Best examples of anamorphic composition
Bob Morris
>Hows about "East of Eden" and "Rebel Without A Cause," both James Dean
>classics! Agressive widescreen composition in both films!
If "anamorphic" *really* means anything over 2.1:1, then I suggest that
Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago, and Ryan's Daughter *define*
widescreen composition! All three won cinematography Oscars for
Freddie Young.
Young also shot the first British CinemaScope film, "Knights of the Round
Table". He told me that the US DPs had no idea how to shoot CinemaScope!
Since I've not seen Knights in widescreen for many years, I don't
know whether or not it was a great leap over the U.S. CS pics.
On the other hand, Young also noted that Director Richard Thorpe
had a very limited grab-bag of setpiece compositions that he was
wary of deviating from.
Bob Morris
FILM4WORK
Cinemascope when it came out for the first few years. Freddie is one of
the best but there are many, many, great CinemaScope films out there. I
just bought a Brand new set of B&L scope lenses still wrapped in the
tissue paper from 1955....do you think Freddie might want to have another
go at it???? They certainly represent a real challenge to any present day
DP thats spoiled by the stuff available today. The stuff the old masters
did will never be duplicated. BTW, Didn't he also do Battle Of Britan????
Regards, Film4Work
Trawby
Leon Shamroy, and many others did some outstanding widescreen (70mm in addition
to anamorphic). Giving the DP all the credit, or blame, really discounts the
power, ego, insight, or whatever of the director of each film. For that reason
I think "Knights of the Round Table" a poor comparison of what Mr. Young did
with Lean and a lot of other fine directors.
I think it is more telling to look at modern anamorphic photography which,
rather than providing a wider view of the scene, presents the same width but
with curtailed height. That ain't what they had in mind when all this stuff
started back in '53.
--
Tra...@ix.netcom.com
Trawby
the excellent, and quite atypical, use of Panavision. Regrettably, I forgot
the name of the DP but I do recall he was a B.S.C. member. He must have
assumed somebody wanted to see it in a theater because the use of medium and
wide lenses predominates. The framing and blocking are quite natural and don't
have the tableaux look that many of the early CinemaScope features had. It
also didn't have closeups of only a pair of eyes so often seen today. It's an
altogether good film that merits a look for the use of Panavision alone.
--
Tra...@ix.netcom.com
Don Carter
<mor...@sundance.sce.carleton.ca> writes
<snip>
>If "anamorphic" *really* means anything over 2.1:1, then I suggest that
>Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago, and Ryan's Daughter *define*
>widescreen composition! All three won cinematography Oscars for
>Freddie Young.
No anamorphic means anything shot with an anamorphic lens regardless of
aspect ratio.
>
>Young also shot the first British CinemaScope film, "Knights of the Round
>Table". He told me that the US DPs had no idea how to shoot CinemaScope!
>Since I've not seen Knights in widescreen for many years, I don't
>know whether or not it was a great leap over the U.S. CS pics.
>On the other hand, Young also noted that Director Richard Thorpe
>had a very limited grab-bag of setpiece compositions that he was
>wary of deviating from.
>
>Bob Morris
>
>
>
--
Don Carter
Steven F Kraus
>No anamorphic means anything shot with an anamorphic lens regardless of
>aspect ratio.
Yes, but what we are discussing here is really widescreen composition
and that certainly includes 65mm cinematography. The compositional
requirements are very similar (except for Ultra Panavision whose extreme
width would be in a class by itself) although the technical details
of focal length, depth of field, and lighting requirements would be
different.
There is actually as much or more difference among the anamorphic aspect
ratios (2.55 for early films, 2.35 or 2.40 for later ones) than there is
between anamorphic and the 70mm projection aspect ratio (2.2).
BIGERBETER
aspect ratio.>>
So this means no inclusion of Super 35 (or whatever the hell it was that
Cameron used on T2)? That's okay by me.
Lisle Foote
The D.P. was Tony Pierce-Roberts, who also shot "Howard's End" and "Remains of
the Day" in 2.35 (but using Super-35.) I think "Howard's End" is a good
example of using the wider frame to allow blocking of multiple characters in
the frame in order to cover a scene without cutting to close-ups all of the
time.
David M.
Layne Uyeno
>Yes, but what we are discussing here is really widescreen composition
>and that certainly includes 65mm cinematography.
Technically 1.85:1 is a widescreen format, but it doesn't quite
compare with aspect ratios greater than 2:1. 1.85:1 and anamorphic
photography are cousins, yet they're still two different animals.
