|
||||||||
Channels Showing Full Widescreen Films |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#2626 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 182
|
Quote:
its interesting seeing all the different formats, but im just wondering what is the 2k or 4k equivalent for 2.4:1 or scope format?
Similarly, films in ratios narrower than 1.78/1.85:1, such as 1.37:1 (newer ones like WUTHERING HEIGHTS or THE ARTIST, or reissues of older ones) or 1.66:1, have black bars at the sides. That said, some films are shot in HD with anamorphic lenses. Steven Soderbergh has done this sometimes, for example with MAGIC MIKE. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2627 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: south west
Posts: 9,914
|
Quote:
The same, with black bars at the top and bottom. I've often seen the picture zoom in at my local cinema for a Scope film when the BBFC certificate appears.
Similarly, films in ratios narrower than 1.78/1.85:1, such as 1.37:1 (newer ones like WUTHERING HEIGHTS or THE ARTIST, or reissues of older ones) or 1.66:1, have black bars at the sides. That said, some films are shot in HD with anamorphic lenses. Steven Soderbergh has done this sometimes, for example with MAGIC MIKE. So could say 4k with anamorphic lenses be used then and thats both ways to keep all the resolution on scope or narrower than 1.78:1 formats? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2628 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 15,853
|
I was thinking Arlington Road was in 2.35:1, last night, but once the credits finished, it was cropped to 16:9. I thought the BBC had finally got a proper HD print. Shame as it's a really good film when seen properly.
|
|
|
|
|
#2629 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,278
|
Quote:
so the cinema format is now a flat fixed 1.85:1 and all other formats, including scope, are done onto that somehow.
It's bad enough most films these days look like TV shows, made worse by the switch in production formats to HD video (which, contrary to popular belief, is NOT an evolutionary stepup from 35mm film but a retrograde step - actually, about 200 steps, but you get my point). If you're going to spend time and money going to see a film in an auditorium no bigger than a closet, with a screen only slightly bigger than the one you've got at home (exacerbated by the aforementioned 'TV look' of most modern movies), then you might just as well wait for the home video version. And sadly, that's what a lot of people are already doing (me included). Cinemas which install 1.85:1 screens and letterbox scope movies within that frame should have their license revoked until they start treating their customers with a hell of a sight more respect. NB. I know that many customers are entirely apathetic about this kind of practice, which is why cinemas have been allowed to get away with it, but that's really besides the point. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2630 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,278
|
No surprise to see ARTHUR AND THE INVISIBLES being screened OAR this afternoon, though it WAS a surprise to see mouldie-oldie GUNFIGHT AT COMANCHE CREEK being screened OAR on (I believe) 5*. Not sure if that one has been screened 'properly' on terrestrial channels before, but it was a welcome sight nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2631 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: south west
Posts: 9,914
|
Quote:
I sincerely hope this isn't the norm these days, and that it's a minority issue in cinemas which have little or no regard for the customers which sustain them!!
It's bad enough most films these days look like TV shows, made worse by the switch in production formats to HD video (which, contrary to popular belief, is NOT an evolutionary stepup from 35mm film but a retrograde step - actually, about 200 steps, but you get my point). If you're going to spend time and money going to see a film in an auditorium no bigger than a closet, with a screen only slightly bigger than the one you've got at home (exacerbated by the aforementioned 'TV look' of most modern movies), then you might just as well wait for the home video version. And sadly, that's what a lot of people are already doing (me included). Cinemas which install 1.85:1 screens and letterbox scope movies within that frame should have their license revoked until they start treating their customers with a hell of a sight more respect. NB. I know that many customers are entirely apathetic about this kind of practice, which is why cinemas have been allowed to get away with it, but that's really besides the point. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2632 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 182
|
Quote:
I sincerely hope this isn't the norm these days, and that it's a minority issue in cinemas which have little or no regard for the customers which sustain them!!
