Hollow Man

When I saw Reloaded in the theater, I was surprised how many heads seemed to be chopped off at the forehead in the first 45 minutes of the movie. I saw it again, in another theater, to prove to myself that the theater wasn't necessarily matting it wrong. Watching it on the widescreen DVD confirms that it's just fine, and that the heads are simply being cut.

My assumption, therefore, has always been that the Brothers were taking pan and scan DVD and VHS into account when they framed the shots. Since they shoot on Super 35, you'd see more of the actors' heads when they do a re-frame for the P&S home release.

Does anyone feel the same way I do? Did anyone check out the P&S version to see the difference?

I guess I should try to take some screenies so I can illustrate where I think the cut-off heads look wrong to me.

-HM

caiman

I agree the heads looked chopped. In fact I thought the projector was off the first time I saw it.

As for more head room in the P/S, I would assume it's a little give and take. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most Super 35 movies in fullscreen usually add a little to the top and bottom, and take a little off the left and right.

Hollow Man

My friends thought I was insane when we saw it in the theater. I was convinced the projectionist had framed it wrong, and was fuming uncontrollably about it.

Yes, that's usually what happens when reframing Super 35 for full-frame. I just wonder if it's enough on the top to make the heads look not so chopped.

-HM

bis22

That's funny. I also thought it was being misframed in the theater. Didn't mention it to my friends I saw it with, though, cause they don't seem to notice that kind of stuff.

Jackskeleton

Remember folks, OAR is not about more picture, it's about CORRECT picture.

Look at Pee Wee's big adventure. the fullscreen version shows you a lot more.. But do you need to see it? No, infact it ruins the bicycle chain gag in fullscreen.

Point is they take that head room into account in shooting. they don't think about fullframe when doing it because in most cases you will see that space filled with boom mic's and so forth.

Presuming Ed

Let's not forget that 99% of the time any digital effects shots will be pan and scanned because they are not going to waste time and money rendering them for the full screen version.

mdc3000

this thread is pretty funny... my first comment after seeing Reloaded was "wow...they certainly weren't fond of headroom in that flick, or the projectionist ****ed up big time"... my friends were like "what the hell??" I did see the movie two more times on different screens and indeed, yes, it was the way it was meant to be seen.... I certainly would never watch a P&S version, but that issue bothered me quite a bit at the theatre.

MATT

DealMan

Ha! That's the exact same thing I thought during my first Matrix Reloaded showing. During the first "meeting" scene all the shots were cut off at the eyebrows, and I thought that seemed strange.

Hollow Man

Normally I'm all for artistic vision, but this just looked poor to me. There were some close up shots of the actors where I could MAYBE see that it was artistic, but with the meeting scene that DealMan mentions, it just looks bad to me that the heads are cut.

So who's willing to rent or buy the P&S version, and see if the reframe gives us more of people's heads? I still feel that the Brothers were in fact framing the shots so that the full-frame version wouldn't have too much "white space" above people's heads.

-HM

Giles

well I guess the reformatted IMAX presentations of "Reloaded" should have looked pretty 'roomy' then as well.

Peep

If you look at the posters for "Reloaded" all of the actors have almost all of their heads chopped off above the mouths. Maybe the Brorhers W. just don't like heads.

PatrickMcCart

With a lot of Super-35 cinematography, shots are framed a lot differently compared to normal Panavision photography.

The fullscreen version reveals a little bit of top and bottom information, but will crop parts of the left and right.

The widescreen version reveals the full 2.35:1 frame that was composed for the film while the fullframe version shows part of the frame that is "junk" (never meant to be screened) and part of the "important" 2.35:1 frame.

talemyn

Matthew Chmiel

Reloaded was shown in IMAX in it's original aspect ratio of 2.35:1.

Ttiberius

My son borrowed the Full screen version from a friend of his & I just happen to have it here so

Here are some Screen Shots

If anyone wants to see a particular scene just post the exact time & i'll put it up for you

If someone wants to do some side by side comparison screenshots I'd be interested in seeing them
I'm planning on picking up the widescreen version but don't have it yet

steebo777

Yep. I thought the same exact thing. Luckily no one at my screening questioned me about my projector being off for some reason. It just bugged me that the shots seemed a little too close.

Hollow Man

Thanks for the screenies Ttiberius. Looks like some chopped heads in that too. I'll have to post some times of shots that specifically got to me and see how they compare to the full-frame.

-HM

Matthew Chmiel

Using those screenshots...

http://members.cox.net/mrmatthew/matrix01.jpg

http://members.cox.net/mrmatthew/matrix02.jpg





http://members.cox.net/mrmatthew/matrix05.jpg

http://members.cox.net/mrmatthew/matrix06.jpg





http://members.cox.net/mrmatthew/matrix09.jpg

http://members.cox.net/mrmatthew/matrix10.jpg

talemyn

I don't care if the heads are chopped off . . . those WS captures look soooo better than the FF version.

Ttiberius

Thanks Matthew for posting those....No contest at all ..Widescreen looks 1000 times better

Kinyo

I don't care if foolscreen shows more of someones head, I will only watch OAR!!!

namlook

I have a widescreen TV but I have to admit there is something to be said for those fullscreen screenshots in terms of the framing of the picture you see. The quality of the picture looks alot better in widescreen though.

milo bloom

hmmm...



And that something would be "bad"

Even the pic of Col Sanders that cuts off even more of his head in WS looks a whole lot better than the FS.

talemyn

Plus . . . the reformatting in the FF shots make everyone look like they weigh about 20 pounds heavier . . .

caiman

I couldn't disagree more. The WS shots just look better. Some people say there is nothing inherently better about a wide image. I disagree. Take another look at the screen cap with the Architect. The WS is leaps and bounds better than the FF. It's hard to put my finger on, but it just appeals to my eyes so much more.