the horizontal viewing angle was huge, likewise
this is effectively what an anamorphic lense does, more image sideways than
vertically. I don't completely understand what I mean though!

Post by Gary Palmer
3-perf production may not be embraced by everyone in the filmmaking
community, though it may become standard because of the current state
of theatrical exhibition and the short shelf life of product before it
enters the home theater arena. But consider this: If 3-perf DOES

And the big savings on film costs, especially if you are shooting every
scene with 2 or 3 cameras David Fincher style.

Post by Gary Palmer
become the industry standard, then it follows that projectors should
be modified accordingly, as Jim Nason suggested in an earlier post, to
project using the 3-perf pulldown. That would reduce (or eliminate)
the need for optical/digital printing for 'scope' movies: They would
be filmed using a 1.33x lens, and projected with a corresponding lens
in theaters, whether or not they've been subjected to a digital
intermediate process in post-production. (1.85 movies wouldn't be
affected, as the 1.78 format of regular 3-perf is easily reconfigured
on current 1.85 screens).
I dunno. Maybe all this is just wishful thinking on my part. The idea
of a movie format which is neither one ratio or another, which 'opens
the frame' in such a way as to compromise the optimal ratio (it's
SUPPOSED to be 2.35, but it ends up looking like cropped 1.78 - which
is what it is, really), is anathema to me, and the opposite of what
'cinema' is supposed to be about. When I watch a movie on TV, I want

I agree, those optical peculiarties of anamorphic lenses, the way they
distorte the relationship between foreground and background to me is
actually quite cinematic, if not exactly realistic. Seeing the whole frame
bulge during rack focusing in East of Eden is actually something I really
like! Sure it is technology getting in the way of narrative, but it seems to
add to the drama!

Post by Gary Palmer
it to look 'different' from television, otherwise it might just as
well BE television. As home theater technology changes, I hope the
need for a 'one-process-fits-all' format is finally discarded.

Which is what Super 35 is, 4:3, 16:9, 1.85, 2.4:1 it does it all (often
poorly).

Post by Gary Palmer
Cropping an image to create a theatrical ratio may have been OK in
ages past when there was no alternative (I'm speaking primarily of the
1.85 format), but to do that for 2.35 when the technology - including
television - is constantly changing to accommodate cinematic ratios,
seems like madness.

But think about it, we have anamorphic lenses, there is no reason to crop
from silent full frame, to 2.4:1 but that is actually the more popular way
of going about it. So you know you and I consider that lunacy, but to me
lunacy now is evidence of more lunacy in the future.

Post by Gary Palmer
"Super 35 represents the phasing out of anamorphic cinematography. It
is possible in the future that digital projectors may be natively
16:9, and acheive the 2.4:1 widescreen ratio via an anamorphic
projection system, but I don't see why anamorphic as a production
format will be necessary, given that it complicates photography and
post production processes."
All photographic processes - including 1.85 - have their problems. If

I agree, but I think putting an anamorphic lens in front of the camera
creates more problems than it solves. EVEN IF it means the absolute best
quality image that 35mm can offer.

Post by Gary Palmer
filmmakers were to discard the OPTIMAL FORMAT for widescreen
photography in favor of a format with its own set of distinct problems
(no less troublesome than anamorphic), it would be disastrous. And
don't let anyone fool you: Presenting Super 35 movies on video or TV
at anything other than the theatrical ratio represents an unacceptable
compromise of the original image. The image isn't simply 'opened up',

Unless moron directors like Roger Donaldson actually frame for 16:9 during
shooting, but release 2.4:1 prints.

Post by Gary Palmer
as commonly believed - it's reframed, altered and cropped in a way
that is often just as ruinous as pan-scanning an anamorphic image. The
idea that S35 origination provides a 'cure-all' for TV presentation is
a myth. Again, people will say: "Yes, but you lose half the picture
with anamorphic, while you GAIN part of the picture with S35 when it's
opened up on TV". True, but it distorts the original composition and
crops the sides, and some films are clearly reframed from shot to
shot, to 'optimize' the framing for another medium. It's simply not
true that S35 is somehow 'better' for TV presentation. And at the same
time, it encourages a devaluation of the 2.35 frame for theatrical
exhibition, when the director and DP is framing for one ratio and,
er... 'protecting' for another. In which case, why bother with
'widescreen' at all?

