Re: Channel 10 "Gladiator" - did I miss something...

[David Snoddy]

Nope. You didn't miss anything. It was 4:3

Unbelievable -- the Director's Cut of Gladiator,
transmitted in 4:3.

I watched past the credits to see if the picture then
zoomed to 16:9 -- it didn't.

[WKC]

The directors cut is diffrerent again to the dvd isn't it? Although they
added a different scene to the dvd release as well.

WKC.
"David Snoddy" <snoddy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94909558DC838snoddyhotmailcom@61.9.191.5.. .
> Nope. You didn't miss anything. It was 4:3
>
> Unbelievable -- the Director's Cut of Gladiator,
> transmitted in 4:3.
>
> I watched past the credits to see if the picture then
> zoomed to 16:9 -- it didn't.
>

[BenOne©]

WKC wrote:
> The directors cut is diffrerent again to the dvd isn't it? Although they
> added a different scene to the dvd release as well.
>

I imagine directors cutting doesn't usually involve slicing the sides of a
perfectly good looking 16:9 or 2.35:1 movie.

--
--
Ben Thomas
Melbourne, Australia

[Gronk221]

"dcm" <dcmoyle@removethisword.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:402eddb6$0$4259$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> Tiring of DVD's I scanned across the digital TV channels on Saturday night
> and discovered "Gladiator" on channel 10.
>
> It was in narrow-screen (4:3) with simple stereo audio...
>
> Am I missing something? Tell me there was something I should have done to
> see a widescreen version? Tell me it was me and nobody would really chop
it
> up like that on a digital broadcast?
>
>
> dcm
>
>

Same with Tomb Raider, CH7, last night. They have got to be f%#king kidding
!

[WKC]

LOL.

WKC.
"BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:k9jo0c.ik5.ln@192.168.11.2...
> WKC wrote:
> > The directors cut is diffrerent again to the dvd isn't it? Although
they
> > added a different scene to the dvd release as well.
> >
>
> I imagine directors cutting doesn't usually involve slicing the sides of a
> perfectly good looking 16:9 or 2.35:1 movie.
>
> --
> --
> Ben Thomas
> Melbourne, Australia
>

[Weststate A/V Systems]

BenOne© wrote:
> WKC wrote:
>
>> The directors cut is diffrerent again to the dvd isn't it? Although they
>> added a different scene to the dvd release as well.
>>
>
> I imagine directors cutting doesn't usually involve slicing the sides of
> a perfectly good looking 16:9 or 2.35:1 movie.



On flicking past this well known movie it sure looked all wrong on Ten
last night. Although technically because Ridley shot it in Super35 you
are not loosing side info, and in fact are gaining more info than the
2.35:1 theatre release.

Still looks bloody terrible from a cinematic point of view, especially
since a cinemascope aspect ratio just suits the content better. Ridley
Scott also used and shot Black Hawk Down with Super35 which would in my
opinion suffer greatly from a visual point of view in anything other
than 2.35:1




Colin
www.hsuresearch.com.au

[Phil Sweeney]

Gronk221 wrote:
> Same with Tomb Raider, CH7, last night. They have got to be f%#king kidding

You were watching channel 4:3 and were surprised something wasn't
widescreen? :)

Phil

[Richard]

"Weststate A/V Systems" <WAVS@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4030266b$0$1729$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
>
>
> BenOne© wrote:
> > WKC wrote:
> >
> >> The directors cut is diffrerent again to the dvd isn't it? Although
they
> >> added a different scene to the dvd release as well.
> >>
> >
> > I imagine directors cutting doesn't usually involve slicing the sides of
> > a perfectly good looking 16:9 or 2.35:1 movie.
>
>
>
> On flicking past this well known movie it sure looked all wrong on Ten
> last night. Although technically because Ridley shot it in Super35 you
> are not loosing side info, and in fact are gaining more info than the
> 2.35:1 theatre release.
>

I don't understand this last paragraph - I've always believed and am damn
certain I've seen comparisons - that Super35/2.35 etc shows more on the
sides than 4:3.

It was my understanding that you see more on the top and bottom when viewing
it in 4:3 but the sides are actually cut off?