It's bad enough most films these days look like TV shows, made worse by the switch in production formats to HD video (which, contrary to popular belief, is NOT an evolutionary stepup from 35mm film but a retrograde step - actually, about 200 steps, but you get my point). If you're going to spend time and money going to see a film in an auditorium no bigger than a closet, with a screen only slightly bigger than the one you've got at home (exacerbated by the aforementioned 'TV look' of most modern movies), then you might just as well wait for the home video version. And sadly, that's what a lot of people are already doing (me included). Cinemas which install 1.85:1 screens and letterbox scope movies within that frame should have their license revoked until they start treating their customers with a hell of a sight more respect. NB. I know that many customers are entirely apathetic about this kind of practice, which is why cinemas have been allowed to get away with it, but that's really besides the point. The lines between cinema and TV have been blurred for years, if not decades. I certainly don't think that's a new thing. I'm resigned to the fact that cinema projection is almost entirely digital nowadays, even in showcase cinemas in London. The only two film projections I've seen so far this year have been silent films at the BFI Southbank. That said, cinemas like the Prince Charles off Leicester Square do advertise when they are showing 35mm prints - I'm sure it's a selling point for some of their audience. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2633 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 747
|
Equally annoying is the habit of TV companies showing non-widescreen films in the full wide screen mode.
e.g. Hitchcock's Psycho.made in 1.37 ; 1 continually gets shown in full width resulting in the top and bottom being cropped. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2634 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 15,853
|
Quote:
And sadly, that's what a lot of people are already doing (me included). Cinemas which install 1.85:1 screens and letterbox scope movies within that frame should have their license revoked until they start treating their customers with a hell of a sight more respect.
Quote:
Equally annoying is the habit of TV companies showing non-widescreen films in the full wide screen mode.
e.g. Hitchcock's Psycho.made in 1.37 ; 1 continually gets shown in full width resulting in the top and bottom being cropped.
|
|
|
|
|
#2635 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: south west
Posts: 9,914
|
Quote:
Most cinemas I've been in lately - including my local Cineworld in Aldershot - have fixed-height screens, so they do extend sideways when a Scope film starts. And it's certainly more than "slightly" bigger than the 40-inch TV I have at home.
The lines between cinema and TV have been blurred for years, if not decades. I certainly don't think that's a new thing. I'm resigned to the fact that cinema projection is almost entirely digital nowadays, even in showcase cinemas in London. The only two film projections I've seen so far this year have been silent films at the BFI Southbank. That said, cinemas like the Prince Charles off Leicester Square do advertise when they are showing 35mm prints - I'm sure it's a selling point for some of their audience. Sadly digital projection is easier to use, recently I had the privilege of touring behind the scenes at one of the Empire cinemas. They said that when they go compleatly digital, that the projectionists will no longer be needed and that all films can be uploaded onto a central server in the managers office and also run from there! This is such a difference from 35mm it would have been seen as a dream to be able to do such a thing years ago! for the cinema managers that is! The biggest advantage I see of digital projectors, is that they can be hooked up to a satelite feed and show a live broadcast! I dont care much for 3D films but of corse they cant be done without digital projectors. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2636 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,440
|
I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that my most recent experience with a 35mm projector was not enjoyable at all, and I'd have much rather seen it on a digital projector. It kept flickering to the point that whenever the screen got even remotely light it hurt my eyes. I thought I might have a seizure at certain points during the film. Thankfully, I picked a film mostly set at night...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2637 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: south west
Posts: 9,914
|
Quote:
I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that my most recent experience with a 35mm projector was not enjoyable at all, and I'd have much rather seen it on a digital projector. It kept flickering to the point that whenever the screen got even remotely light it hurt my eyes. I thought I might have a seizure at certain points during the film. Thankfully, I picked a film mostly set at night...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2638 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 182
|
Quote:
Equally annoying is the habit of TV companies showing non-widescreen films in the full wide screen mode.
e.g. Hitchcock's Psycho.made in 1.37 ; 1 continually gets shown in full width resulting in the top and bottom being cropped. However, films shot open-matte are often shown in 4:3 on TV, especially older ones. There was an example yesterday on Film Four - THE GOOD DIE YOUNG, a British film from 1954. That was shown in 4:3 but was clearly intended to be shown as wide as 1.85:1, though British cinemas at the time would likely have shown it in 1.66:1. 1954 is soon enough after the introduction of CinemaScope and the transition to widescreen that there may well have been cinemas which showed it in 1.37:1, but that clearly wouldn't have been correct. Quote:
interesting its good the film didnt burn out! Ive never seen it myself, but Im told that somtimes the film can get too hot and holes can form and the film can break. Then the whole thing just stops! I was told about it during my recent behind the scenes visit to an Empire cimema, they said people can get annoyed and sometimes try to demand their money back. but they can get it working again most of the time!
