They've shown it like this before so, at the risk of blowing my own trumpet, here are some comparisons that back up what you are saying. The opening sentence doesn't make sense because the post I was replying to got moderated, but the rest may be of interest to this thread. (You have to wait for both images to load before the mouseover works.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...mment_99843863

Apologies, mwardy, but my damn computer is still playing up, so the images you provided appear on-screen as red X's. I may have to try another browser, see if that makes a difference.

But you don't have to convince me of DePalma's mastery of the scope frame. Sadly, one of his most recent films (THE BLACK DAHLIA) was shot Super 35 and it was as visually flat and uninspiring as most films shot in that godawful process. Dunno what happened there, but it was a huge disappointment. The film itself wasn't much cop, either, but that's another story...

2.35:1 movies across the Freeview platform for the coming week (3 - 9 December):

Trying something a little bit different this week: Wherever a film was shot in a bona fide widescreen process (CinemaScope, Panavision, etc.), I'm including the name of that process. The vast majority of post-2000 movies were shot 'open-frame' on either 35mm or HD video, with the scope image framed off within the open space, which is more 'cropscreen' than 'widescreen'. Super 35 refers to a film gauge and is not (technically speaking) the name of a widescreen process, especially since it can be used to shoot at any ratio between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. Where a scope process is mentioned below, this refers to a genuine photographic format which requires cropping at either side of the image for 1.78:1 presentations on TV.

Let me know what you think! Should I make this a regular feature, or could you not give a toss?! All comments greatly appreciated.


Saturday (3 December)

• BEHIND ENEMY LINES (5 USA)
• CATWOMAN (ITV 2)
• CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN 2 (Film 4) [Panavision]
• THE DaVINCI CODE (5*)
• FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS (Dave)
• GHOSTBUSTERS II (C5) [Panavision]
• HOMBRE (Film 4) [Panavision]
• MAROONED (5 USA) [Panavision]
• THE MUMMY (ITV 1) [Panavision]
• NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN (ITV 4) [Panavision]
• SMALL SOLDIERS (ITV 1)
• TAKEN (C4)


Sunday (4 December)

• 23 PACES TO BAKER STREET (Film 4) [CinemaScope]
• AMITYVILLE 3-D (BBC 1) [ArriVision]
• THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (Film 4)
• DUPLICITY (ITV 2) [Panavision]
• EASY VIRTUE (BBC 2)
• ENTER THE DRAGON (ITV 4) [Panavision]
• EVER AFTER (E4)
• THE FIFTH ELEMENT [Le Cinquième Élément] (C5)
• THE GOLDEN COMPASS (C4)
• JOURNEY TO SHILOH (ITV 4) [Techniscope]
• McLINTOCK! (Film 4) [Panavision]
• PINEAPPLE EXPRESS (C5)
• X-MEN: THE LAST STAND (E4)
• xXx: THE NEXT LEVEL [xXx: State of the Union] (C5)


Monday (5 December)

• DUPLICITY (ITV 2) [Panavision]
• ENTRAPMENT (Film 4) [J-D-C Scope]
• NED KELLY (ITV 4)
• THE SEA CHASE (More 4) [CinemaScope (2.55:1)]
• THREE KINGS (ITV 2)
• WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S ROMEO & JULIET (Film 4) [Panavision]


Tuesday (6 December)

• THE ART OF WAR (5 USA)
• THE GREEN BERETS (Film 4) [Panavision]
• INSIDE MAN (ITV 2)
• THE INTERPRETER (ITV 1) [J-D-C Scope]
• THE OTHER MAN (BBC 1) [Panavision]
• THOSE MAGNIFICENT MEN IN THEIR FLYING MACHINES OR HOW I FLEW FROM LONDON TO PARIS IN 25 HOURS 11 MINUTES (Film 4) [Todd-AO (2.21:1)]
• TRANSFORMERS (Film 4) [Panavision]
• UNIVERSAL SOLDIER: REGENERATION (ITV 4)


Wednesday (7 December)

• BABYLON A.D. (Film 4)
• BEHIND ENEMY LINES (5 USA)
• CATCH-22 (ITV 4) [Panavision]
• DISCLOSURE (ITV 2) [Panavision]
• INSIDE JOB (BBC 2)
• McLINTOCK! (Film 4) [Panavision]
• NONE BUT THE BRAVE (Film 4) [Panavision]
• UNIVERSAL SOLDIER: REGENERATION (ITV 4)
• WARLOCK (C4) [CinemaScope]
• X-MEN: THE LAST STAND (E4)


Thursday (8 December)

