shawagg

Just wondering if we have a list of movies that were shot in Super35 somewhere.

Thanks

hogfat

The IMDB, http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PCS:Super%2035 would be a good place to look.

PopcornTreeCt

That's a long list.

shawagg

Thanks... and daaaaaamn! I had no idea the format was so popular.

milo bloom

And for your second part of the question \/

Mr. Salty

Anything that was intended to be seen at 1.33:1. Super 35 films that were seen theatrically at 2.35:1 are not "supposed" to be full screen.

skipnet

Full screen is also used by Hollywood frequently these days to replace Pan & Scam, even though that is all it is. The only other issue on Fullscreen I am aware of is CGI work such as Bug's Life where the filmmakers actually go in and recompose the movie to develop a proper Full Screen version of a computer animated film.

Skip

BizRodian

Those are two seperate questions.

shawagg

Guys guys guys... please if I know what super35 is I know what "full screen" is. (notice I used the quote marks)

I was trying to be funny by using the old device from the Bullwinkle shorts. I guess that confussed some of you.



So you don't think they're meant to be "full screen"? The way I understand it, they film in "full" and then crop to make a widescreen out of it for the theater. This to me says that the director is compossing the scene around a "full" frame as they film. So reasoning from that the director intends it to be sceen in the "full" frame. Am I wrong in this reasoning?

BizRodian

Yes you are.

Which is why I said they are two seperate questions. There are many instances where you see things you aren't supposed to see in the fullscreen version of a Super 35 film. Also, you are going to be missing things from the sides.

I know there are a few directors who like the fullscreen versions better though. It's up to you to decide and to research.

BigDan

When I was younger, I remember watching a VHS version of a movie, and the boom mic was in just about every shot in the movie. I thought the director must've been blind to not notice the boom being in the frame throughout the entire movie (I know the boom will occassionally dip into the frame in many movies, but this literally was in just about every scene and the mic was on screen the entire time). It wasn't until much, much later that I realized that the VHS version was probably just made by taking the "masks" off the widescreen version so it used the whole film frame, even the parts that the director didn't intend to be shown.

Mr. Salty

Yes, you are.

josepotato

Interesting, "Boomtown" (2002) is the first movie in the IMDB list. I wonder if there are any boom-mics visible in the full screen version.

CheapBastid

My take:

The anti-fullscreenistas who go on about how a film is supposed to be seen and reference the Theatrical OAR/Version are hypocrites. Do any of you avoid watching with commentary? Do any of you avoid alternate/deleted takes? Did any of you avoid the LotR EE versions?

My personal philosophy is generally to try to watch the 'most' version. Sure it is nice to have the Theatrical Release OAR, but I want the unmatted version - be it full screen or wide screen. Give me the EE version. Give me commentary. Give me deleted scenes. Give me Alternate Endings. I want more, more, more.

I suppose you could call me a More-on
=)

Romerojpg

Well I like to see perfect opened up version of a film anyday, but if you see boom and crap I wouldnt want that. Some opened up versions for me are far better.

I watched the opened up 1.85.1 version of Terminator 3 on TV the other day, and it was amazing compared to the dvd you just saw soo much more and it just felt better and you got to see the Lady Terminators Boobs as well, always a good thing.

The Matrix is far better opened up, so is T2 and Titanic by a mile! and remember James cameron himself likes some of his films better in Fullscreen too.

As long as all the special effects work and probs have been fully completed then I feel its always better to watch the full open version (maybe not so much in fullscreen) the super 1.85.1 versions on TV, just a shame they couldnt put them on the dvd and just give you an option to just use a sub track to matte it yourself if you want the Theatrical edition as most the TV showings I play side by side with the dvd and basically most the time its just the exact same film, but the black Bars up and below missing.

dullboy

Watch the widescreen vs. full screen side-by-side demonstration on the T2 Ultimate Edition extras. I thought that Super 35 shot films would also simply show more info top and bottom on the full screen versions, but the way Cameron had it done was to use only certain portions of the full frame to either zoom in, out, pan left, right, or open up as he desired. It's almost as if he was re-manipulating the camera on something he had already shot. IMHO, I'd rather someone offer an open-matte full screen version on the disc if the film had indeed been shot with Super 35. Don't play with the image by fucking with the resolution on zoom-ins or nauseating us with terrible post-production pans. Or why even shoot Super 35 at all if you plan on cropping for theater presentation and basically re-manipulating the shots for a full screen version on home video and TV later? I just seems illogical to use Super 35 for a 2.35:1 aspect ratio especially when someone like Cameron even prefers his tinkered-with full screen versions. But I'm sure if there are any cinematographers or otherwise filmmakers on this forum, I'll be shown a difference of opinion.