Thanks for your ideas I love reading more feelings on where things are
going.

Take care,

Simon Howson

[manitou910]

..........still will sets really jump from now 1.78:1
all the way up to 2.4:1? Isn't it more likely they will change to 2.00:1?
Wasn't 16.9 selected because it was cheaper to build a set only slightly
wider than 4:3? Of course CRTs are still important, in 5 - 10 years we will
all be on plasmas or LCDs or using projectors.

It seems fairly clear that the 16x9 aspect ratio is already solidly
established as the standard for widescreen and HDTV displays world-wide
(non HDTV widescreen PAL sets have been around for a long time in Europe
and elsewhere).

Others have noted that MPEG standards include a 21x9 option which
obviously is the ideal format for ultra-wide movies intended for
2.2/2.35/2.4:1 presentation (sometimes even wider, ie three-panel
Cinerama, and Ultra-Panavision).

Since we already have 4x3 AR TVs which compress the raster to fully
accommodate DVDs enhanced for 16x9, it's a no brainer that 16x9 displays
and scalers could easily be manufactured to accommodate 21x9 programing
for standard definition (NTSC and PAL) DVDs and future HD-DVD.

The big payoff for home theater viewers would be when one-lens digital
front projectors (DLP, LCD and a few other systems) are perfected.

Unlike current CRT front projectors (which for image quality still are
the best current video display), single-lens projector lenses could have
the zoom capability to display all movies at the same height but with
increasing width (as in movie theaters) for the wider formats.

[OTOH, I'm aware that Joe Kane has proposed 12" CRT front projectors for
HDTV.]

However, I don't see much likelihood (or reason) for broadcast
television to go with anything wider than 16x9.






C.

[Steve Kraus]

Post by manitou910
Others have noted that MPEG standards include a 21x9 option

What is it with the idiots in video that they insist on these stupid
proportions? Jeez...can't they learn to divide and make all aspect ratios
be ratios against 1 so we don't have to get out the calculator to learn
that 21:9 (the proper way a ratio should be written, btw) is about 2.33 :
1? Expressed the latter way you instantly know it's a wider rectangle than
1.85 or standard 70mm but not as wide as Scope.

[manitou910]

Post by Steve Kraus

Post by manitou910
Others have noted that MPEG standards include a 21x9 option

What is it with the idiots in video that they insist on these stupid
proportions? Jeez...can't they learn to divide and make all aspect ratios
be ratios against 1 so we don't have to get out the calculator to learn
1? Expressed the latter way you instantly know it's a wider rectangle than
1.85 or standard 70mm but not as wide as Scope.

Like it or not, 4x3, 16x9 and 21x9 have become the standard/accepted
jargon for AR discussion in the context of video acquisition and
display, whereas 1.33:1, 1.37:1, 1.66:1 etc etc remain the jargon for
film acquisition and presentation.

I never liked the '16x9' designation for widescreen TV when it was
introduced because it falsely implies _much_ greater size and/or width
compared to 4x3 than is the case. It would be preferable to ID 4x3 as
12x9. If '9' were the standard/permanent digit for height, the
implication of the width digit would be more immediately clear.

But I've gotten used to it (ie, I know what they all mean).

Live and let live......








C.

[David Mullen]

Post by Simon Howson
Isn't the whole concept of using anamorphic lenses during cinemtography (or
videography) just one element of complexity that is in the process of being
refined out of film making practices?

I don't know about that -- there are more 2.35 films being made than ever,
thanks to the acceptance of letterboxed DVD presentations. So I think the
number of anamorphic productions are the same BUT there are more Super-35
productions framing for 2.35 theatrical release on top of that. I know for
a fact that when I was shooting in anamorphic this last spring, there was a
rush on anamorphic lenses and some filmmakers had to do without. I was just
making a deal at Panavision NYC to have the anamorphic lenses shipped over
from Woodland Hills when I overheard a phone call where they were telling DP
Lisa Rinzler that they were out of anamorphic lenses -- I hope she doesn't
find out it was me that took the last set! And while I was shooting out
there in the East Coast, Darius Khondji was shooting a big feature called
"The Interpretor" (I think) and renting a lot of anamorphic lenses from JDC,
maybe some Hawks as well. Anamorphic is still very popular but supplies of
lenses are still somewhat limited, especially in this day and age where
every big feature for some reason needs several cameras running at once on
every scene. This is one reason why more and more of the multi-camera
action films are using Super-35, leaving indie films and dramas of all
things to use anamorphic more than they do!

