[ScoJo]

Fyi -

Just looked this up/checked for info on Deakins forum. Yes, seems BR was shot with preference of 2.35:1 ratio ('Scope, as was '82 film) then reformatted to 1.90:1 for Imax (more visual info top/bottom, cropped in at the sides). And RD's stated preference is 2D 'Scope framing. I guess with 4k digital image capture, there is more opportunity than ever to 'overframe' the shooting of a movie then crop to the desired aspect ratio in post, without significant issues/quality loss. This happened back in the days of film with the Super 35 format, popular with James Cameron and Scorcese amongst others - before widescreen tv became the standard. It meant they would shoot the movie 'open frame' using the whole of the 35mm film frame (1.37:1 - basically a square image) for eventual tv transmission, but DP would also frame compositions to work at 2.35:1, a letterbox matte added for cinema projection.

DP's preference is good enough for me in the case of BR, will stick with standard 2D on the biggest 4k screen I can find for my next viewing :)

[deafmetal]

@ScoJo - Great analysis, thank you. I would also like to see it in 2.35:1 cinemascope framing. While the IMAX presentation was insanely large, it always feels like a somewhat different experience. That said, I had a perfect seat and the sound was unbelievably good. I haven't really stopped thinking about the film yet!

If anybody else is interested: https://www.rogerdeakins.com/film-talk/ ... -2d-or-3d/

[ScoJo]

@deaf -

You're welcome, sir. Tbh, I will bollock on about aspect ratios with the slightest provocation!! Old projectionists die hard heh heh

[Mateo Sanboval]

I saw it in 2D 4K on first viewing and am going to go watch it in 2D IMAX in a couple of hours. I wanted to see it in scope before IMAX, but now I'm looking forward to this new experience. And to seeing the film again.

[ScoJo]

I saw it in 2D 4K on first viewing and am going to go watch it in 2D IMAX in a couple of hours. I wanted to see it in scope before IMAX, but now I'm looking forward to this new experience. And to seeing the film again.

Wish I could join you mucker, I'm going to try for Round 2 tomorrow evening......

[deafmetal]

Tbh, I will bollock on about aspect ratios with the slightest provocation!! Old projectionists die hard heh heh

Did Kubrick really prefer 1.66:1 since he was a photographer? ;)

[ScoJo]

Tbh, I will bollock on about aspect ratios with the slightest provocation!! Old projectionists die hard heh heh

Did Kubrick really prefer 1.66:1 since he was a photographer? ;)

The general consensus is that he preferred 1.37:1 as a projection ratio, although it's not quite that straightforward. Most conversations about Kubrick's preferred AR are in relation to home video editions - and that's a whole can of worms, since his films were being released at different times to TV/home video, when the standards for transmission/television technology changed a lot. I have always read it that

A. Kubrick was a photographer, with a taste for centred framing (which is more elegant in a 'squarer' rather than more rectangular ratio- think about classical painting/perspective/frame shape, as well as photography...)

B. He was highly technically minded, and had a keen interest in and awareness of shifts in film and television technology. Widescreen TVs and letterboxed/Anamorphic home video versions were only really a reality by the time of his final film...

C. His last three films were shot 'open matte' spherical (flat), meaning that the aspect ratio is decided by either the projector masking or letterboxing for television broadcast/home video. (Exceptions being Spartacus which was Cinemascope and 2001 which was Cinerama.) It seems very likely that his preferred framing for these was 1.37:1, but if they were to be screened 'widescreen' he then preferred 1:66.1, and finally 1.85:1. Interestingly, the latter was and is the US widescreen standard, whilst 1.66:1 is more commonly considered to be 'European' widescreen.

[ScoJo]

Tbh, I will bollock on about aspect ratios with the slightest provocation!! Old projectionists die hard heh heh

Did Kubrick really prefer 1.66:1 since he was a photographer? ;)

The general consensus is that he preferred 1.37:1 as a projection ratio, although it's not quite that straightforward. Most conversations about Kubrick's preferred AR are in relation to home video editions - and that's a whole can of worms, since his films were being released at different times to TV/home video, when the standards for transmission/television technology changed a lot. I have always read it that

A. Kubrick was a photographer, with a taste for centred framing (which is more elegant in a 'squarer' rather than more rectangular ratio- think about classical painting/perspective/frame shape, as well as photography...)