Glad to hear that the Empire 1 is still showing 35mm - that's a very nice and very big cinema, seating 1300. Earlier this year, when TO THE WONDER (shot mostly in Super 35, with some bits shot in 65mm and some bits digitally-captured) and LORE (shot in Super 16mm) came out in the same weekend, I emailed Curzon Cinemas to ask if they were showing them in 35mm. The answer was that they didn't show new films in 35mm any more, only digitally (2K, according to their website), although some of their screens do still have 35mm projectors and there is the occasional special showing, but new films are supplied on digital these days and shown that way. Sign of the times. Repertory cinemas such as the BFI Southbank, the Prince Charles and the Pictureville in Bradford will no doubt be able to show 35mm for the foreseeable as that's part of their remit - the first and last can show 70mm as well. The Pictureville is one of only three public cinemas in the world which can show three-strip Cinerama and NFT1 at the BFI is the only cinema in the country licensed to show old nitrate prints. While I'm here, THE REEF was shown OAR on Film Four - though the film is an obvious digitally-captured crop job. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2639 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: south west
Posts: 9,914
|
Quote:
Two issues here; PSYCHO is intended to be shown in 1.85:1. Showing it in 4:3 may reveal more picture area but it's picture that's not meant to be seen, as revealed by excess space over the actors' heads.
However, films shot open-matte are often shown in 4:3 on TV, especially older ones. There was an example yesterday on Film Four - THE GOOD DIE YOUNG, a British film from 1954. That was shown in 4:3 but was clearly intended to be shown as wide as 1.85:1, though British cinemas at the time would likely have shown it in 1.66:1. 1954 is soon enough after the introduction of CinemaScope and the transition to widescreen that there may well have been cinemas which showed it in 1.37:1, but that clearly wouldn't have been correct. There are disadvantages to 35mm - prints are heavy and costly and can get damaged. One of the most recent new films which I did see in a film print was THE MASTER in 70mm and I was lucky enough to see it before the first reel got scratched. Glad to hear that the Empire 1 is still showing 35mm - that's a very nice and very big cinema, seating 1300. Earlier this year, when TO THE WONDER (shot mostly in Super 35, with some bits shot in 65mm and some bits digitally-captured) and LORE (shot in Super 16mm) came out in the same weekend, I emailed Curzon Cinemas to ask if they were showing them in 35mm. The answer was that they didn't show new films in 35mm any more, only digitally (2K, according to their website), although some of their screens do still have 35mm projectors and there is the occasional special showing, but new films are supplied on digital these days and shown that way. Sign of the times. Repertory cinemas such as the BFI Southbank, the Prince Charles and the Pictureville in Bradford will no doubt be able to show 35mm for the foreseeable as that's part of their remit - the first and last can show 70mm as well. The Pictureville is one of only three public cinemas in the world which can show three-strip Cinerama and NFT1 at the BFI is the only cinema in the country licensed to show old nitrate prints. While I'm here, THE REEF was shown OAR on Film Four - though the film is an obvious digitally-captured crop job. When you say three-strip Cinerama, is that the one that requires a curved screen and originaly had the sound on a strip of 35mm with a magnetic coating for the sound? and required a special camera that could film 3 images at once? Its nice reminising about these old film standards! I wonder why the cinefim 35mm format where the film went through the camera and projector sideways instead of top to bottom. That would have been the only format to be able to be flat for wider formats such as 2.35+:1 and still be the same hight on the film as nower formats without animorphicaticing the images. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2640 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 182
|
Quote:
My we are going back a bit with those formats! I think when it comes to nitrate films the negs should prehaps be scanned to digital to peserve them then reprint on modern film for projecting! Then the original unsafe nitrate film wouldnt have to be used!
When you say three-strip Cinerama, is that the one that requires a curved screen and originaly had the sound on a strip of 35mm with a magnetic coating for the sound? and required a special camera that could film 3 images at once? If you are within reach of Bradford, their widescreen weekend - part of the Bradford Film Festival, in April - is well worth going to. I went last year, when they showed quite a few Cinerama films as it was the format's sixtieth anniversary. The Pictureville has permanent prints of THIS IS CINERAMA and HOW THE WEST WAS WON, and was donated the only known Cinerama print of THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF THE BROTHERS GRIMM by that enthusiast in Australia. The PIctureville took donations from the public so that they could ship that over - a two and a quarter hour film would need about seven reels, and multiply that by four for the three strips of picture and the one of soundtrack. Shipping and insurance costs were in the order of £5000! I've not yet seen a film projected from nitrate, though NFT1 does occasionally have nitrate showings. I'm told that prints have a distinctive velvety "feel" that you don't get from safety (acetate) film stock. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2641 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: south west
Posts: 9,914
|
Quote:
That is what I mean. The two other venues open to the public which can show the format are both in the USA. There are at least two private set-ups, and you can see them in an entertaining documentary called CINERAMA ADVENTURE - one is in Australia in a back yard and the other is in someone's front room (no joke) in the USA.