• BIRTHDAY GIRL (Film 4)
• BLOOD ALLEY (More 4) [CinemaScope (2.55:1)]
• CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN 2 (Film 4) [Panavision]
• ENTER THE DRAGON [Panavision]
• HOMBRE (Film 4) [Panavision]
• MISS CONGENIALITY 2: ARMED & FABULOUS (ITV 2)


Friday (9 December)

• THE CLASS [Entre les Murs] (C4)
• COMANCHE STATION (More 4) [CinemaScope]
• THE COWBOYS (Film 4) [Panavision]
• DARK BLUE (5 USA)
• THE FOOTBALL FACTORY (Film 4)
• K-PAX (Film 4) [Panavision]
• THE LAKE HOUSE (BBC 1)
• THE LIFE OF DAVID GALE (ITV 3) [J-D-C Scope]
• LETHAL WEAPON 3 (ITV 4) [Panavision]
• THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES (ITV 1) [Panavision]
• STREET KINGS (Film 4)
• SUNSHINE (More 4) [Hawk Scope / Super 35]
• WINDTALKERS (C5)

Good idea.

Just as a slight nitpick, there are different variants of Super 35 - 4-perf, 3-perf and 2-perf. The last-named gives a native image of about 2.35:1 so will need to be cropped if shown in 1.78:1.

Recent films shot in 2-perf Super 35 include THE FIGHTER (which looked quite grainy to me, presumably intentionally). HUNGER was another. Doubling the amount of frames available on a reel of film enabled the makers of that film to shoot that 16-minute take, which is the longest shot in a 35mm feature.

The BBC1 are screening AMITYVILLE 3-D in 2D I presume! (its not much of a film in either dimension).

TCM are starting to slip a little with their films being shown in OAR.
Demolition Man, Tango and Cash and The Witches of Eastwick have been shown in cropped 16:9 version while Grease 2 has been shown in 4:3.

They've always been pretty good showing films in their OAR but it looks like their beginning to let their standards drop a little.

Anyone know when TCM HD is launching the UK? There were plans but nothing more has been said from what I can find.

I remember once seeing some of that version on ITV, during a dance scene in a bowling alley. At one point they all jump down to the floor as if to do press-ups. You saw the legs of one person and the head of another, rather than the whole of all of them!

Comments much appreciated!

You're right to point out the difference between variations of the Super 35 format, but there's such misunderstanding around this process. Bear with me, and I'll explain why (and apologies if all this info is already familiar to you:

As I mentioned in my previous posting, S35 refers to a film gauge and not (strictly speaking) a photographic process, since the image on the captured 35mm film is 1.37:1. The film's DP and director opts to frame within that ratio for whatever shape is required for theatrical release, whilst 'protecting' for a variety of others (this doesn't always happen, but mostly). For 'scope' films, this makes no difference whether the frame is 4-perf or 3-perf - a certain amount of cropping is always required, no matter which particular variation is employed. The equivalent is the way 1.85:1 spherical movies are captured in-camera - by framing at 1.85 within the 1.37 shape and then projecting the 1.37 image through a projector with an aperture that throws a 1.85 image onto a screen of the same dimensions (some filmmakers shoot with a hard matte that prints a 'letterbox' effect directly onto the negative, creating a definitive 1.85 frame, and the upper/lower mattes are hidden in projection, but the 'open frame' version is the more prevalent of the two options). The 1.85 process refers to a film gauge and not a photographic format, and the same is true of S35, whether used to create a 1.85 or 2.35 image.

As for the 2-perf option: Everything in the previous paragraph holds true (if, as you say, the camera employs a S35 gauge rather than the 'regular' Academy gauge - I don't recall off the top of my head). However, the fact that it is 2-perf means that it is a TRUE photographic process - Techniscope.

They may not call it Techniscope, and the Technicolor company may not allow production companies to credit any such process on-screen, but the 2-perf option renders it 'Techniscope' by default, because that's what it is. An Australian company provides a similar 2-perf option (modified cameras, etc.) under the trade name Multivision 235, but it's still the same process.

Bottom line: There is no such thing as '2-perf Super 35' - there is Techniscope, and nothing else.

I know, I know - it's a bleedin' complicated business, not least because Techniscope was also billed as Cromoscope throughout the 60's and 70's, whenever the print was handled by a company other than Technicolor (which created the process in the early 1960's). But 2-perf is a very specific process, and a true 'scope' format.

