The Recruit : Your thoughts?
05-29-03 | 11:10 PM
#26
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
I can't find the actual interview, but here are excerpts from http://www.dvdlair.com/recruitrw.htm. It's not exactly how I stated it before, but very interesting nonetheless.
In an interview Donaldson explained that, since home-video viewing can never be as big and overwhelming as the theatrical experience, he decided to adjust the Super 35 image to fill 16:9 screens.
"I personally supervised the transfer," Donaldson said. "It's not just a straight transfer of the film. I did some moves and things in the DVD that don't exist in the theatrical film."
The result is an image that can still be partially letterboxed on conventional 4:3 sets, and in both cases, the composition of the visuals is altered by the expanded frame.
"I did it shot by shot," Donaldson said, "and this is what I wanted it to be. If I didn't like the composition of something, I would change it -- you can reposition (the frame), you can make a move, you can make it smaller or bigger. I did, many times, change slightly the framing of how it was originally shown, even. In Super 35, the (theatrical image) is centered, so there is space above and below it" that can be used in an unmatted transfer.
"With the new-format television sets getting bigger and bigger, that (1.77:1) format is going to be a very important one", Donaldson said, "and I think you'll find more and more people doing what I've done when they realize they can have the best of both worlds. If they take some care when they're shooting the picture and think of both (theatrical and home-video) releases, you'll see more people doing this."
"I personally supervised the transfer," Donaldson said. "It's not just a straight transfer of the film. I did some moves and things in the DVD that don't exist in the theatrical film."
The result is an image that can still be partially letterboxed on conventional 4:3 sets, and in both cases, the composition of the visuals is altered by the expanded frame.
"I did it shot by shot," Donaldson said, "and this is what I wanted it to be. If I didn't like the composition of something, I would change it -- you can reposition (the frame), you can make a move, you can make it smaller or bigger. I did, many times, change slightly the framing of how it was originally shown, even. In Super 35, the (theatrical image) is centered, so there is space above and below it" that can be used in an unmatted transfer.
"With the new-format television sets getting bigger and bigger, that (1.77:1) format is going to be a very important one", Donaldson said, "and I think you'll find more and more people doing what I've done when they realize they can have the best of both worlds. If they take some care when they're shooting the picture and think of both (theatrical and home-video) releases, you'll see more people doing this."
Last edited by BigPete; 05-29-03 at 11:17 PM.
05-30-03 | 12:02 AM
#27
DVD Talk Hero
So basically this is Pan & Scan for the widescreen crowd? Now I truly understand digitalfreaknyc's concern. This is indeed a step backward as far as OAR is concerned. 
05-30-03 | 10:38 AM
#28
Banned
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 15,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: NYC
I'm sorry but after reading that, the man is one giant ass.
I'm officially not buying this movie.
If this is the way the home video market is going, i'm going to start buying bootlegs to be able to see the movie the way it was shown in theaters.
I'm officially not buying this movie.
If this is the way the home video market is going, i'm going to start buying bootlegs to be able to see the movie the way it was shown in theaters.
05-30-03 | 01:30 PM
#29
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Clearwater, FL
I have no problem with Super 35 being reformatted to 1.85. If it was up to me I would banish the stupid format.
Most Super 35 films look overmatted to me anyway (T2, Harry Potter, Kingpin).
This was done with the first Austin Powers and I thought it looked great.
Remember, you are not missing anything. If the director doesn't mind reformatting the film, why the outcry?
Now if this was a true anamorphic, panavision print that he pan & scanned down to 1.85, then I would probably bitch the loudest.
To get back on subject, the movie sucked anyway. One of my biggest movie pet peeves is the supposed "ultra" spy that is easily manipulated by a pair of silk panties (i.e. Mission Impossible II).
Doug
Most Super 35 films look overmatted to me anyway (T2, Harry Potter, Kingpin).
This was done with the first Austin Powers and I thought it looked great.
Remember, you are not missing anything. If the director doesn't mind reformatting the film, why the outcry?
Now if this was a true anamorphic, panavision print that he pan & scanned down to 1.85, then I would probably bitch the loudest.
To get back on subject, the movie sucked anyway. One of my biggest movie pet peeves is the supposed "ultra" spy that is easily manipulated by a pair of silk panties (i.e. Mission Impossible II).
Doug