If you are within reach of Bradford, their widescreen weekend - part of the Bradford Film Festival, in April - is well worth going to. I went last year, when they showed quite a few Cinerama films as it was the format's sixtieth anniversary. The Pictureville has permanent prints of THIS IS CINERAMA and HOW THE WEST WAS WON, and was donated the only known Cinerama print of THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF THE BROTHERS GRIMM by that enthusiast in Australia. The PIctureville took donations from the public so that they could ship that over - a two and a quarter hour film would need about seven reels, and multiply that by four for the three strips of picture and the one of soundtrack. Shipping and insurance costs were in the order of £5000! I've not yet seen a film projected from nitrate, though NFT1 does occasionally have nitrate showings. I'm told that prints have a distinctive velvety "feel" that you don't get from safety (acetate) film stock. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2642 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 15,853
|
Quote:
Earlier this year, when TO THE WONDER (shot mostly in Super 35, with some bits shot in 65mm and some bits digitally-captured) and LORE (shot in Super 16mm) came out in the same weekend, I emailed Curzon Cinemas to ask if they were showing them in 35mm. The answer was that they didn't show new films in 35mm any more, only digitally (2K, according to their website), although some of their screens do still have 35mm projectors and there is the occasional special showing, but new films are supplied on digital these days and shown that way. Sign of the times.
I only started getting into IMAX last year and love the film moments I've enjoyed that have opened up to 1.44:1, but it seems that love is going to die very soon. I have disdain for a lot of studios who are producing films for IMAX projection which have nothing shot in IMAX. |
|
|
|
|
#2643 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: south west
Posts: 9,914
|
Quote:
Indeed. Also seems like IMAX 15/70 projection is dying out. Odeon told me that digital prints (which won't open up to 1.44:1) are a tenth of the price, and they said they think Christopher Nolan's Intersellar might be the last 15/70 film.
I only started getting into IMAX last year and love the film moments I've enjoyed that have opened up to 1.44:1, but it seems that love is going to die very soon. I have disdain for a lot of studios who are producing films for IMAX projection which have nothing shot in IMAX. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2644 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 15,853
|
Quote:
so IMAX screens are now just a fancy cinema that shows regular style films that are presumably always shot at at least 4k?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1583421/technical I definitely wouldn't have gone to see that if I'd spotted what the director's previous film was... Justin Bieber: Never Say Never! |
|
|
|
|
#2645 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: south west
Posts: 9,914
|
Quote:
Not even that. No 4K for GI Joe Retaliation:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1583421/technical I definitely wouldn't have gone to see that if I'd spotted what the director's previous film was... Justin Bieber: Never Say Never! |
|
|
|
|
|
#2646 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 182
|
Quote:
so IMAX screens are now just a fancy cinema that shows regular style films that are presumably always shot at at least 4k?
However, even the Max Linder Panorama in Paris, one of the largest non-IMAX screens in Europe - 16.7m wide - a cinema that can show not just 35mm but 70mm as well, is showing 2K digital, Man of Steel at the moment. (Take a look at that ticket price, by the way - 9.20 Euros! Some London cinemas charge nearly double that amount in pounds.) Before they started showing cinema features, IMAX venues showed films of about 40 mins or so (often travelogues) shot in 15/70 IMAX so I wonder if they will continue to do this. Certainly there will be more mainstream features with sequences shot in IMAX - Star Trek Into Darkness was one, and the Hunger Games sequel out in November, Catching Fire will be another. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2647 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,278
|
The current trend towards Large Format films being shot in something other than 1570 is sad but unsurprising (and I speak as someone who has never seen anything projected in IMAX dimensions). Hollywood has a long history of introducing new tech, and then dumbing it down by introducing something cheaper and, by and large, inferior.
Cinerama was a non-starter for practical reasons, but CinemaScope was a perfectly viable alternative, until the introduction of Techniscope in the early 60's. The 2-perf format was still acceptable, and it was used alongside anamorphic for a long time, until the introduction of Super 35 in the early 80's (actually, not a 'new' format at all - it had started life as Superscope in the 1950's, but presumably poor film stocks resulted in less-than-satisfactory prints, leading to its quick exit from the marketplace). Super 35 was bad enough, helping to kill the art of composition altogether, now replaced by a point-and-shoot style that is indistinguishable from TV. But it's since been replaced by HD video, which is even worse. 65mm origination was hailed as the bright new wonder of the 1950's and 60's, but was quickly replaced by 70mm blow-ups from 35mm origination. Still bigger and brighter than 'regular' 35mm presentations, but hardly better. Just cheaper. And so it goes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2648 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 182
|
Hollywood didn't introduce IMAX, which has been around since the early 70s. I saw my first IMAX films in the late 80s, while on Interrail holidays in Europe.