Richard

[Weststate A/V Systems]

Richard wrote:
> I don't understand this last paragraph - I've always believed and am damn
> certain I've seen comparisons - that Super35/2.35 etc shows more on the
> sides than 4:3.
>
> It was my understanding that you see more on the top and bottom when viewing
> it in 4:3 but the sides are actually cut off?
>
> Richard


You are correct - you do see more of the top and bottom of the original
negative. Remember however that filming a movie in Super 35 just gives
you lots more filmed image on the negative beyond your composed frame.
Just because its filmed to a bigger negative doesn't mean you where
meant to see it - they cover their ass with the large frame.

This means that Super 35 is just like open matte filming, in that it
involves matting out the top and bottom of the frame for the theatre
release, and then removing the mattes for the home video release. Movies
made in Super35 are transferred to video with the top and bottom of the
frame restored, so that you actually see more of the picture on video
than you did in the theatre.

I have always found it a conflict of interests for many directors as the
markets of theatrical and video are vastly different. This is why you
find certain directors such James Cameron through the on the spot
compromise of Super35 preferring the 4:3 versions (which seems strange
to widescreen fans) but he is shooting with video firmly in his mind,
just as much (if not more so) that the theatrical 2.35:1 frame.

I doubt there are many movie fans who do not prefer the 2.35:1
theatrical release over the 4;3 video release, even if you are seeing
more of what the director intended. At least with Cinemascope,
Panavision and ToddAO you know that the director intended widescreen and
did not have his mind on square video type vision - LOL.



Colin
www.hsuresearch.com.au

[Byron John Forbes]

"Weststate A/V Systems" <WAVS@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4031980a$0$22502$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net. au...

> This means that Super 35 is just like open matte filming, in that it
> involves matting out the top and bottom of the frame for the theatre
> release, and then removing the mattes for the home video release. Movies
> made in Super35 are transferred to video with the top and bottom of the
> frame restored, so that you actually see more of the picture on video
> than you did in the theatre.
>

You're trying to tell me that if they cut down a 7:3 image to 4:3, I see
more on the 4:3 because the added bits on the top and bottom comprise a
greater area than what's snipped off on the sides? I find that VERY hard to
believe. I would have thought there'd be a lot of blowing up/magnifying
going on.

[Weststate A/V Systems]

Byron John Forbes wrote:
> You're trying to tell me that if they cut down a 7:3 image to 4:3, I see
> more on the 4:3 because the added bits on the top and bottom comprise a
> greater area than what's snipped off on the sides? I find that VERY hard to
> believe. I would have thought there'd be a lot of blowing up/magnifying
> going on.



No.
They would be crazy to loose that much rez. Although in saying that
there are always exceptions, or at least "part exceptions".

Look at the 5th Element which was shot in Super35. Luc Besson, elected
not to take full advantage of the Super35 format because he did not use
the full negative. He actually hard matted the film at it's theatrical
2.35 to 1 aspect ratio, using only the centre widescreen image for the
final film and video releases.

According to discussions that I have read, they tried hard talking Luc
into doing it at 1.66:1, but for artistic reasons he choose 2.35:1.
Besson was very used to shooting anamorphic, but of course this presents
the typical production - special effects drama of shooting anamorphic.

A 35mm film is actually a 1.37:1 aspect ratio. A Super35 is a 35 mm
without the optical soundtrack. So a Super35 actually has about a 1.60:1
aspect ratio. Obviously doing the math a 1.60:1 original ratio is closer
to 1.33:1 than it is to 2.35:1, so it stands to reason that with all
things being equal, the 1.33:1 frame will have more of the original frame.

They basically extract a 2.35:1 frame for theatre viewing from the
1.60:1 negative, which is a little bit like doing a soft matte. So not
all of the picture information that is in the original negative is seen
in theatres. Now when they do a 1.33:1 (4:3) version on VHS, DVD or TV
(from Super35) they still use the original 1.60:1 negative, and so you
end up with much more top and bottom. Depending on how the 2.35:1
theatre image was extracted depends on what other parts of the original
frame "that you see" or "do not see".

It's not really added information, because it is information that's is
in the 1.60:1 frame, which the director takes into account when viewing
the image in his daily production. It does however depend on how it is
matted, as it is a trade off between the production and special effects,
so it can be a little more difficult and involved than just using one
method. Sometimes you will see more only at the bottom. Sometimes you
will see more at the top and bottom. It all depends on how the 2.35:1
theatre image was extracted.

Here are some examples.
http://hsvmovies.com/static_subpages/formats/super35_format.html

James Cameron has often said that he prefers many of his 4:3 releases
over the widescreen versions. So that tells me pretty clearly that he is
framing more for 1.33:1 and compromising a little on the 2.35:1 image.

