The Casual Vacancy shot in 2:35:1 (22:9) Why?
Zeropoint1
Posts: 10,917 Forum Member
✭✭
Is there a reason why 'The Casual Vacancy' was shot and more importantly broadcast in 2:35:1 (22:9) and not the standard 16:9?
Doctor Who : Deep Breath was shot at that ratio but only for it's cinema screening, on tv it was cropped to 16:9.
Doctor Who : Deep Breath was shot at that ratio but only for it's cinema screening, on tv it was cropped to 16:9.
0
Comments
And thankfully, then shown as the director intended.
Was Doctor Who cropped or opened out? I would have said the latter if you can find evidence otherwise I would be interested to know.
Casual Vacancy I haven't seen it yet I recorded it as I was watching Indian Summers on channel 4.
I don't see anything wrong with TV programs being made in 2.35 or 22:9 BTW, its a choice of the director it always should be that as films/TV programs are a work of art at the end of the day (well TV programs like drams more so).
In the Flesh was shown in 2.35:1 on BBC Three too...
Jonny Campbell directed both the first season of In The Flesh and The Casual Vacancy, so I'd gather he likes it and he's more than able to get BBC execs on board...
Fortitude on Sky is in 1.85:1, although it is being sold internationally opened out to 16:9.
Actually 2.35:1 is 21.15:9 and 2.39:1 is 21.51:9
22:9 is 2.44:1 and 21:9 is 2.33:1
Pretty simple answer in all honesty!
The more important aspect to all this is yet again why the BBC are NOT using the 5.1 soundtrack and instead using a shitty 2.0 stereo version!
Someone answer me that!!
Channel 4 made The Mill in 2.35:1 (or 2.39:1/2.40:9), its an aesthetic choice and you have to imagine that the height between the black bars is the normal height, so you are actually seeing something wider rather than something that has been cropped from 16:9!
Definitely produced with such a soundtrack?
Modern anamorphic lenses are actually 2.39:1 and the image is very slightly cropped for broadcast at the "21:9" aspect ratio (technically 64:27, or 2.370:1, or 4:3 cubed).
The RED digital camera company has a nice article about anamorphic lenses and why you would use them on both traditional 35mm film stock and digital cameras.
http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/anamorphic-lenses
There are various aesthetic considerations such as depth of field and lense flare behaviour which change with the use of anamorphic lenses and having now seen how episode 1 these visual choices have clearly factored in to Johnny Campbell's decision to use this aspect ratio.
CinemaScope was originally 2.66 as it's actually a 2x squeeze of the 35mm silent aperture of 4:3 or 1.33:1!
It was then cropped to 2.55:1 due to the added magnetic sound, but as that was expensive they started to use the traditional optical sound which meant a crop down further to 2.35.
The thing is though whether it is 2.66, 2.55, 2.35, 2.39 or 2.40 on 35mm it's still a 2x horizontal squeeze!
They
still use the same type of lenses just made by different companies called different things and just improved optics, but still a 2x horizontal squeeze!
2.39 or 2.40 come from cropping on projection or telecine which it a good way to hide film joins, it's still 2.35:1 on the film frame!
Of course super 35 and digital will allow for the cinematographer to capture a flat none anamorphic image, but if it's projected at the cinema on film it has to be put on with the same 2x anamorphic squeeze as that's the standard that the cinema is expecting.
I suppose its possible that if a film was mastered digitally that they might only transfer a 2.39 or 2.40 image to the film prints for projection, but is the same lenses used in cinemas nothing has changed with that 2x squeeze since CinemaScope started!
Digital anamorphic is very different and could utilise different amounts of squeeze just like SD TV does whether 4:3 or 16:9 as the pixels aren't square in either format that's in 480i/p or 576i/p.
Who knows they might not have bothered or it could just have had a 3.0 mix, I started watching episode 1 and apart from some sound effects there wasn't much LFE and no music to speak of as such, it was actually quite a depressing drama which is why I didn't bother to finish watching!
Or maybe he felt that such an aspect ration suited the production?
Yes, there was.
Its also a delivery requirement for HBO.
It's great that mainstream tv can be be shot and more importantly broadcast at a wider aspect ratio in primetime.
Also I believe that Doctor Who : Deep Breath was opened up to 16:9 not cropped as I said. As I was sat in the cinema I noted several scenes that would be easy to check on tv, and indeed they have additional space above the cinema version.
** Obviously apart from Doctor Who, which under Steven Moffat has never looked so stunning.
The wider the frame the less suitable it becomes for home viewing, peoples faces generally get smaller and smaller as the frame is widened. 4:3 is best for home viewing in my opinion, sadly no longer with us (4:3 on a 4:3 TV)
In a cinema it's not a problem of course, but content for TV should be made with the home viewer in mind regardless of the aspirations of the director.
Just another example of a self-serving TV industry.
Bear in mind that the HBO version will also probably have HBO bumpers at the beginning and end, and the BBC are quite fussy about the way credit bumpers are set out. So just because a 5.1 mix definitely exists, doesn't mean it exists for this version.
Since the home media release is by Warner Bros., it will probably be the tweaked HBO version. Unless it's native 25fps, then they might use the BBC version.
If it affects viewers as much as you claim it does, surely it would have a negative effect on viewers and lead to complaints, tarnishing the reputation of those involved, doing them no favours...
Is it also possible that the BBC version might have been edited for content?
It's possible, they've done it the past with shows they co-produced with premium cable networks. For example, Torchward: Miracle Day and The White Queen, were both co-produced by Starz, but the BBC cut sex scenes from them.
However, I'm not familiar with the source material, so I can't comment on whether there's anything that might have required cuts.
I don't agree drama and films are a work of art just like a painting don't ever muzzle that creativity it's a crime against good art!
If you don't like it get a projector at least that way you wont see black bars when its projected onto a white wall!
Otherwise ether stick to soaps and factual content or just get used to different aspect ratio's!