Журнал Вадя Ротор
Блог Vadia Rotor

Журнал Вадя Ротор

Black bar hater's and lover's dispute

понеділок 26.11.2012 11:56



продовження суперечки http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=6794358&postcount=492

Цитата:
BUT the Cameraman for a Super-35 shot film intended for Anamorphic 35mm Projection doesn't compose for the full Super-35 4:3 Camera Aperture

Yes he does.

Цитата:

He composes the image within the 2.39 Scope ratio area using the 2.39 groundglass markings in the Super-35 Camera Viewfinder

Those markings denote the cinema-safe area, and shooting Super35 the cameraman just has to put the most important and needed parts into that area, but he still actually composes for the full aperture.

Цитата:

both Anamorphic films shot in anamorphic and Anamorphic films shot in Super 35

very few films were shot in Super35 with anamorphic optics, actually I haven't heard about any feature film shot in that manner, only some shorts and ad. That's because most cameramen don't see the point in shooting Super35 with anamorphic optics (though I see the point and I would definitely do so if I was shooting on Super35, no doubt).
Moviemakers shoot in Super35 using almost exlusively spherical optics.

Цитата:

they are composed the same. You think they are doing otherwise.

I don't think, I know because I am an independent moviemaker, I learned how to film and I deal with that. I may think of matters which I don't know exactly, but that's what i DO know exactly.

When a cameraman films Super35 movie and has marks on his fiewfinder, he is meant to composed the picture in the manner that nothing essentially important is out of the 2.35:1 area, but the whole picture and a lot of details are still composed for the full 4:3 aperture.

When a cameraman films an anamorphic 35 mm movie, the composition rules are pretty much different, and the rule of thirds becomes almost irrelevant (just the vertical bars are still important), because he has to compose the WHOLE picture with ALL detail in the 2.35:1 aperture.

Super35 movies are never composed in such manner
http://www.frontroomcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/3encode_Drive2011.png
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews46/pulp_fiction_blu-ray/large/large_pulp_fiction_blu-ray2.jpg








But genuine widescreen pictures are. The pictures above are all-sufficient and contain all ambient details needed, but the cropped Super35 pictures below are not all-sufficient, and their composition looks poor:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews45/t2%20skynet%20edition%20blu-ray/large/dnr/large%20terminator%202%20blu-raydnr1.jpg





it would be lame to compose pictures like that

the difference in composition is quite obvious to me. Maybe you don't get the difference because you didn't learn how to compose the picture and you don't deal with it in your job. (correct me if you do)

But obviously this




looks much better than this




and this picture is more impressive than the cropped variant you like
http://www.kinomusic.vadiarotor.tv/about_cinema.files/image002.jpg

and such picture would surely better look uncropped


Цитата:
I applied the bars on your comparison pic

and it looks ridiculous. It would make more sense if you applied the bars on the 16:9 version of that pic.

Цитата:
A 2.39 movie is made to be watched in 2.39

yes it is. But Super35 is 4:3.
If they wanted it to be strictly 2.35 or 2.39 or whatever, they'd use another technology, not spherical 4-perf Super35, because it's rather expensive. They would at least use 3-perf or even 2-perf.

Цитата:

On 4:3 on a 50" screen, less engaging, distant, with the actors feeling small and remote inside a lot of background (With all the extra area)

So you don't get the point of Kubrick films. They're not only about plot and emotion, they're primarily about visual experience. And if you look at Eyes Wide Shot on bigger screen, the actor's won't feel remote and distant, and the background would help you engage, because location is about the background, and if you don't get enough of the background, you don't really feel the meaning of locations in the scenes.

Цитата:
And film is not still photography.

film is 24 still photographies every second, and if the picture is composed right, any frame of the film, any screenshot you may take, must look self-sufficient and beautiful enough to place it in a frame and exhibit on biennale like a separate piece of art. Otherwise the film is not artful enough.

this is art




and this is crap (I mean not the films but the screenshots of their cropped pictures)
http://www.reallykidfriendly.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/HarryPotterDeathlyHallows-screenshot-from-YouTube.jpg
http://pics.kz/s3/b1/66/df/98/b166df98395ef6605b1f7983878bd47e.png
http://www.hdclub.ua/files/film_release_screenshot/big/bigi4c0ed4c28d3e1.png



>>> Другие записи из этой категории: КІНО

The Trackback URL for this entry is:

http://forum.obozrevatel.com/trackback.php?e=603

   

Автор Повідомлення
Комментарии к этой записи отсутствуют.
Показувати:   

ФОРум ОБОЗа -> Блоги -> Журнал Вадя Ротор -> Black bar hater's and lover's dispute