Mike Lowrey

OK, in the now closed "why is widescreen better" thread, some FS vs WS side-by-side shots of FOTR were shown, and the FS shots had a bit more picture info on the top and bottom than the WS. Now don't get me wrong, the WS shots look way better, more epic, et al. But having the FS shots showing a bit more on the top/bottom, couldn't we say that the optimal aspect ratio for the LOTR films should have been perhaps 2.20:1 (ie. Lawrence of Arabia) instead of 2.35:1? Could have used the whole wide picture image, but just include the full verticle image.

Which makes you wonder why PJ matted the picture to 2.35:1 the way he did, if there was more vertical info there.

What do y'all think?

Rizor

It was shot Super 35. It contains more picture info at the top and bottom but the image is composed for the 2.35:1 aspect ratio so the extra image isn't really supposed to be there.

It's the same thing for 1.85 flicks.

djtoell

35mm standards in the US only allow projection in the following aspect ratios: 1.37:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1, and 2.39:1. Jackson did not have the option of 2.2:1 projection. He put the picture he wanted inside the 2.39:1. That there is "more" picture outside this frame is irrelevant. More doesn't mean better. The AR he chose is the "true" AR for the film.

DJ

joffa

In American Cinemtograpther, DOP Andrew Lesnie states that he only had markings for the 2.35 ratio on his ground glasses, and that was the frame that the production was composed for. No doubt the fullscreen transfers have been executed with great care, but it is safe to say that 2.35 is indeed the true aspect ratio for these films.

milo bloom

No offense, but you should have stopped yourself right there. That's the reason why it was done that way and that's the way I like it.

Uh huh, uh huh.

Mike Lowrey

KC & the Sunshine Band?

Drexl

If Peter Jackson wanted it to be 2.2:1, I think he would have made it that way at least for video releases. Of course, additional special effects work would have had to have been done to accomodate that AR. Not to mention that a lot of people would have complained that it wasn't the OAR.

ThatGuamGuy

Well, if the fullscreen image has additional picture, rather than less, wouldn't they have to do additional special effects work to accomodate it anyway?

milo bloom

Now don't quote me on this, but I think I've read that for some movies shot like this, they'll do the FX work at 1.85 or 2.0 so when opened up, they don't have to crop so much. Also, a lot of shots were done in camera, so they would only have to worry about stray limbs or such showing up in the bottom part of the frame.

DigIt

Just to clarify, when creating a video that has been "formatted to fit your TV," the live action may be full-frame but the CG/effects shots will never be redone to fill up the screen, they will simply be panned & scanned.



(Exception: Pixar.)

milo bloom

Except as I've noted above, and also Pixar doesn't always rerender the whole frame. The A Bug's Life DVD explains that sometimes it's a simple pan and scan.

Dvdsky

Actually, I think there've been a lot of cases lately of the FX being done for the full frame release of a Super 35 film. I'm pretty I saw screenshots in a thread somewhere that showed that the earlier LOTR films and/or the Harry Potter movies had full-frame effects.