Techniscope lasted about a decade (60s-70s) and it was often thought of as something of a poor man's Scope. There's a review by Roger Ebert of a late 60s Techniscope feature in which he asks why a major studio is being so cheap.Mind you, shooting in 2-perf has come back. I saw a film yesterday which even says TechniScope (so spelled) in the end credits - the Brazilian film NEIGHBOURING SOUNDS, out on DVD this week. 65mm shooting wasn't replaced by blowups from 35mm - they overlapped by a decade or so. The first blowups were TARAS BULBA and THE CARDINAL in 1963, and 65mm features go up to 1970 - RYAN'S DAUGHTER, PATTON and others. There have been sporadic attempts to revive it, most recently THE MASTER last year. I wish they would do more - if the number of cinemas that can show 70mm is limited, 65mm negative would look really good printed in IMAX! I also don't agree that Super 35 has killed the art of composition - that's down to individual directors and DPs. I've recently seen two films shot in Super 35 that make full use of the wide screen - the Romanian films 4 WEEKS, 3 MONTHS AND 2 DAYS and BEYOND THE HILLS, both directed by Cristian Mungiu, I do agree that a lot of S35 films are shoddily composed. But then a lot of anamorphic-shot films aren't any better. I've seen far too many that are obviously designed to be cropped to 4:3, more or less blatantly. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2649 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,278
|
Quote:
Hollywood didn't introduce IMAX, which has been around since the early 70s.
Quote:
Techniscope lasted about a decade (60s-70s) and it was often thought of as something of a poor man's Scope.
Quote:
65mm shooting wasn't replaced by blowups from 35mm - they overlapped by a decade or so.
Quote:
There have been sporadic attempts to revive it, most recently THE MASTER last year. I wish they would do more - if the number of cinemas that can show 70mm is limited, 65mm negative would look really good printed in IMAX!
Quote:
I also don't agree that Super 35 has killed the art of composition - that's down to individual directors and DPs.
You're right to say it's down to individual directors and DP's, but when you have a format which is essentially 4:3, and when most DP's use it to frame for a variety of ratios, and when most of the work-in-progress is viewed primarily on a TV monitor and isn't seen on a big screen until the latter stages of post-production, it's inevitable you're going to end up with a product that is compositionally compromised all the way down the line. S35 isn't solely responsible for this state of affairs, but it certainly hasn't helped! The difference between virtually any scope movie of the 50's, 60's and 70's when compared to the majority of those produced these days is vast and inarguable.Quote:
I do agree that a lot of S35 films are shoddily composed. But then a lot of anamorphic-shot films aren't any better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2650 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: south west
Posts: 9,914
|
Quote:
I agree with you there. But that's because they're produced in exactly the same way as I described for S35 movies, the only difference being that the image on the frame is fixed from the outset. However, the DP's viewfinder is usually marked in such a way as to 'protect' for 1.78:1 or 1.33:1, so all the essential info is herded into the centre of the frame. Which begs the question of why they bother shooting in scope in the first place, since the markings on the viewfinder render it worthless anyway. They're basically shooting 1.78:1 or 1.33:1, with a bit of extra leg-room at either side, nothing more.
It should be set out in broadcasting standards and in cinematographer standards, that what ever format is used it should not be shot as safe for another format! Also when a film is transferred to DVD/Buray release, there should be a standard that says it has to be done in OAR! Also that when a master is delivered to a broadcaster for TV release, that it has to be done in OAR and that the broadcaster is NOT allowed to change the composition, meaning the broadcasters have no choice but to broadcast all new releases in OAR! Also that they have to go back to what they received in the matsers of all previous releases. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:18.





You're right to say it's down to individual directors and DP's, but when you have a format which is essentially 4:3, and when most DP's use it to frame for a variety of ratios, and when most of the work-in-progress is viewed primarily on a TV monitor and isn't seen on a big screen until the latter stages of post-production, it's inevitable you're going to end up with a product that is compositionally compromised all the way down the line. S35 isn't solely responsible for this state of affairs, but it certainly hasn't helped! The difference between virtually any scope movie of the 50's, 60's and 70's when compared to the majority of those produced these days is vast and inarguable.