Yet he has done many cinematic/special effects driven films like the
Abyss, Terminator 2, True Lies and Titanic. All of which where filmed in
Super35. For me I do not like Super35 or the theory behind why they
choose it. I hope with 1.78:1 DTV becoming stronger "world-wide" that we
will eventually see in the not to distant future, the end of having to
deal with square vision.

Other films where you can see Super35 and its framing are:
Reservoir Dogs, American Beauty, Crouching Tiger, Apollo 13, Ocean's
Eleven, Gladiator, Fight Club, Dogma, Legally Blonde, Tomb Raider,
Training Day, Seven, The Usual Suspects, Panic Room, Top Gun, Black Hawk
Down, The Fast and the Furious.




Colin
www.hsuresearch.com.au

[Byron John Forbes]

Well ya learn something every day. I thought it was all filmed in 2.35:1
and 16:9, 4:3 was just "blown up" from that. Thanks for the lesson :) Seems
it's actually the exact opposite of what most probably think. Mind you, I've
seen the networks blow plenty of WS stuff up to 4:3.

Now the question is, why broadcast WS Digital? Why not just keep it all
4:3 and let peoples TVs crop it as they like?

"Weststate A/V Systems" <WAVS@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4032ef60$0$22530$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net. au...
>
>
> Byron John Forbes wrote:
> > You're trying to tell me that if they cut down a 7:3 image to 4:3, I
see
> > more on the 4:3 because the added bits on the top and bottom comprise a
> > greater area than what's snipped off on the sides? I find that VERY hard
to
> > believe. I would have thought there'd be a lot of blowing up/magnifying
> > going on.
>
>
>
> No.
> They would be crazy to loose that much rez. Although in saying that
> there are always exceptions, or at least "part exceptions".
>
> Look at the 5th Element which was shot in Super35. Luc Besson, elected
> not to take full advantage of the Super35 format because he did not use
> the full negative. He actually hard matted the film at it's theatrical
> 2.35 to 1 aspect ratio, using only the centre widescreen image for the
> final film and video releases.
>
> According to discussions that I have read, they tried hard talking Luc
> into doing it at 1.66:1, but for artistic reasons he choose 2.35:1.
> Besson was very used to shooting anamorphic, but of course this presents
> the typical production - special effects drama of shooting anamorphic.
>
> A 35mm film is actually a 1.37:1 aspect ratio. A Super35 is a 35 mm
> without the optical soundtrack. So a Super35 actually has about a 1.60:1
> aspect ratio. Obviously doing the math a 1.60:1 original ratio is closer
> to 1.33:1 than it is to 2.35:1, so it stands to reason that with all
> things being equal, the 1.33:1 frame will have more of the original frame.
>
> They basically extract a 2.35:1 frame for theatre viewing from the
> 1.60:1 negative, which is a little bit like doing a soft matte. So not
> all of the picture information that is in the original negative is seen
> in theatres. Now when they do a 1.33:1 (4:3) version on VHS, DVD or TV
> (from Super35) they still use the original 1.60:1 negative, and so you
> end up with much more top and bottom. Depending on how the 2.35:1
> theatre image was extracted depends on what other parts of the original
> frame "that you see" or "do not see".
>
> It's not really added information, because it is information that's is
> in the 1.60:1 frame, which the director takes into account when viewing
> the image in his daily production. It does however depend on how it is
> matted, as it is a trade off between the production and special effects,
> so it can be a little more difficult and involved than just using one
> method. Sometimes you will see more only at the bottom. Sometimes you
> will see more at the top and bottom. It all depends on how the 2.35:1
> theatre image was extracted.
>
> Here are some examples.
> http://hsvmovies.com/static_subpages/formats/super35_format.html
>
> James Cameron has often said that he prefers many of his 4:3 releases
> over the widescreen versions. So that tells me pretty clearly that he is
> framing more for 1.33:1 and compromising a little on the 2.35:1 image.
>
> Yet he has done many cinematic/special effects driven films like the
> Abyss, Terminator 2, True Lies and Titanic. All of which where filmed in
> Super35. For me I do not like Super35 or the theory behind why they
> choose it. I hope with 1.78:1 DTV becoming stronger "world-wide" that we
> will eventually see in the not to distant future, the end of having to
> deal with square vision.
>
> Other films where you can see Super35 and its framing are:
> Reservoir Dogs, American Beauty, Crouching Tiger, Apollo 13, Ocean's
> Eleven, Gladiator, Fight Club, Dogma, Legally Blonde, Tomb Raider,
> Training Day, Seven, The Usual Suspects, Panic Room, Top Gun, Black Hawk
> Down, The Fast and the Furious.
>
>
>
>
> Colin
> www.hsuresearch.com.au
>

