Originally Posted by Braindead2011:
“Tamara Drewe - The film actually played quite well in a compromised crop.”
What this really suggests is that the film was shot for 2.39:1 and 'protected for TV', a compromise of all possible ratios. In other words, everything that is wrong with modern 'scope' films.
Originally Posted by Braindead2011:
“Tamara Drewe, Nativity and The Young Victoria all received funding from the BBC and the films were probably shot for a 16:9 format and the directors had the option to present the films 21:9 for theatrical screenings.”
NATIVITY! was 1.85:1 from the outset, so it's separate from the issue, but I take your point about the others. Yes, the other films were 'cropscreen', but the
definitive print is supposedly the 2.39:1 version. The fact that no one can tell the difference between the scope print and the 16:9 alternative is symptomatic of modern filmmaking, but the scope version is still definitive. Not that you're arguing to the contrary, of course.
Originally Posted by Braindead2011:
“I suspect that was the same shooting format for Joyeux Noel.”
The cropscreen shooting format is indicated by the lack of a photographic process next to the title in my weekly listing.
Originally Posted by Braindead2011:
“With modern films it is best to check the credits to see who helped fund the films , and with european titles a lot of them get money from network stations who pre-buy the rights before production even starts. That saves the networks having to buy the rights and probably paying more for them as a percenage of the box office.”
All this is true, but remember that much of mainland Europe has been screening films at OAR for many years, long before the UK started to do the same. Even in the days of 4:3 TV's, it was letterboxed CinemaScope (nearly) all the way, so the source of a film's funding has no bearing on how it's composed. In the case of the aforementioned films, if the BBC was involved in their production, then a 2.39:1 letterboxed print would have been readily available for HD broadcast, and they deliberately opted for a 16:9 compromise.
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“It was open-matte, not cropped, so you're wrong.”
To be fair, very few cropscreen-scope films (whether 35mm or HD) can simply be 'opened up' from start to finish, even those which don't feature a wealth of digital effects. The technician will simply take the entire photographed image and select the most appropriate part of the frame on a shot-by-shot basis, using a 16:9 'template'. This may involve some pan-scanning (up and down, as well as side to side), but not so you'd notice. It's still 'cropped', but not in the way an anamorphic 35mm image is 'cropped' to fit the 16:9 frame. In essence, you're
both right!!