Digital intermediates have helped reduce one of the objections to Super-35
blow-ups - i.e. increased graininess. They don't really help with the lack
of fine detail in wide shots though.

David Mullen, ASC

[Simon Howson]

Post by David Mullen

Post by Simon Howson
Isn't the whole concept of using anamorphic lenses during cinemtography

(or

Post by Simon Howson
videography) just one element of complexity that is in the process of

being

Post by Simon Howson
refined out of film making practices?

I don't know about that -- there are more 2.35 films being made than ever,
thanks to the acceptance of letterboxed DVD presentations. So I think the
number of anamorphic productions are the same BUT there are more Super-35

I still haven't got solid figures, but it looks like anamorphic dipped from
the late 70's to late 80's when VHS rentals and sales became important.

You see great Panavision directors like De Palma reverting to 1.85:1 either
standard, or Super 35 for a few films in the 80s, where as most things
previous were Panavision. During the early 90's there was a researgence,
possibly related to Laserdiscs becoming avialable, and I guess some films
like Dances with Wolves that won the oscar for cinematography in 1990 I
suspect many directors were big laserdisc fans and thus didn't feel they
needed to compromise so much? However since the early nineties, the use of
anamorphic has dipped once again because it is effectively being replaced by
Super 35 for the 2.35:1 ratio.

I agree that there are many more 2.35:1 films being made, and I have tried
to explain this in terms of smaller cinemas - film makers wanting maxium
impact in smaller venues - the screen is there, you may as well fill it.

Additionaly, the concept of intensity has become the organising principle
for most mainstream films - faster cutting, more camera movement that has
becoming prevelent in the last 10 - 15 years, making the screen BIG (rather
than wide) has been an important consideration for such film makers.

Post by David Mullen
productions framing for 2.35 theatrical release on top of that. I know for
a fact that when I was shooting in anamorphic this last spring, there was a
rush on anamorphic lenses and some filmmakers had to do without. I was just
making a deal at Panavision NYC to have the anamorphic lenses shipped over
from Woodland Hills when I overheard a phone call where they were telling DP
Lisa Rinzler that they were out of anamorphic lenses -- I hope she doesn't
find out it was me that took the last set! And while I was shooting out
there in the East Coast, Darius Khondji was shooting a big feature called
"The Interpretor" (I think) and renting a lot of anamorphic lenses from JDC,
maybe some Hawks as well. Anamorphic is still very popular but supplies of
lenses are still somewhat limited, especially in this day and age where
every big feature for some reason needs several cameras running at once on
every scene. This is one reason why more and more of the multi-camera
action films are using Super-35, leaving indie films and dramas of all
things to use anamorphic more than they do!

I'm a bit scratchy with the exact preferance for anamorphic, but is it fair
to say that some directors/DOPs prefer it because the perspective an
anamorphic lens gives is more NATURAL. What I mean is that normal human
vision is biased laterally, because we have two eyes. Aanamorphic lenses at
least emulate this feel, because the horizontal viewing angle is inherently
wider than the vertical angle. Thus when someone shoots a conversation in
anamorphic, whilst the frame is wide, the relationship of the actor to the
background is generally closer to normal human perception. Obviously if a
scene is being shot with a long lens this effect will start to cancel itself
out. But directors like Mike Nichols, and now Wes Anderson tend to use the
wide angle in anamorphic as a way of making the actor feel very close to the
frame in a way that is very unusual, but at the same time more natural than
the way regular conversations are shot. I am thinking here of the shots in
Carnal Knowledge, and Rushmore where the actor is ALMOST, but not quite
staring directly at the camera.

What I don't understand is that if the major renters saw 2 X anamorphic has
a format that had at least stable, if not increasing popularity, wouldn't
they invest in more anamorphic lenses? You talk about HUGE productions like
Pearl Harbor wiping out all Panavision's anamorphics for the whole of
Hollywood, if Panavision Inc thought that was bad because it was stopping
the use of the anamorphic format, wouldn't they build more lenses, and thus
be able to cater for more productions using the format?

