OT: Harry Potter (was Re: Yet Another cabe Pretty Printer)

[Bill Vermillion]

On Fri, Jun 25 12:39 , Men gasped, women fainted, and small children 
were reduced to tears as Jay R. Ashworth confessed to all:" 

> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:14:08AM -0500, Ryan Powers wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:29:31AM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth said:
> > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:14:30AM -0400, Bill Vermillion wrote:
> > > > > I personally can't imagine the 35 to 90mm blowup is that impressive.
> > > > 
> > > > It was shot in Super35.

> > > Ah.  Haven't been reading AC as regularly as I used to...

> > > > But one reason for using horizontal IMAX is you don't
> > > > have the problems with the anamophic 35mm projection. You
> > > > lose more brightness and contrast when you stretch it out
> > > > and therefore by using IMAX you retain more contrast and
> > > > brightness, though you are still limited in resolution of
> > > > the original.

> > > So the optical printer doesn't have those problems when doing the
> > > anamorphic stretch?

> > It may be that theaters use cheaper anamorphic lenses. But you're
> > talking about widescreen shot on 35. Super35 is something very
> > different.

> > Instead of shooting for widescreen and using pan and scan for
> > television, the film is shot in 4:3 for television and masked off
> > for widescreen in the theaters. The director sets up the shot with
> > both formats in mind. James Cameron uses this format. 

> Hmmm...  Seems to me that that would be a *helluva* lot harder to
> protect for.  You effectively can't use the top and bottom at *all*,
> and it makes micing miserable as well, no?

And many things are shot for the 1.85:1 for theatre, but they open
the matte for those who insist on full-screen for the DVD release.
And the full-screen [open-matte] is often used in TV.  I've seen
more mikes at the top of shots in the past 15 years than I've seen
in any time prior to that.

But there aren't as many 'films' being made as there are 'action
movies' with a lot of CGI.  The film reviewer from Time was
commenting on this recently and that the 14 year old target
audience really doesn't care that much - it's the impact of the
moment - and they really have never had a chance to see any good
films - so they don't know any better.

It's just a big money making machine anymore.  You adverstise like
mad and hope you can get a lot of people in the theatre the first
weekend to make your cost back in case word of mouth comes out that
the film is not that good and the audience evaporates.

> > The downside is that you end up with lower resolution widescreen
> > and with the top and bottom chopped off. It would be pointless to
> > buy the widescreen version since you would be getting less of the
> > film instead of more which is unfortunate since widescreen is more
> > natural. In the future when everyone has widescreen televisions the
> > Super35 films will be seen as inferior.

> You're saying that instead of shooting 6-perf anamorphic, they shoot
> 8-perf spherical and mask?  Yeah, I guess you *would* lose some
> resolution that way.  Of course, film is much more impressive than it
> used to be, too...

Stock 35MM is 4 perf.   And Super35 is just wider - shooting out to
the edge and full frame.  I don't know who would be shooting
anything that is non-anamorphic.  

The only wide-screen formats that I can think of off-hand that shot
spherical was the Fox Grandeur - and that was shot on 4 perf 70MM
stock with stock lenses.  The Big Trail was shot with than and one
more.  But by the time those were ready to roll the depression that
started in 1929 was in full swing and theatres couldn't afford
to buy 70MM projectors.

The format was Techniscope - 35 mm - spherical with wide lens - 
and was a 2-perf format.  They stretched it veritcally to make the
printing negatives and then horizontally during projection.  That
cut the raw stock prices by 1/2.

Sergio Leone was a great user a Techniscope. It is amazing how good
his films look today.  The two classics "The Good, The Bad, and The
Ugly" and "Once Upon A Time In The West" were shot in Techniscope.

I've also heard - but can not verify - that with the 1.85:1 being
the most used, and the 16:9 TV format spreading widely, that some
places are using modified Pansonic cameras with a 3 perf pulldown
on super35 so that nothing goes to waste.  It's awkward as nothing
matches and stock editing equipment wont handle it.  But the 1/3
cost saving in film stock might make up for that.  OTOH if that is
the concern digital shooting may be more appropriate.


-- 
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com