S35, by contrast, is a piece of shit that, along with various other factors (too many close-ups and fast-cut editing styles, for a start), has all but killed the art of widescreen composition. For this reason - and all the others noted above - I won't be listing films as S35, since it's a gauge rather than a photographic format. If there's no process listed beside any of the films mentioned in my weekly listings from now on, it means the film was simply cropped from one ratio to another, and wasn't photographed in a specific process.

Hope that clarifies!


I didn't mention 3-D after my listing for this particular film, since 3-D is already mentioned in the film's title, although I appreciate that only the most rabidly obsessive widescreen fanatics (ie. me) would know that 'ArriVision' is a bona fide 35mm widescreen 3-D process.

As for it not being "much of a film in either dimension" - quelle disagree (or whatever they say in France whenever they have an opposing viewpoint)! I have a copy of the film on DVD-R in the field sequential 3-D format, and the stereo compositions are miles ahead of much of the rubbish that passes for '3-D' in films today. That, and the proliferation of off-screen gags are tremendous fun. This was a film put together by people who really knew how to use 3-D in service of a narrative, unlike James Cameron, who seems to think he invented 3-D, and yet who seems content to make films in which the 3-D serves no purpose other than picture-postcard prettiness. I enjoyed AVATAR, for example, but when people pay a hefty surcharge at the box-office to see a 3-D movie, they want the 3-D to really engage them. AMITYVILLE 3-D did that for me, while AVATAR might just as well have been in 2-D for all the difference it made.

And in the immortal words of the late, great Mrs. Slocombe: I am unanimous in that!

'arryvision - 'top top' format, he's a great lad etc !

Channel 5 are showing The Fifth Element (again) in 2.35:1. I wonder if Pineapple Express and xXx2 will be shown the same courtesy?

Absolutely brilliant!

In theory at least, I'd disagree with you. As I've mentioned before, back in the 1980s just about every new anamorphic-Scope film from a major studio that I saw was designed to be cropped to 4:3 without losing anything vital, which too often meant a 4:3 composition with dead space to either side of it. So Super 35 enabled directors and DPs the means of composing across the whole width of the 2.35 frame without having to crop it, as you just increase the screen height for TV and video versions in 4:3.

Clearly there are problems with increased grain due to the additional optical-printing step in the process, though this is something that the use of digital intermediates has done away with. But those compositional possibilities are reasons why, I'd suggest, that many directors and DPs favour it. Martin Scorsese's Scope films are all Super 35 except for Cape Fear and Bringing Out the Dead, for example.

In practice you're right - too many Super 35 films are too heavy on close-ups. In some cases they get opened up to 1.78:1 for video and TV and look better that way.

Believe me, I could bore for England on the subject of 'Why S35 is so crap!' If they were here, my friends would ALL confirm it...


Quite so, but this became more of a problem toward the end of the 80's, rather than the beginning, because that's when VHS came to real prominence (ie. Hollywood embraced it as a major source of funding). The vast majority of films were cropped on that format, along with 'regular' TV presentations, so filmmakers gave up the ghost and either 'protected for TV' or shot films at 1.85, leading to a critical reduction in the number of scope films around this time. By 1990, the situation was genuinely serious, with scope films seemingly on the verge of extinction in English-language territories - and that's not exaggeration.


Here's where we part company. If the DP is looking through a viewfinder which is opened up to 1.37, and the director is looking at a teeny-tiny monitor which is similarly framed, with the 'scope' image marked off within that area, then they're looking at a square image and protecting for a variety of ratios. Unless you're concentrating specifically on the intended theatrical ratio, you compromise all ratios equally. Lateral composition becomes virtually impossible when you're as concerned with the impact of the image's height as well as it's width. Somewhere along the line, something has got to give - and that 'something' is almost always the sense of width in a widescreen composition, the very thing which is supposed to make it distinct from every other ratio.

In terms of literal widescreen composition, the results are almost always shockingly bad. Take a look at THE HAUNTING (1963) and DRESSED TO KILL (1980), and compare them with the so-called 'widescreen' compositions in even the very best S35 and HD films (and that includes anything by Martin Scorsese) - the difference is immediately apparent. In current films, you have to struggle to find anything even remotely resembling what film historian John Belton calls 'high scope', whereas it's blatantly obvious in any given scene of the two films I mentioned. If you'd like a more contemporary example of genuine lateral composition, there's THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU by Wes Anderson, a director whose work in 35mm anamorphic seems absolutely calculated to defy any kind of TV cropping at all (even when shown on TV at 1.78, the amount of pan-scanning is absolutely hilarious, and renders any such version wholly redundant).