Talking about Khondji, I was pleasently surprised when he shot Woody Allen's
film Anything Else in Scope. Watching widescreen with Woody Allen's long
takes is what Bazin thought CinemaScope would be good for - it didn't really
turn out that way.

Lastly Mr Mullen, would you be able to inform me if the Paramount DVD of
Northfork is properly letterboxed (assuming you have seen it of course) Do
you consider it a good, accurate video transfer of the film?

Thank you,

Simon Howson

[David Mullen]

Post by Simon Howson
I'm a bit scratchy with the exact preferance for anamorphic

Well, it's pretty simple: it looks better. You shoot a test in Super-35 and
in anamorphic and blow-up the Super-35 to anamorphic and project both, most
people are going to pick the anamorphic image simply because it's working
with 40% more negative, so it seems more detailed, fine-grained, and
three-dimensional. While I was in NYC prepping in the spring, I was told
that an indie film that John Tuturro was directing was shooting tests and
they compared 1.85, anamorphic, and Super-35 and projected the results for
him and he was amazed at how good the anamorphic image looked and said
"THAT'S what I want!" He didn't really understand the technical
differences -- it was merely a quality difference he was responding to.

That said, there are technical issues with shooting in anamorphic to be
overcome, which may make Super-35 more desirable. And some people simply
don't like anamorphic artifacts. On the other hand, some people love them.
Certainly they added to the somewhat nightmare-like quality of "Bringing Out
the Dead", which is a showcase for anamorphic artifacts because of all the
low-light urban nighttime photography.

I'm not against Super-35 by any means but shooting it is a little like
shooting Super-16 in that you have to be aware of the fact you are working
with a smaller negative and that the image has to be blown-up at some stage.
It has certain image characteristics just like anamorphic does.
Grossly-speaking, it's sort of like a choice between having more depth of
field but more grain and less detail... versus less depth of field but less
graininess and more detail. One could solve the graininess problem somewhat
by using slower-speed stocks in Super-35 (and thus more light) and one could
solve the depth of field problem (and distortions) in anamorphic somewhat by
stopping down the lens (and thus using more light.)

Post by Simon Howson
Lastly Mr Mullen, would you be able to inform me if the Paramount DVD of
Northfork is properly letterboxed (assuming you have seen it of course) Do
you consider it a good, accurate video transfer of the film?

Yes, I supervised the transfer and the DVD is letterboxed.

In my case, shooting indie films, the big advantage of anamorphic over
Super-35 is that it allows me to make contact prints without any extra post
step. Often the budget only goes as far as answer printing and then getting
a print for a film festival or distributor screening. If I could guarantee
a digital intermediate, I'd be more likely to consider Super-35 for the
right project (probably one with more low-light night scenes).

David Mullen, ASC

[Simon Howson]

Post by David Mullen

Post by Simon Howson
I'm a bit scratchy with the exact preferance for anamorphic

Well, it's pretty simple: it looks better. You shoot a test in Super-35 and
in anamorphic and blow-up the Super-35 to anamorphic and project both, most
people are going to pick the anamorphic image simply because it's working
with 40% more negative, so it seems more detailed, fine-grained, and
three-dimensional. While I was in NYC prepping in the spring, I was told
that an indie film that John Tuturro was directing was shooting tests and
they compared 1.85, anamorphic, and Super-35 and projected the results for
him and he was amazed at how good the anamorphic image looked and said
"THAT'S what I want!" He didn't really understand the technical
differences -- it was merely a quality difference he was responding to.

There is no doubt in my mind that anamorphic looks better :-)

Would you be able to comment on peoples preferances for anamorphic because
of the inherent wide angle nature of the lenses. Or rather the fact there
isn't really a "standard" anamorphic lens, because of the way they shoot a
wider angle horizontally. Is this at all an issue? Wes Anderson's Panavision
films have this amazing characteristic because he shoots almost everything
on a 40mm anamorphic lens... Other film makers talk about the distorting of
perspective between foreground and backgrounds that they either like or
hate...