B. He was highly technically minded, and had a keen interest in and awareness of shifts in film and television technology. Widescreen TVs and letterboxed/Anamorphic home video versions were only really a reality by the time of his final film...

C. His last three films were shot 'open matte' spherical (flat), meaning that the aspect ratio is decided by either the projector masking or letterboxing for television broadcast/home video. (Exceptions being Spartacus which was Super Technirama and 2001 which was Cinerama.) It seems very likely that his preferred framing for these was 1.37:1, but if they were to be screened 'widescreen' he then preferred 1:66.1, and finally 1.85:1. Interestingly, the latter was and is the US widescreen standard, whilst 1.66:1 is more commonly considered to be 'European' widescreen.

See......'slightest provocation'...(sigh)

I'll get my coat.

[Mateo Sanboval]

I've read ScoJ's "Number C" about Kubrick before as well and seen it in a documentary somewhere. I cannot for the life of me remember where it was, but they had a great, detailed diagram that Kubrick made for projectionists on how to frame his film depending on the format.

PS - Now that I am thinking about this, Lynch had a great note to projectionists shipped with every print of Mulholland Drive, I believe. I'll try to dig those up when I am off my mobile.

[NathanLurker]

What a bunch of Nerds !
;)

[deafmetal]

@ScoJo - Knowledgeable as ever, thank you, and I believe I meant to type 1.37:1. I have heard quite a few different claims, but I was not sure how reliable Vitali's stories are. I find it all to be very interesting. I guess the real question is what masking did you project his last three films at? ;)

[ScoJo]

I've read ScoJ's "Number C" about Kubrick before as well and seen it in a documentary somewhere. I cannot for the life of me remember where it was, but they had a great, detailed diagram that Kubrick made for projectionists on how to frame his film depending on the format.

PS - Now that I am thinking about this, Lynch had a great note to projectionists shipped with every print of Mulholland Drive, I believe. I'll try to dig those up when I am off my mobile.

Dude! That's so weird....I actually have that fax (yep, fax!) around here somewhere in my files - from when I screened it back then. It asks projectionists to 'rack' the image with slightly more headroom than usual, and turn up the sound +3db if I recall :) Love to know where you saw that - unless you're another covert projectionist??

[Mateo Sanboval]

That's the one! I was good pals with a projectionist in my youth when we both worked for different arms of an indie theater/movie rental business. I'm sure that's where I cull most of my useless film tidbits from. Pleasantly surprised that my memory of this one was mostly correct.

[Hatter313]

oh man, I miss working at movie theaters. I was also very briefly a projectionist at a small indie theater, but most of my time in theaters was as an usher or concessions. it was all my friends working at various theaters across the country for about 5-10 years altogether. great times.

[static14]

[Mateo Sanboval]

Getting right after it today aren't we?

[static14]

@mateo why wait? :)

[Mateo Sanboval]

@mateo why wait? :)

Why indeed. As you were.

[static14]

On to Part VII

[ScoJo]

Ever the rebel (Dottie), now watching...

F.jpg (427.89 KiB) Viewed 3024 times

(Though to be perfectly honest, I'll probably bail at some point and switch over to the awesome Student Bodies ;)

[static14]

[static14]

Back down to 4

[ScoJo]

Back down to 4

Wait...Chris....

Is this the 'Machete' order??

[static14]

@scojo Oh, no. Just kinda playing em in whatever order strikes my fancy.

[Hatter313]

i was thinking about doing that this year for Halloween. Thinking the last week of the month will look something like this:

H3, H1, H2, H20, H1, H1, H3, H4, H5, H6 for half an hour in the middle there, H Resurrection for 10 minutes so I can grumble about Laurie, H1, H3, H20, Look at the cases of the RZ ones for 30 seconds...H1 again.