bis22

Even if an unmatted version is available that shows more picture in every shot, I would still watch the matted version (assuming that's the intended version). Even though you're still probably seeing everything that was intended to be in frame, removing the mattes still throws off the composition.

milo bloom

That seems to be exactly the point of shooting in Super35 in to me. To allow the director more choices. I'm not a filmmaker, but if I were, I think I would like having more options open to me.

Mr. Salty

I'm so tired of reading that piece of misinformation. Cameron made that statement in the early- to mid-1990s, when most people had nothing more than a 27-inch TV and widescreen TVs and 16:9 enhancement were a rarity. The statement doesn't apply today, when so many people have home theaters, large displays and DVDs that can provide enhanced resolution.

If Cameron really preferred the shape of the full screen frame, he would be making movies at 1.85:1 for theatrical exhibition. But he doesn't. He shoots his films for exhibition at 2.35:1.

And in the examples you gave, all the special effects shots are panned and scanned.

Romerojpg

I am sure I have read interview recently when Cameron has stated he prefered Fullscreen many times within the last year in fact, so its not that old news. Hey he even said he wanted Dark Angel also in Fullscreen, so no its not old news as he still says it now

What do you mean?

as the special effects have been 100% finished in the full Super 35 frame, the Fullscreen is panned and scanned yes, but the TV 1.85.1 versions I have seen are not as they are pretty much just the full Super 35 frame with a little missing from the top and bottom

Cameron doesnt like 1.85.1 apprently or anamorhic lenses as it brings probs with special effects thats why he only uses Super 35 now as apprently its far easier to do the effects work as he had probs early in his Corman carear with the wrong aspect ratios hindring his early special effects jobs he says.

ThatGuamGuy

I don't know which is right, but those two statements are contradictory. Salty is saying that they're pan-and-scanned in that most companies won't pay for effects shots to be done in full-screen if the movie is going to be shown in 2.35 (or even 1.85), they'll only do it for the amount of screen you'd show. Because of this, these shots must be pan-and-scanned, otherwise you'd see all the parts where the effects aren't completed.

Now, as I said, I don't know for sure whether you're right that the effects get 100% finished in fullscreen or that the effects shots are pan and scanned, but it can't be both. (I believe it's the latter, but I'm not sure.)

Romerojpg

I get what you mean its just the 1.85.1 versions show on TV (of Titanic and the Matrix) were 100% finished and showed pretty much everything, pretty much more footage on all sides that includes shots with more at sides as well but I asume even them would be slightly cropped in some shots?

I guess we cannot find out if they do finish a Super 35 frame 100%, for some films with a bigger budget I assume they will do it more, like Titanic. So without seeing the actual Super 35 film itself I cannot see anyway to ever really know for sure

Mr. Salty

Let's see a link.

"Dark Angel" was made for television, which is a different matter. I'm interested in what Cameron has to say about his theatrical films.

It's also worth pointing out that Cameron doesn't speak for all directors, just himself.

As far as special effects, it's not always so much a matter of expense, but resolution. If effects are digitally rendered for a 4:3 frame, they would have to be zoomed for a 2:35:1 presentation, reducing resolution. But if they are composed for 2.35:1, all of the available resolution is taken advantage of for the theatrical exhibition.

Watch some of the documentary material on "The Abyss." There are unmatted shots of the water tentacle showing that the tentacle was not fully rendered.

tek2k

are you still pissed about t3 and the breasts? LOL

Romerojpg

Haha sorry no chance it doesnt cross my mind to bother doing that, the most recent one was in a UK magazine I think, either Empire or HotDog or Total Film (I think). But until I get proof I guess its a mook point. It was during the hype for his Titanic doc mind you


and The Abyss I definatly remember that part in the superb Doc and I beleve a TV showing in the UK once had badly framed version with missing CGI, I saw it when I was younger and wondered what the hell was going on so yup I have seen poor instances of the bad framing jobs.