Post by David Mullen
That said, there are technical issues with shooting in anamorphic to be
overcome, which may make Super-35 more desirable. And some people simply
don't like anamorphic artifacts. On the other hand, some people love them.
Certainly they added to the somewhat nightmare-like quality of "Bringing Out
the Dead", which is a showcase for anamorphic artifacts because of all the
low-light urban nighttime photography.

Yeah Bringing Out The Dead is simply one of my favourite anamorphic films,
but I guess the DOP really needs to know what they are doing shooting almost
everything at night - oh and have a really talented focus puller.

Post by David Mullen

Post by Simon Howson
Lastly Mr Mullen, would you be able to inform me if the Paramount DVD of
Northfork is properly letterboxed (assuming you have seen it of course) Do
you consider it a good, accurate video transfer of the film?

Yes, I supervised the transfer and the DVD is letterboxed.

Did you offer to supervise the transfer? Or did Paramount invite you to do
it?

Is it something that you have tried to have added to contracts? Or basically
do you have to rely on the good faith of the studio? How much time did you
get to make adjustments? Say few days, or did you really just rush through
it in a day giving them a general guide regards what you wanted?

Simon Howson

[Peter H.]

Wes Anderson's Panavision films have this amazing characteristic because he
shoots almost everything on a 40mm anamorphic lens ...
Undoubtedly goes way back to the days of Fox's Bausch & Lomb "combined" lenses,
where 40mm was the de-facto standard lens, even though each camera was provided
with 35, 40, 50, 75, 100 and 152mm lenses (and 25mm was available on special
order).

40mm for exteriors and some interiors with 75 and/or 100mm for head shots were
the most used setups.

[Simon Howson]

Post by Peter H.
Wes Anderson's Panavision films have this amazing characteristic because he
shoots almost everything on a 40mm anamorphic lens ...
Undoubtedly goes way back to the days of Fox's Bausch & Lomb "combined" lenses,
where 40mm was the de-facto standard lens, even though each camera was provided
with 35, 40, 50, 75, 100 and 152mm lenses (and 25mm was available on special
order).

It seems to me that Anderson uses either a 40mm or maybe a 75mm, rarely
anything in between, or longer than either of those two. He frequently
shoots medium close ups with the 40mm. Visually Rushmore is a seriously
wacked film - the bias these days seems to be towards long lenses, but not
in Wes Andersons world. Watch the trailer for his next film The Life Aquatic
to see what I mean:
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1808562850&cf=trailer

He is also a image quality freak. For example in Rushmore there is a
binoculars shot, but rather than using an optical with a binoculars mask,
they constructed a big binonculars mask and held it in front of the
camera... Likewise, in Rushmore rather than using opticals for credits, they
projected the credits using a high powered projector onto the curtains!
Anderson doesn't seem like a Super 35 candidate.

Simon Howson

[Peter H.]

I could get along nicely with a set of "round front" Russian bent glass in 50,
75 and 100.

Plus, a "back of zoom" anamorphic for use with a 20 to whatever Russian zoom,
where zoom shots were essential.

On my Kinor 35H, of course.

The zoom would provide a 40, if required, and anything longer than the 100.

[David Mullen]

Post by Simon Howson
Would you be able to comment on peoples preferances for anamorphic because
of the inherent wide angle nature of the lenses.

Maybe that's an issue for some, but that's more of a DP thing, "feeling" the
difference between a 40mm anamorphic (with the horizontal view of a 20mm
spherical lens) versus a 20mm spherical lens cropped to 2.35 (with the
vertical view of a 40mm lens). The main difference between the two is the
inherent barrel distortion of the 40mm anamorphic, whereas cropping a 20mm
spherical lens to 2.35 has a "flatter" less distorted perspective. With
anamorphic, because of the bending on the edges of the frame, you "feel"
that you can see the edges of the 2.35 frame and sense that it fills the
negative. But that's pretty subtle.

A director might like anamorphic because it's like making a "real" movie for
the theaters.

But I think it's mostly the finer-grained image with more fine details that
they like about anamorphic. Some may like the flares as well (like John
McTiernan.) But I think anamorphic tends to be more of a DP choice -- most
directors who want a 2.35 frame don't really care how the DP gets it. If
anything, they tend to prefer Super-35 because it seems less limiting in
terms of lenses and focusing, etc. If you read the articles on "From Hell"
you sense that the directors were somewhat miffed that the DP talked them
into using anamorphic instead of Super-35, which they had used on "Dead
Presidents." They basically said that only the DP could see the quality
difference.

