Sorry To All For MisInfo, But On The Other Hand...


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The View Askew WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Lucifer Lyndon Razoodock at spider-wo082.proxy.aol.com on May 13, 2000 at 17:01:41:

In Reply to: Absolutely TONS of pan-&-scan on CHASING AMY posted by Vincent on May 13, 2000 at 14:58:26:

: : : Clerks and Mallrats were filmed in 1.33:1 and cropped to 1.85:1 for theatrical relase?
: : : Chasing Amy was Pan n Scanned to 1.33:1
: : : Dogma was open matted from 2.35:1 to 1.33:1

: : "Chasing Amy" was shot to resemble a quadrangular frame. As great as the Criterion widescreen looks, the full-frame actually offers more picture-info on the top-&-bottom.

: This is absolutely untrue- the negative for CHASING AMY (Super-16) is in a 1.66:1 shape- it is quite BADLY panned and scanned for full-frame video release. Only the Criterion widescreen version is correct. In fact, CHASING AMY is easily the worst looking View Askew film in "full-frame", because the negative ACTUALLY MEASURES 1.66:1, so there is NO room for opening up top or bottom to reframe the image like you can with either 1.85:1 or Super-35- you HAVE to pan and scan the image, PERIOD, and CHASING AMY suffers considerably from this. Check out Ethan Suplee's cameo in the beginning if you don't believe me- he actually strays off-screen for a good portion of his scene in the pan-and-scanned CHASING AMY.

Okay, chief; this is where you've got me: I've never actually seen "Chasing Amy" Panned-&-Scanned; only the Criterion widescreen transfer.
My educated-guess was based on this, however: I've always thought that 1.66:1 never really suffered all that much when cropped to 1.33:1. Exactly how much image was lost that so-much panning was needed?
Which version was cropped, after all: 1.85:1 or the 1.66:1?

It sounds to me as if the Miramax-transfer was overly-zoomed-in. Who supervised this?

: : As far as I know, the open-matted frame for "DOGMA" probably is closer to a wide 1.85:1 aspect-ratio.

: DOGMA was shot in Super-35 and released at 2.35:1. The "full-frame" video release would vary shot to shot, depending on how "wide" the image information in the individual shots is, and whether or not there were any objectionable elements (i.e., lights, boom mikes, dolly track) in the frame when the image was "opened up".

Okay...understand that much...

: : Several boards ago, I insinuated that it would be cool to see "DOGMA" in a third-matting (for optimal HDTV-viewing), but the more I consider that Robert Yeoman framed SPECIFICALLY for the aspect-ratios which are available (2.35:1 and 1.85:1), I guess I have to cozy up to the fact that "DOGMA" was never intended to be matted that way.

: Huh? DOGMA was framed for one ratio- theatrical at 2.35:1. However, being that it was Super-35, the actual negative measures 1.37:1- VERY close to the "standard" TV frame.

Right, I knew that it was framed for 2.35:1 and sounds like the negative is even closer to quadrangular than I thought...we seem to agree there...

: If DOGMA can be "adapted" with little problem to TV's 1.33:1 aspect ratio, why couldn't it be adapted AT LEAST as well to the HDTV 1.78:1 aspect ratio? After all, 1.78:1 is closer to the original 2.35:1 than 1.33:1 is.

Well, yeah, Vince! That was always my point!
My original whim WAS to see "DOGMA" reformatted closer to 1.78:1 for HD-viewing. I have the current DvD, and have stated before that I personally prefer the full-frame transfer even though missing-info is sometimes obvious to my eye...
Is there going to be a third-formatting of "DOGMA?"
...and whether or not it's going to be reformatted to 1.78:1, is "DOGMA" going to be RE-transferred to digital for the "Special Edition"...or will it be the same transfer as the current DvD?

: : Consider "Loki's Foot." "DOGMA" is such a sophisticated-looking film (at least compared to that grainy TeamAskew freshman affair...) that gaffes and continuity errors are probably indicative of matting-issues as opposed to continuity-ignorance on the part of the editors.

: Well, seeing as how all the video dailes that were used for editing were 2.35:1, you are correct. The "Loki's foot" problem was a mistake made by the telecine operator and the folks who supervised the full-frame transfer. They should have zoomed in on this shot and cropped it out like it was in theaters.

Cool...it's a very, very minor gaffe...

: : If "DOGMA" were opened up on top-&-bottom, some scenes would look seriously fly...but my guess would be that continuity-errors would start popping all over the place...

: The standard video release of DOGMA IS opened up, so check it out and see for yourself. The great thing about Super-35 is it gives you choices- you can alter the top/bottom framing on a shot-by-shot basis, leaving some shots totally "opened up", and others zoomed in to varrying degrees.

: Vincent

Fantastic, bro'. Sorry to muddy the waters on this point with the "Amy" full-frame bullshit.
I also apologize to other Askewners for a point that verges dangerously on "Film-411" topicality...then again, on-topic discussion in these parts could always use a little-goosing...


--tom
athistomb'sfoot,Ifelthisproudgazepierce


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

E-Mail/Userid:
Password:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


  


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The View Askew WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]