Posted by Neil at 209.245.186.235 on August 17, 2001 at 12:06:02:
In Reply to: Actually, for 35mm widescreen... posted by Magus 23 on August 17, 2001 at 08:49:45:
: ...it's not always "matted" to create the 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 aspect ratio...
I never said or suggested otherwise. My final paragraph says that'd I'd leave subjects such as anamorphic to someone else.
: ... I believe more common is the use of anamorphic lenses during filming…
I'm not convinced that it's "more common", but I'd be interested to read the statistics.
: … which "squashes" the image horizontally to take up the full 35mm frame (and minimizing film grain). The image is then projected out through a lens that "stretches" the image back out to the widescreen aspect ratio.
Yep.
: Unfortunately, this results in some distortion (As Vincent has said, look at the
: out-of-focus lights in the background when visible), but it's a nice image. Some
: directors do prefer to shoot full-frame (as with the Super35 format) and matte the
: image, as was the case with Dogma (Dogma's particular situation being that the
: specific lenses needed for the film stock being used weren't available at the time).
Yep.
: Clerks was, as has been stated, shot full-frame in 16mm, but with the understanding
: that, should it be blown up to 35mm, the top and bottom of the image would be
: matted. So that was taken into consideration from the start (done very well, I think).
Yep.
What'd I say that you actually disagreed with? Except possibly a sniggling over whether anamorphic or matting is the more common technique…