Yeti4623

Besides comparing fullscreen and widescreen, and checking the IMDB Aspect Ratio sections on movies, is there any way to tell the difference between, say Super 35 Widescreen 2.35: 1 and Anamorphic Widescreen 2.35: 1? Thanks.

chente

I'm not sure what you are asking. When you have the DVD in hand the specific aspect ratio is usually written on the back of the case. When viewing on the screen, 2.35:1 movies are narrower than 1.85:1 movies. When searching online, IMDB is probably your best bet. I haven't found another source myself.

Yeti4623

I mean as you're watching movies in 2.35: 1, especially nowadays, I find it impossible to tell the difference visually, unless I compare fullscreen and Widescreen, or look the movie up on the IMDB. Before the late 90's, nearly every 2.35: 1 Widescreen was anamorphic. What I'm asking, is there anyway to tell the difference between Super 35 and Anamorphic, without doing all that stuff? I don't mind doing it, I'm just trying to see if there's a way to tell, just by watching the movie, without comparing or looking it up.

Jay G.

Besides imdb, there's really no centralized source for telling whether a certain film was filmed in Super 35 versus anamorphic. articles and interviews about a particular film may make mention of the shooting method, but those are by definition scattered and not centralized.

I'm guessing you want to know because you're intested in 4:3 versions of 2.35:1 films that have "extra" on the top an bottom. My advice: don't bother with 4:3 versions of 2.35:1 films at all.

While Super 35 allows the option to view a 2.35:1 frame entirely opened up to 4:3, that very rarely happens. 99% of the time, they crop some of the sides while opening the top and bottom a little. So while you do gain a little vertical information, you're losing horizontal information, which is stuff that was actually composed for the screen.

Even when you're getting the full-opened frame, you're really not gaining anything on a 4:3 set. The intended viewing area is the exact same size, just with wasted space on the top and bottom. "Oooh, I get to see more sky and floor, how exciting!" It may even end up showing flubs, such as the T2 examploe with the phone booth. And when you eventually transition to a 16:9 screen, the viewing area will be even smaller than if you had a 2.35:1 anamorphically enhanced DVD.

Also, keep in mind that even for films shot in Super 35, most of the special effects are composed for 2.35:1, so those will still be heavily cropped on the 4:3 version. And when you're talking about SFX heavy films like The Matrix, T2, or The Abyss, do you really want to lose 1/3 screen for the effects-heavy scenes? Granted, some newer films may compose FX for more than the 2.35:1 frame, such as LOTR which had effects compsed in 1.78:1, and the Harry Potter films, which were rerendered for the 4:3 altered frames. However, those are still few and far between, and especially with LOTR still crop on the sides.

Try these sites for more info:
http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/
http://dvd.ign.com/articles/366/366890p1.html

Jay G.

Well, if you want to be able to tell just by watching it, look out for anamorphic artifacts.

From: http://encyclopedia.lockergnome.com/...hic_widescreen

Yeti4623

Thanks for the info.

Drexl

Note that this is not the case for the most recent Harry Potter film (PoA) as the 4:3 version is completely panned and scanned. See this thread: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=416577

Josh Z

I just wanted to add that a great example of this is the first Die Hard. The movie has a lot of scenes of helicopters shining search lights directly towards the camera lens, and they flare out in the tell-tale anamorphic pattern.

Jay G.

Thanks for that. I was going to link to that comparison page, but my old bookmarked link didn't work. I hadn't seen the PoA grabs yet.
http://plum.cream.org/HP/

Rammsteinfan

How come we are seeing more 2.40:1 now? Is that new or just another version of 2.35:1?

djtoell

The scope AR has changed slightly over the years since its introduction. The current scope projection AR is actually 2.39:1, while 2.35:1 hasn't actually been used since 1970. People still say 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 as shorthand.

And, remember, these numbers are rounded off, anyway. The current scope aperture is really 2.391304347826086...:1, and what we referred to as 2.35:1 from the late 50s through the 60s was really 2.34685314685314685..:1.

DJ

Rammsteinfan

Gotcha... thanks for the info.

DrGerbil

Outrageous!

Filmmaker

Another superb example of this effect (one I adore, personally) is literally ANY film by John Carpenter. Oh, and in regards to the entry referring to some films digitally faking anamorphic artifacts, see PANIC ROOM, which digitally added an anamorphic lens flare to the communicating-via-flashlight scene even though the film was shot Super35.

CertifiedTHX

The IMDb is certainly helpful for technical information, but they're not completely accurate. Films shot with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1, 2.39:1, or 2.40:1 are all listed as 2.35:1. Obviously, the differences are hardly worth mentioning, but strictly speaking, 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 are not the same. Perhaps, as djtoell noted, the IMDb is simply using shorthand.

--THX

JLyon1515

I am curious about an odd lens occurence that I saw recently. I just finished watching The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. In it, there are many, many scenes, where there is somethign like fisheye warping on the left and right of the screen. What is this from? Is it just the fact taht they used a wide angle lens, or could it relate to using an anamorphic camera (not sure if they did or not)?

eedoon

JLyon1515, I haven't watched The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, but wide lens does create a lot of distortion, especially when the filmmaker shot in an anamorphic format. The distortion will looks really obvious on horizontal lines/object.

Yeti4623

I wonder if there's a telltale sign, if it's digitally faked. Is there any way of telling? Other than knowing beforehand it's Super 35. I know that specific scene in Panic Room has it, but do the filmmakers ever digitally add it to scenes where it's not important at all?

Jon2

FWIW, lens flares have been faked long before they could do it digitally. Dragonslayer had traditionally animated flares added.

SPRBD

Any chance that the shot in Panic Room was a reshot or, for some other reason, shot using a different type of lens?