[Weststate A/V Systems]

Byron John Forbes wrote:

> Well ya learn something every day. I thought it was all filmed in 2.35:1
> and 16:9, 4:3 was just "blown up" from that. Thanks for the lesson :) Seems
> it's actually the exact opposite of what most probably think. Mind you, I've
> seen the networks blow plenty of WS stuff up to 4:3.
>
> Now the question is, why broadcast WS Digital? Why not just keep it all
> 4:3 and let peoples TVs crop it as they like?





Lots of reasons, but it seems that it's mainly because not all directors
like Super35 and its compromise and many still like shooting with scope.
Not to mention that the transition to 1.78:1 (16:9 in Tv speak) is a
world event that will eventually see the death of 4:3 (except for
archival footage). The reason why 1.78:1 (16:9) was chosen really was to
close the gap between 1.33:1 (4:3) and 2.25:1 (21:9) extremes. It just
happens that 1.78:1 sits right in the middle of these two commonly used
aspect ratio extremes. Aspect ratio choice and video vs film gets pretty
political, and you will get plenty of artistic intent arguments insuring
over why things work out the way they do.

Make no mistake we will still see plenty of cropping of the more film
favoured 2.35:1 movies when the film makes it onto our 1.78:1 screens.
The fact is that people just can not understand why their screens are
not full with image so tv execs will cut them and shut them to the
1.78:1 screen of Dtv. Cinema aspect ratios on foreign speaking films
seems to be respected in European movies unlike the more common
Hollywood fare that is more mainstream and under the mainstream pressure
of "why do I have the black bars" when I paid for a whole Tv. The 1.78:1
(16:9) screen will at least stop the full bastardisation of a scope film
when in makes it to broadcast Tv.





Colin
www.hsuresearch.com.au

[Richard]

"Weststate A/V Systems" <WAVS@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4031980a$0$22502$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net. au...
>
>
> You are correct - you do see more of the top and bottom of the original
> negative. Remember however that filming a movie in Super 35 just gives
> you lots more filmed image on the negative beyond your composed frame.
> Just because its filmed to a bigger negative doesn't mean you where
> meant to see it - they cover their ass with the large frame.
>
> This means that Super 35 is just like open matte filming, in that it
> involves matting out the top and bottom of the frame for the theatre
> release, and then removing the mattes for the home video release. Movies
> made in Super35 are transferred to video with the top and bottom of the
> frame restored, so that you actually see more of the picture on video
> than you did in the theatre.
>
> I have always found it a conflict of interests for many directors as the
> markets of theatrical and video are vastly different. This is why you
> find certain directors such James Cameron through the on the spot
> compromise of Super35 preferring the 4:3 versions (which seems strange
> to widescreen fans) but he is shooting with video firmly in his mind,
> just as much (if not more so) that the theatrical 2.35:1 frame.
>
> I doubt there are many movie fans who do not prefer the 2.35:1
> theatrical release over the 4;3 video release, even if you are seeing
> more of what the director intended. At least with Cinemascope,
> Panavision and ToddAO you know that the director intended widescreen and
> did not have his mind on square video type vision - LOL.
>
>
>
> Colin
> www.hsuresearch.com.au
>

I am still confused by this - it sounds like when it is shot in Super35 and
then transferred to video, you lose nothing at the sides but gain more at
the top and bottom, but I know this can't be right as I have compared
Super35 movies like T2 with the full-screen version and you get heaps more
on the sides.

Any comments?

Richard

[Byron John Forbes]

"Richard" <rakairnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:19bfbb3a70663b5a1e8022c788210143@news.teranew s.com...
>
> I am still confused by this - it sounds like when it is shot in Super35
and
> then transferred to video, you lose nothing at the sides but gain more at
> the top and bottom, but I know this can't be right as I have compared
> Super35 movies like T2 with the full-screen version and you get heaps more
> on the sides.
>

This is exactly what I've found every time I've compared - not that I've
done much comparing though.