Post by Simon Howson
Did you offer to supervise the transfer? Or did Paramount invite you to do
it?
Is it something that you have tried to have added to contracts? Or basically
do you have to rely on the good faith of the studio?

I don't think it was in my contract, but it was an indie production, not a
studio film until it was bought by Paramount Classics. We had 5 days to do
the transfer, which the director and I supervised every day, every minute.
On some shows, you might show-up halfway in the transfer day and let the
colorist playback what he has done and just make tweaks. This is a good
idea when the transfer is fairly tedious and routine, like matching
close-ups during a long dinner table scene where you have already set the
look.

In the ideal world, you'd schedule enough time to basically color-correct it
twice, giving yourself some distance by going away and coming back and
reviewing the color-corrections -- because staring at a monitor for eight
hours can really be hard on the eyes. If there is time, at least I want to
see the whole movie once through before we lay down the corrections to tape
and do one more pass of the whole thing. But usually there is not enough
time. INstead, as you are doing the layback to tape, you may stop and make
an adjustment now and then if something jumps out at you.

Most features film producers and directors WANT the DP involved in the
telecine transfer because he knows the material and can talk to the colorist
in their lingo. It tends to make the transfer go faster, not slower. It's
not so much the case when much later, there might another transfer made. At
that point, the studio might just tell the colorist to use the old transfer
as a guide to color.

The real problem is that DP's don't generally get paid for their post work.
I spent a week color-timing the print of "Northfork" and then another week
color-correcting the video transfer, and I never got paid for any of that
time. Some DP's will spend a month working on the final transfer and not
get paid.

David Mullen, ASC

[Peter H.]

Anamorphic is still very popular but supplies of lenses are still somewhat
limited, especially in this day and age where every big feature for some reason
needs several cameras running at once on every scene. This is one reason why
more and more of the multi-camera action films are using Super-35, leaving
indie films and dramas of all things to use anamorphic more than they do!
PV claims to have 10,000 anamorphics "in stock" ... but that stock is not
necessarily where it can do a specific production the most good on its best
schedule (part of that stock may be at PV in Australia, for example).

Multiple camera shoots are likely wrecking havoc with the available supplies of
the more popular focal lengths, and/or the same of the more specialized focal
lengths.

[Simon Howson]

Post by Peter H.
PV claims to have 10,000 anamorphics "in stock" ... but that stock is not
necessarily where it can do a specific production the most good on its best
schedule (part of that stock may be at PV in Australia, for example).

Apparently The Matrix films were shot in Super 35 because Panavision Sydney
couldn't gaurantee enough anamorphic lenses.

Post by Peter H.
Multiple camera shoots are likely wrecking havoc with the available supplies of
the more popular focal lengths, and/or the same of the more specialized focal
lengths.

Is it fair to say that anamorphic lens variablilities are such that it may
be possible to get say 3 of the same focal length lenses for a 3 camera
shoot. YET the lenses optically may be quite different thus meaning the
footage won't cut well. Are the variations THAT great?

I mean I have read articles in American Cinematographer where variabilities
talk about testing upwards of 30 or 40 anamorphic lenses before they get a
set they like. If they are doing that for three cameras then on many
moderate budget productions it just seems to be easier to stick with
sphericals, and thus Super 35.

Simon Howson

[David Mullen]

Well, to some degree, anamorphic lenses all have "personalities" -- they
aren't as uniform as a set compared to spherical lenses like Cooke S4's,
etc. For some DP's that can drive them up the wall. But since I have been
shooting low-budget films for so long with mismatched spherical lens sets
(like old Zeiss Super-Speeds mixed with Cooke zooms) I'm used to the look!
Of course, I've only used the Primo anamorphics combined with the longer
E-Series, which is a fairly well-matched group of lenses. But some DP's are
"pickier" than me. But sometimes it seems silly to be more concerned about
the lenses than the negative format. You can get spectacular results with a
65mm camera and some older lenses...

