Rypro 525

I know it was shot 2:35:1. But I couldn't tell if it was shot super 35 (when there is information missing from the top and bottom) or panavision (nothing is missing on the top and bottom)

RolloTomasi

The second time I saw it, I believe that the projection was misframed at the beginning (The very tops of heads were cut off), and it seemed that there was more image on the bottom, where it should have been masked. This would lead me to think it was Super 35.

RocShemp

I think it was shot in Super 35 as the film looked very "contrasty." Even in the real worldscenes it had a harsh look to it (much like the first movie and practically every other movie shot in Super 35). Not bothersome, mind you, but my mind immediately registered Super 35 when I saw the film (on both ocassions).

ckolchak

i thought TMR looked a little slicker than X2, a film i know was shot in super 35.
i wouldn't be suprised to find it was filmed w/ anamorphic lenses.

pixel8or

I found this at www.thematrix.com :



But I also noticed different cameras in some of the other images at the site. Could they have used both?

avatar101

there is no way to know if they shot it in super 35 until it is released as a pan and scan version which would show a different framing than the 2.35:1 aspect ratio (unless somebody gets a rumour). The videocap you are showing would hint that it was shot at 2.35:1 and not super 35, since the monitor is missing the guidelines for super 35 (which are supossed to be superimposed over the anamorphic guidelines in the groundglass. BTW, shooting super 35 has nothing to do with a contrasting look. Getting that type of look can be accomplished with a variety of methods, including picking the right emulsion (which is available in any format) and post-production processes. Shooting super 35 is a pain in the ass, so I think it will be simply anamorphic 2.35:1. Thanks

pantala

According to imdb (which is not always correct), the first Matrix was Super 35. With the same Cinematographer, I don't see why the sequels would be different.

RocShemp

I only mentioned the heavy contrast because it has always been my understanding that Super 35 requires less light than regular film (making it very attractive to productions whose budgets can run high like The Lord of the Rings and The Matrix) but the trade off was that it tends to be very contrasty and it's hard to get around that even if it's not the look you intend for the film.

Back on topic, though they used the same cinematographer does not mean he used the same technique. Depends on the look they were going for the end result or some consideration beforehand about the FX. Who knows? In any case, pixel8or's pic certainly has me thinking I was wrong and that this movie was shot in anamorphic.

Groucho

But when the film goes out to theaters on Super 35 films, the print is made using the anamorphic process. There is no matting to be done by the projectionist.

Iron Chef

PixyJunket

I know why you're here, Rypro. I know what you've been doing... why you hardly sleep, why you live alone, and why night after night, you sit by your computer. You're looking for him. I know because I was once looking for the same thing. And when he found me, he told me I wasn't really looking for him. I was looking for an answer. It's the question, Rypro. It's the question that drives us. It's the question that brought you here. You know the question, just as I did.

What is the oar?

The answer is out there, Rypro, and it's looking for you, and it will find you if you want it to.

RolloTomasi

Are you sure of that? Because many a time I have seen films projected in theaters where the projectionist horribly misframes the picture, and you could see boom mics, etc. at the top of the screen.

Groucho

I've seen the same thing myself, and it sucks. But it only happens on 1.85:1 films that are soft-matted.

avatar101

I only mentioned the heavy contrast because it has always been my understanding that Super 35 requires less light than regular film (making it very attractive to productions whose budgets can run high like The Lord of the Rings and The Matrix) but the trade off was that it tends to be very contrasty and it's hard to get around that even if it's not the look you intend for the film.

Super 35 requires less light, you are right, so it gives you a couple of additional f-stops, which would in fact increase contrast, but shooting super 35 is done mostly to get better resolution, not higher contrast (which does not mean that somebody would use it for that purpose). As for the anamorphic and super 35, I think some people are a bit confused about their use...

pixel8or

You have thought correctly. Can someone explain the differences, please? Or perhaps link to a good site that has this info. The first post here seemed to make a distinction between Super 35 and Panavision. I posted that pic because in the upper left corner you can see that this is a Panavision camera.

And would someone be so kind as to clue me in on the 'oar' thing.

avatar101

OAR=Original Aspect Ratio

pixel8or

"OAR=Original Aspect Ratio"

D'oh.... shoulda' been able to figure that one out.