The reason that virtually all English language 'cropscreen' films feature such loose compositional styles is because it plays better on TV. And if THAT is a major consideration during principal photography, then the idea of 'lateral composition' goes out the window before even a single frame of film has passed through the camera. That being the case, there's no reason for most of these movies to be any wider than 1.85, because if you aren't going to take advantage of the wider frame, then what purpose does it serve?

See. Told you I could bore for England on this subject, didn't I?


Sadly, too many anamorphic films also suffer from too many closeups and quick cuts, along with a great many 1.85 movies. The same is also true of many current 3-D films, because some filmmakers think the stereoscopic effect simply sells itself, and all they need to do is point the camera in the right direction and hope for the best. In fact, the only filmmaker to really use the 3-D effect in any kind of meaningful way in the 21st century, regardless of what you think of the films in question, is Paul W.S. Anderson. Believe it or not, RESIDENT EVIL: AFTERLIFE is one of the best examples of stereoscopic storytelling I've ever seen, and in terms of 3-D effect, it makes AVATAR look like 2-D by comparison. No kidding. I may lose the sympathy of some readers by saying that ("He had me until he compared Anderson with Cameron!", etc.), but I know good 3-D when I see it, and I stand by my statement.

Can't remember if I've seen Haunting, but I haven't seen DTK. However, I have seen The Life Aquatic and it looks wonderful in 2.35:1. I saw a bit of the 16:9 crop on BBC2 and it was bloody appalling!

About Resident Evil Afterlife, that's gone from my head in terms of the presentation, but I remember all the 3D aspects where they'd only paid attention to the 3D stuff and not how it would look in 2D.

And that's exactly how it should be!

The reason that RE:A works so well in 3-D, along with the likes of AMITYVILLE 3-D, is because the filmmakers clearly made an early decision to optimise the material for 3-D, and not to worry about how it would look in 2-D. And you know what? Anyone watching these movies in a 'flat' version simply won't see a difference, with the possible exception of the off-screen gags. But since those gags take up less than 1% of screen time in both of the aforementioned films, that hardly matters. They still work as dramatic narratives, regardless of how you view them.

Unlike AVATAR, which can be viewed in either 2-D or 3-D without any distinction, since Cameron made the decision up-front to ensure the film was optimised for both presentation formats, thereby compromising all of them. People who think the 3-D in this film is a 'good' example of its kind have clearly never seen the likes of HOUSE OF WAX or FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN in all their stereoscopic glory. AVATAR may have kick-started the 3-D revolution, but it falls short of what really good 3-D is supposed to look like.

Alongside HOUSE OF WAX, another example of stand-out 3-D is DIAL M FOR MURDER, and neither of these films have been available in 3-D to most viewers since the 1950's (both are in the works for 3-D Blu-ray in the US for 2012). See 'em flat and they're perfectly watchable - but see 'em in 3-D, and the effect is truly, truly remarkable. That's the nature (and beauty) of really good 3-D. Optimise for 'flat' versions from the outset, and you might as well save yourselves (and cinemagoers) a pot of money by shooting in 2-D from the start.

I thought it stood out a mile when things were thrown at the camera (well, were CGI'd to that effect), but I take your point.


I don't think I've asked this before on here, but why is the home version of Avatar in 16:9? Is it cropped or opened up? (I thought the latter unlikely as it's mostly CGI, but then again, that's how Independence Day was done)

The Other Man was on BBC ONE last night in 2.35:1.

Nice unintended (?) pun there, Mr. Fever.


The answer ties in with everything I've been saying about the current state of 'scope' films and 3-D.

Cameron shot the film at 1.85:1 (he believes, somewhat stupidly, that that's the 'best' ratio for 3-D - height being more immersive than width - whereas 2.39 is surely more immersive by virtue of its wider frame?), but he 'protected' for 2.39 and released two versions of the same picture. The fake 'scope' version went out to cinemas that could handle the wider frame, on the basis that many cinemas - particularly in the US - install a 'fixed-width' screen that either shrinks when a scope film is projected, or is simply cropped at either side. This is a major problem in modern cinemas, and one that Cameron took into account during production, to the artistic detriment of his own film (a personal opinion, that - not gospel).

The scope version of AVATAR was screened in cinemas with a 'fixed-height' screen that can open up at either side for 1.85 and 2.39 presentations, but the 1.85 version is 'definitive', and that's what went out on home video.

The fact that Cameron was able to do this illustrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that most modern 'scope' films are so malleable and open to other ratios that they are neither one thing or another. The results are quite horrible, and not truly representative of the true power of scope imagery at all.