Big-budget multi-camera action films that DO shoot in anamorphic (let's say,
"The Alamo") have a pretty diverse set of lenses on all the cameras but they
never strike me as being particularly mismatched. Of course, they prepped
the package well at the rental house but also when you're talking about a
lot of long-lens action shots, it's not that critical that the lenses match
perfectly anyway -- some of the cameras will even have anamorphic zooms on
them. It's in the wider-angle prime lenses used for wide shots and masters
that you want the best glass. For a close-up, an older lens is not going to
kill you -- it may even be preferable.

David Mullen, ASC

Post by Simon Howson
Is it fair to say that anamorphic lens variablilities are such that it may
be possible to get say 3 of the same focal length lenses for a 3 camera
shoot. YET the lenses optically may be quite different thus meaning the
footage won't cut well. Are the variations THAT great?

[Martin Hart]

In article <***@posting.google.com>, davidm2
@earthlink.net says...

Post by David Mullen
Certainly it's possible to design an anamorphic optical printer lens
to add enough compression to convert a 1.33X squeezed image to a 2X
squeezed image. Just don't see that happening; these days, one would
more like just do the work digitally (with a wide variety of emerging
companies to do the work) rather than commission a special lens for
optical printing which would probably be at one lab only. I don't see
anyone thinking that there would be enough conversion work coming in
to justify the costs of building the lens. I think a lot of people
figure that the optical printer's days are numbered anyway.
David Mullen, ASC

Many printers used to create flat versions of anamorphic films have had
variable squeeze lenses so that the titles can be duped with enough
compression to keep from cropping off names. It's a bit eerie to watch a
live background rapidly unsqueeze after the director's name has been
displayed. I don't think there's a big problem with the use of
anamorphic optics in printing. You can't do contact printing but that's
not an issue.

Marty

[Martin Hart]

Post by Lincoln Spector

Post by MitchGross
One problem is finishing. Unless you are finishing to video or go through

a

Post by MitchGross
Digital Intermediate it is going to be very difficult to get that 1.33x
squeezed image (on 3-perf 35 or Super-16) to a 2x squeezed 4-perf print.
BINGO!

Is that really so different from one Technirama did, converting a 1.5x
squeeze on the negative to 2.0 for the 35mm release prints?
Lincoln

Precisely! As long as you're going to have to go through some sort of
intermediate, the introduction of additional anamorphosis does not
degrade image quality. Ultra Panavision also used additional
anamorphosis to create 35mm 2x or 70mm flat prints.

Marty

[Martin Hart]

In article <***@mb-m01.aol.com>,
***@aol.com says...

<SNIP>

Post by MitchGross
One problem is finishing. Unless you are finishing to video or go through a
Digital Intermediate it is going to be very difficult to get that 1.33x
squeezed image (on 3-perf 35 or Super-16) to a 2x squeezed 4-perf print. This
would require either going from 1.33x to flat and then to 2x (an extra optical
step) or getting someone to make yet another unique anamorphic element for an
optical printer that would do it in one stage (what would that squeeze factor
be, 1.66x? That's scary math). With either two optical steps in post or one
step that uses a different sqeeze fator than the original photography, I think
it will introduce more abberations and artifacts than it will solve. However a
digital post should work fine.
Mitch

The 1.33x squeeze in the original photography poses absolutely no
problem when it comes to producing prints. All Super 35 films require
anamorphic printing. All Technirama films, be they 35mm or 70mm required
anamorphic printing. All Ultra Panavision films required anamorphic
printing for 35mm releases and some of them were anamorphically
decompressed for 70mm. So Super 35 may be a crappy looking format, but
Technirama and Ultra Panavision looked splendid even though the images
had been sent through 2 different anamorphic conversions. It was the
fact that these anamorphic steps were significantly less than
CinemaScope's 2x that the Technicolor and MGM/Panavision folks claimed,
and proved, that image quality could be superior to just the single
squeeze at the camera.

