Журнал Вадя Ротор
Блог Vadia Rotor

Журнал Вадя Ротор

I'm a Black Bar Hater!

неділя 25.11.2012 15:07



Це мій пост у темі http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?p=6789871#post6789871

Removing painted black bars to show extra picture is called open matte, and I love it!

http://www.avsforum.com/t/404077/the-matrix-hdtv-1080i-framed-at-1-78-1-open-matte-screen-shot

if a film was originally made in 2.35:1 or 2.2:1 or whatever, I don't mind the black bars

Цитата:
if it was framed for 2.35:1 you weren't MEAN'T to see that extra picture


I disagree. If we weren't meant to see the extra picture, they wouldn't make special effects on that extra picture, because spending money and time on that would be pointless. If they wanted us to see only the 2.35:1 stripe, they would make special effects (including expensive and time-consuming CGI) only on that part of picture, but they don't, they make them on the whole picture. See Matrix, T3, Underworld, Titanic and King Kong in 16:9, for example.

Once I even saw LOTR in 16:9, but to my pity, I didn’t pay attention to image formats back then, so I didn’t make a copy, but still, the fact is that the open matte 16:9 LOTR had special effects equally good on all its picture. Why else would they do it if not in order to show us?

Deciazulado, are you trying to teach me something about professional moviemaking after I actually wrote several articles about that stuff http://www.kinomusic.vadiarotor.tv/about_cinema.htm and I actually deal with it since I am a moviemaker? http://www.kinomusic.vadiarotor.tv/16-9.htm
well, thanks! that's so nice of you Smile

Цитата:
Everything that you see on an movie theater has ALWAYS extra image in the negative/camera image exposed that you shouldn't/wouldn't see. Everything


I'm sorry to disappoint you but you probably haven't heard anything about anamorphic 35mm movie formats like Panavision, or 2-perf 35mm movies, and you're unaware that if a film was made in these formats, the whole picture with no extra image is shown in cinema. Actually, most of cinema wide screens were made in the 2.35:1 format to expose the full 35mm anamorphic picture.

Also, there is a new theater/screen format called "Digital IMAX", the OAR of which is 1.89:1, and movies like Skyfall and Prometheus were shot in this AR, and the whole picture is shown in digital IMAX theaters (and soon a new movie shot in it comes out, the Hobbit). And if you look closer on the cropped 2.35:1 pictures of these movies you'll definitely notice that the picture was actually composed for 1.89:1 frame, and cropped to 2.35:1 it looks poor, in terms of composition. It's a matter of picture composition, and I doubt that my English is good enough to find the right words to explain it.

But the point is that if you see the whole picture, you get more of the atmosphere of the action, and since I realized it, I began to hate black bars and love open matte. But in case of anamorphic films I don't mind the picture being wide, because its composition is intact, opposite to Super35 movies.

Цитата:
Camera Aperture is not the Projector Aperture even in anamorphic photography.

Yes, but the difference is very little, almost negligible.

Цитата:

In my opinion, what you consider cropped, to me is the proper framed and tightly composed image

In case of anamorphic 35mm film, it's really tightly composed, and I love that framing. I myself use anamorphic optics often, and not only for shooting but also for my vlog (with my digital camera), and I adore it.

see the composition here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WjugLXL_Mk
or here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7W3O23pcjw
or here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmvMF7ugfwo

So if the composition is proper, I don't mind black bars on the screen.
But it's not the case of 35mm, Super35 or IMAX movies made with spherical lenses, because when the AR of picture is 1.37:1 or 1.33:1 or 1.44:1, the cameramen most often use the Rule of Thirds, which means that when they compose the picture, they put the most important things on the vertical or horizontal lines (which divide the picture in thirds), or on the intersection of that lines, like here



That's because when the spectators look at the picture, their eyes first check out the area of the intersection of those lines, here it's marked with rounds



these rounds or dots or whatever are called hot spots in English or узлы внимания (nodes of attention) in Russian. So if you make a photo or film in 1.33:1 or 1.37:1 or 1.44:1 or 1.5:1, such aspect ratios, you have to place the objects of attention on the lines or the hot spots, and the rest of the area is also needed, because it creates the atmosphere of film or picture, and if you crop it, the viewer won't get the psychological effect of the picture, and the picture won't be as impressive.

The picture of The Matrix was composed just like that. When you make closeups using the Rule of Thirds, you place eyes on the top horizontal line (because the eye expression is important), and the mouth on the bottom line (because it's important what the character says), and when such picture is cropped from 4:3 to 2.35:1 or even to 2.4:1, the composition is ruined, like here



If the cameraman wanted to show teeth (as you say), I'm sure he would film a smiling horse, but he obviously wanted to show something else, that's why he filmed Hugo Weaving instead. Smile




The open matte 16:9 version of such films partially restores the composition, and gives the ambience feeling.

I like Titanic in 16:9, it gives more details




See this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgCejsyS0t8
and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3-ClsRE9Yk

the manner in which these scenes were originally made gives you a sense of space, ambience, atmosphere, and if you see such pictures on a big screen (like IMAX) you have the illusion of participance. But when such picture is cropped, you lose the magical ambience feeling, and you always remember that you're just watching a movie and this is it, the cinema-magic is gone.

So if a Super35 4:3 picture is cropped to 2.35:1, it looks NOT OK.

See Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shot in 4:3, the picture is amazing and it looks just properly, but in the cropped 1.85:1 version, it looks ordinarily and almost boring.
Or see Troy in 16:9, it looks like a masterpiece. But after that, seeing the 2.35:1 version, you realize that the composition is almost ruined by the kitschy black bars painted over it.
In the case of Super35, the 2.35:1 composition is not tight, it's just wrong. See good films made in anamorphic format, like Die Hard, 300, Pearl Harbor, Drive, Inception, Contact etc, that's where the composition is tight and right.

Цитата:
especially when seen on a true CinemaScope size screen, not a tiny 50" 16:9 HDTV


the actual size matters less than the area of your view it takes. So if you watch a movie on a 50" screen and it covers 40 degrees of your view, that's bigger than when you see it in cinema on the last row where the screen covers, say, 37 degrees.

(btw, wow! my English turned out to be sufficient to explain that! Time for me to go to Hollywood! haha!)

Цитата:
to get a sculpture you have to chip away all the excess. that's what theatrical framing does

film is not a sculpture, film is a picture, and these pictures wouldn't make much sense if they were cropped to fit the theatrical 2.35:1 screen. They'd look poor.






[IMG]http://www.museum-online.ru/include/func/r_pic.php?type=3&id=1353[/IMG]



>>> Другие записи из этой категории: КІНО

The Trackback URL for this entry is:

http://forum.obozrevatel.com/trackback.php?e=602

   

Автор Повідомлення
Комментарии к этой записи отсутствуют.
Показувати:   

ФОРум ОБОЗа -> Блоги -> Журнал Вадя Ротор -> I'm a Black Bar Hater!