Bagheera

If a movie was shot in 1.85 with a sperical lense, does it make that much of a difference when its changed to 1.33 full screen. Are we missing that much?

SergeantPinback

djtoell

What's so confusing about the question?

Anyway, the answer is: it depends. Sometimes the film is shot in a way such that only the 1.85:1 frame is exposed on the negative, so it must be cropped in order to be turned into 1.33:1. Also, directors sometimes don't protect for the 1.33:1 frame, so boom mics and other equipment is visible above the top and/or bottom of the 1.85:1 frame. In those cases, the film must also be cropped for the 1.33:1 version. Even in cases where it is possible to fully expose the top and bottom of the frame, the 1.33:1 version is generally zoomed in in order to reduce excess headroom, so picture is lost on the sides.

It's usually impossible to know beforehand exactly how the 1.33:1 transfer was made, but if you go with a properly-framed 1.85:1 transfer (when available), you usually know you'll be seeing what you're supposed to.

DJ

Bagheera

Thank you.

Hendrik

...erm... all 1.85:1 (and 1.66:1) movies (as well as many 2.35:1/2.40:1 movies!!!) are "shot with a sperical(sic) lense" or lenses... no 1.85:1 (or 1.66:1) movies are shot with anamorphic lens(es)...

(signed) Perambulating Pedant

. . . . . .

Bagheera

Thanks Hendrik