Marty

[Jim Nason]

Post by Martin Hart
<SNIP>

Post by MitchGross
One problem is finishing. Unless you are finishing to video or go through a
Digital Intermediate it is going to be very difficult to get that 1.33x
squeezed image (on 3-perf 35 or Super-16) to a 2x squeezed 4-perf print.
This
would require either going from 1.33x to flat and then to 2x (an extra optical
step) or getting someone to make yet another unique anamorphic element for an
optical printer that would do it in one stage (what would that squeeze factor
be, 1.66x? That's scary math). With either two optical steps in post or one
step that uses a different sqeeze fator than the original photography, I think
it will introduce more abberations and artifacts than it will solve.
However a
digital post should work fine.
Mitch

The 1.33x squeeze in the original photography poses absolutely no
problem when it comes to producing prints. All Super 35 films require
anamorphic printing. All Technirama films, be they 35mm or 70mm required
anamorphic printing. All Ultra Panavision films required anamorphic
printing for 35mm releases and some of them were anamorphically
decompressed for 70mm. So Super 35 may be a crappy looking format, but
Technirama and Ultra Panavision looked splendid even though the images
had been sent through 2 different anamorphic conversions. It was the
fact that these anamorphic steps were significantly less than
CinemaScope's 2x that the Technicolor and MGM/Panavision folks claimed,
and proved, that image quality could be superior to just the single
squeeze at the camera.
Marty
--
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com
The American WideScreen Museum

Of course, since this topic is only theoretical, you could modify 35mm
projectors for 3 perf pull-down and use projection lenses with a 1.33:1
factor. Then you would have a complete system that is also very simple to
implement. I know it won't happen because the days when industries were
willing to experiement are over.

Jim Nason

[MitchGross]

Martin,

While I agree that it is certainly possible to do it, I still disagree that
going through two optical stages is preferable to one just to utilize a
slightly larger negative area.

This is actually a question of some debate, as Derek DeJong (sp?) who has an
excellent lab in Belgium insists that he gets superior results by using optical
steps for ALL intermediates, even those that could be simple contact steps. I
and many other DPs find that optical steps artificially increase grain by
seeming to "sharpen" the grain structure when a lens is focused on them in the
process. Also contrast can increase. Derek on the other hand argues that he
likes the sharpening, akin to a form of edge enhancement in video that makes
the image appear to have greater resolution. Since the resolution does drop
significantly even time one goes through an intermediate stage, I can see the
virtures of his point. But having tested spherical Super-16 blowups to 35 2x
anamorphic prints (cropping the frame) and tried it by a single optical stage
vs. Derek's preferred S-16 -- S35 -- 35 2x I have to say that I still prefer to
keep my optical steps to a minimum.

Mitch

[JoVee]

Post by manitou910
Speaking of digital, I finally watched the entire "Star Wars: Attack Of
The Clones" DVD a week or so ago.

(SNIP)

Post by manitou910
I wasn't impressed by anything and am not thrilled to hear that Mr.
Lucas is now planning three further such epics.

Lucas had charted out an epic set of films from his years dreaming in comic
books before getting the go-ahead to make just one, at which time he pared
it all down to that single movie. Within a month after the instant success
of that first rollercoaster of a film he had restructured and commited
publicly a trilogy of trilogies of which he had directed the first and would
not direct another until the last. Would he had stuck to that.

Post by manitou910
Even the acting seems to get worse, though it's difficult to blame the
actors when we know their dialog is sometimes changed _after_ production
with digital 'correction' to adjust lip-sync!
Still, Hayden Christensen makes Mark Hammil seem like David Hyde Pierce
and Johnny Depp combined. And Natalie Portman, who I thought quite good
in "Phantom Menace", seemed to be down-acting in order not to embarrass
the kid.

EMPIRE showed that seriously tough work might really happen with the series,
and then came Jedi. Since then George has been seemingly doing everything
possible with the best production talent in the world to prove that what he
did to the series with Jedi was no fluke. Incredible, inexcusable and a
shame.
Comparing MENACE with AI and then CLONES with LotR was sad.

[JoVee]

Post by JoVee
Comparing MENACE with AI and then CLONES with LotR was sad.

I missed the first 2 films and had put off seeing any of the LORD OF THE
RINGS films on video and so when the chance came with the release of #3 to
see the first 2 over a couple preceding weeks (at the SENATOR in Baltimore)
I grabbed it. Buried amongst the amazements at what PJ accomplished, I was
confused at what seemed to me to be random changes in color/contrast balance
throughout the films from shot to shot that didn't, for me, seem to be
following any aesthetic choice. I thought the would have been MUCH more lush
looking films in the pretty scenes. Were the prints released immediately
prior to the debut of teh 3rd film rushed through or something>

JV