By the way, on another topic altogether: The announcer before AMITYVILLE 3-D said the film was also being screened in HD, but it wasn't listed on the BBC HD channel, so I wonder if the announcer got it wrong? Where else would it be shown, simultaneous with the SD version, if not on the BBC HD channel?

.Amityville 3D looked as though the BBC had screened the film through a dirty window. It was screened in 1:85. On some service providers BBC One HD is now available.

Rambling thoughts.

With wide screen and Super 35 format, the majority of modern filmmakers have got lazy and just plonk the action on the screen surrounded by space to allow for variations in aspect ratio. Most films end up seen only on a television screen and never flicker on to a cinema screen and just seem ro be shot in scope for the sake of it. I would like to see more directors attempt to use their skills to tell a simple story in Academy format than letterbox. Go see "Hugo" and see how well those old black and white silent films look on the big screen.

Fritz Lang once said "Cinemascope — it's only good for snakes and funerals!", ok it was a comment made in a wide screen film called "Contempt"

I didn't catch The Interepter on ITV this week so do not know if it was screened in its propert aspect ratio or if it was cropped.

Director Sydney Pollack on the commentary for The Interpreter said he opted to use 2.35 for the first time since the 1980s because sections of the film allowed for the background to be used with the action to compress the storyline and allow for detail. ie whilst Sean Penn is the foreground doing his job in the background scenes of crime investigators could be seen doing their job.

Most 1980's 3-D films look this way when screened 'flat' on TV (check out JAWS 3-D whenever it's screened on ITV 4), probably due to a combination of the 35mm film stock they used and the manner in which the separate left-right 3-D images were captured (too technical and boring to go into here). Seen in the original stereo versions, however, they're quite eye-opening (literally!).


Amen to that, brother! Many people make the excuse that these things are seen by most people on TV, and that's a fair point. But with the advent of 16:9 TV's and HD (with Ultra-HD waiting in the wings, a format which will dominate home cinema systems within 10 - 20 years, featuring clarity and resolution equal not just to 35mm or 70mm, but full-res 15-perf IMAX!!), there's no need to compose for any ratio other than the original theatrical shape, since most people now see films on these wider, bigger screens.


Cropped, sadly.

Escape from Alcatraz on Channel 4 on Sunday was in HD but cropped to 16:9, 1.85:1 is OAR.

The difference between 16:9 (1.78:1) and 1.85:1 is so infinitesimally small that it really makes no difference. In most cases, the image is either slightly (very slightly!) reframed, or 'opened up at top and bottom in a way that makes no objective difference to the overall image.

If you saw a 1.85:1 movie screened in 35mm at two separate cinemas, the projectionists at either venue might frame it slightly differently, and you really wouldn't see it on-screen. It's the same with 16:9 'reframings' of 1.85:1 material.

Make no mistake - I'd prefer the original 1.85 framing, but it isn't really a deal-breaker for me if it's rejigged to 16:9. Other people will, of course, have their own views on this matter.

Yeah, it's just that C4 are the few that usually bother with 1.85:1 vs 16:9. Possibly not unconnected to the fact 1.85:1 version is only released that way in the US, the UK DVD is 1.78:1.

In answer to Libretio's point above, I did say "in theory". There's no reason why a director and DP shooting in Super 35 can't compose for 2.35:1 and just ignore the additional image height except maybe to ensure that lights and boom mikes stay out of shot. In practice, as you say, they try to cater for all outcomes you end up with a compromised composition.

I was going to mention Sydney Pollack as an example of the way "TV Scope" took hold in the 80s. (Libretio says the later 80s, but it was certainly there in the mid 80s too.) All of Pollack's films from his third, Castle Keep (1969) are in Scope up to Tootsie in 1982 - and Tootsie is a good example of 4:3 with the sides extended. Then he changes to 1.85:1 for Absence of Malice. Then Out of Africa. Big wide open vistas, epic romance...a natural for Scope, you'd think. But it's in 1.85:1. Pollack and his DP (David Watkin) are no longer around to ask, though there may be contemporary pieces in the likes of American Cinematographer possibly explaining why they did that.

As per Hugo, incidentally it's Scorsese's first feature (apart from documentaries obviously) in 1.85:1 rather than Scope since Goodfellas. It's also ironic that this valentine to pioneering filmmakers is Scorsese's first feature to be digitally captured rather than shot on film.

Suffice it to say that when you're watching Jaws 3 in 2D, you're watching an image that only took up half of the 35mm film frame (divided horizontally). It'll never have the resolution of an image captured across the full height of the frame. The over/under 3D lenses were nowhere near as good as a standard prime either.