Thursday, January 23, 2003
Widescreen: when more is sometimes less
1. 35mm camera, spherical lens (non-squeezed) photography for theatrical presentation. (Sound area blocked) (Figure 1).
Just a heads-up for those who believe that widescreen transfers reveal more of the movie than full-screen versions: it isn't always so. There are actually two main types of widescreen: flat (1.85:1 or 1.66:1 for European screens) and anamorphic (2.35 or 2.40:1). When movies are filmed "flat" using regular spherical lenses, a widescreen aspect ratio is achieved by vertically masking the full-screen Academy frame during projection, thereby hiding approximately 27% of the original image on the print. Most movies are made this way, Annie Hall being a good example. Notice how the widescreen DVD cuts off the Manhattan skyline and the principles' legs compared to the full-screen version:
The ASC Manual describes this process in the first couple of pages as follows:
The ANSI standard calls for cameras for nonanamorphic photography to be equipped with an aperture of 0.864" by 0.630" minimum. Many cameras, however, are equipped with apertures which will cover the area required for anamorphic images as well, and it is occasional practice to use a "hard matte" to limit the area in the vertical dimension to the wide screen format desired by the director. It should be understood, of course, that while the use of a hard matte insures correct framing in the theatre, it also limits the future use of the image for television releases in 1.33:1 aspect ratio....
Other films are shot using the anamorphic process which employs special lenses that horizontally squeeze an extremely widescreen image onto the regular full-screen Academy frame. These movies achieve an aspect ratio of either 2.35 or 2.40:1 (depending on whether regular or Super35 is used) without using masking. Therefore, when full-screen transfers are made, the image must be horizontally lobbed off to accomodate the stouter aspect ratio. In Tootsie, notice how the cooks in the kitchen were killed by the pan-and-scan:
The ASC Handbook spells this process out in greater detail:
4. 35mm Camera, 2:1 anamorphic lens (squeezed) photography for theatrical presentation. (Panavision and Todd-AO 35) (Figure 3)
A. 35mm contact or 1:1 prints.
For this system, cameras are equipped with anamorphic lens attachements which compress the image horizontally in a 2 to 1 ratio, resulting in a lens field twice as wide as would otherwise be photographed with lenses of equal focal length. Prints from negatives photographed in this system must be projected in the theatre with anamorphic lenses. At least in the United States, for all practical purposes, all theatres are so equipped.
Because of the aspect ratio and the anamorphic squeeze, direct prints from this system cannot be run on television. In most instances a 1.33:1 aspect ratio extraction from the center of the screen loses significant action. It is therefore necessary to "scan" the image to follow major action in the preparation of a duplicate negative from which television prints may be made. The accompanying diagram shows this transition. A number of optical houses are prepared to supply this type of duplicate negative, either in 35mm or 16mm. (Figure 4)
And don't go looking for a widescreen version of Full Metal Jacket, or many of Stanley Kubrick's other films. They don't exist. Even though he would agree to exhibit his pictures in the standard 1.85:1 theatrical aspect ratio, he loathed the format and demanded that all subsequent video releases (with a couple of exceptions) show the full-screen Academy image as he composed it. Kubrick's longtime associate Leon Vitali summarized those reasons in an a recent interview:
The important thing to know about Stanley, is that he wanted all of his films shown on video - anything that wasn't a theatrical presentation - in the original camera ratio that he shot it in. He wanted you to see the films exactly as he saw them when he looked through the camera lens and composed them on set. He was no fan of 1.85, because he felt that you were losing part of the image he composed.
What's interesting in all this is that I've found that many "flat" films look substantially better in their full-screen format, perhaps becuase the cinematographer is subconsciously framing for the full Academy frame even when he knows that it will be masked down during projection. As an aspiring indie filmmaker, I've found the same rule to hold for shots I've consciously composed on 16mm for widescreen. When viewing the footage afterwards, the image looks fine with the letterbox masking, but opens up nicely without it.
When watching anamorphic widescreen movies, however, I think you absolutely need a widescreen transfer in order to preserve any semblance of artistic cinematography (let alone plot and character information). In this case, letterboxing truly gives you more than full-screen.
I used to be a widescreen DVD nazi but have since softened as I've learned more about the way movies are made. It's amazing how dangerous a little bit of knowledge can be, how an incomplete set of facts can represent a nightmarish minefield between sheer ignorance and nuanced understanding. As a citizen occupying that middle ground of knowledge, I've oftentimes made incorrect assumptions that led to intensely-held positions. And all for nothing. Goddamn pseudo-expertise in all its incarnations!
But I know better now. I now know to consider each film on a case-by-case basis before making a judgement call on the prefered exhibition format. When I watch flat films, such as Annie Hall or Vanya on 42nd Street, I like to use the full-screen editions. When I watch anamorphic films like Tootsie or American Beauty, I prefer the widescreen transfers. As in any complicated system, no hard and fast rule applies to everything; the correct answer to most questions is that it all depends.
posted 11:39 PM
Comments:
Post a Comment