Anamorphic requires special attention to lighting, depth of field,
lens choice and film stock. No offense but I do think the discussion
is about "anamorphic" composition. At least that's how I interpret it.
How about "Bladerunner" (the director's cut)? If you need someone to
hold your hand and explain every esoteric scene in the film get the
original "studio" cut. As I understand it Harrison Ford didn't want
the VOs in the film either. I just got the privilege not too long ago
of seeing the director's cut in 70mm on a HUGE screen. The print had
scratches and dirt, but I loved it anyway. I can watch that film over
and over and never get tired of it. Every time I pop the laser disc in
the player I see and hear something different in the acting, the
music, the story, and most of all the photography! Jordan Cronenweth
is my god. I'd do anything to watch him work!
As for the most emotionally moving single scene in an anamorphic
film: it has to be when Luke Skywalker watches the twin setting suns
at his uncle's Tattooine farmstead.
Layne Uyeno
luy...@hits.net
Steve
>Anamorphic requires special attention to lighting, depth of field,
>lens choice and film stock.
So does 65mm. So does Technirama.
>No offense but I do think the discussion
>is about "anamorphic" composition. At least that's how I interpret it.
That is indeed what the original poster titled this thread. But if you are
talking about creative ways to fill a rectangle of a certain shape you might
as well incude all processes that result in widescreen images.
>How about "Bladerunner" (the director's cut)?
Indeed. How about "Blade Runner"? By your self-imposed rules you must ONLY
discuss the live action photography which was in 35mm anamorphic and NONE of
the effects work which was shot in 65mm. (BTW I've pulled the aperture plate
to view the edges of the frames and in so doing can see exactly which is
which.)
> I just got the privilege not too long ago of seeing the director's cut in
>70mm on a HUGE screen.
Did they make a 70mm print of the Director's Cut? I know there was a 70 of an
early cut whose showings ultimately led to the creation and release of the
Director's Cut but I didn't know there was a 70 of the DC.
>As for the most emotionally moving single scene in an anamorphic
>film: it has to be when Luke Skywalker watches the twin setting suns
>at his uncle's Tattooine farmstead.
Was that not shot and/or created in VistaVision? Then what are you talking
about it here for?
Nick Moenssens
(Steve) wrote:
> >How about "Bladerunner" (the director's cut)?
>
> Indeed. How about "Blade Runner"? By your self-imposed rules you must ONLY
> discuss the live action photography which was in 35mm anamorphic and NONE of
> the effects work which was shot in 65mm. (BTW I've pulled the aperture plate
> to view the edges of the frames and in so doing can see exactly which is
> which.)
>
> > I just got the privilege not too long ago of seeing the director's cut in
> >70mm on a HUGE screen.
>
> Did they make a 70mm print of the Director's Cut? I know there was a 70
of an
> early cut whose showings ultimately led to the creation and release of the
> Director's Cut but I didn't know there was a 70 of the DC.
A pre release test marketing print of "Bladerunner" was a 70mm print of
the first cut, which was the director's cut. It was this version that
marketing at Warners recommended the film be changed. I handled this print
at the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences for a screening about
five years ago. The laser disc was based on this print. I don't know if it
exists anymore, but Warner's was letting it out for special showings. It
was in very good condition.
FILM4WORK
widths of 35mm and that run vertically through a projector. That should
keep the bickering at a minimum!
Film4Work
Trawby
<gkr...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> wrote:
> luy...@hits.net writes:
>
> >Anamorphic requires special attention to lighting, depth of field,
> >lens choice and film stock.
>
> So does 65mm. So does Technirama.
>
That's correct! It may come as a surprise to many people that when CinemaScope
and the other anamorphic formats were introduced in the early to mid 50s it was
understood that you have greater depth of field with an anamorphic lens than
with the equivalent spherical.
There is valid reasoning for that conclusion if you remember the way the
anamorphic system was utilized both in photography and projection. If you
compare a 50mm spherical lens with a 50mm anamorphic lens you will have a
theoretically shorter focal length in the horizontal plane. Since these
systems were designed to be W I D E , all comparisons were done with identical
focal lengths in photography and projection. The 35mm anamorphic frame was
considered not just wider but taller than a flat film. Today there seems to be
more tendency to compare these lenses based on the same degree of horizontal
coverage, which means that flat films use shorter focal lengths than
anamorphic. If wide screen were to revert to being truly wide screen then the
differences between anamorphic and spherical photography would come down to
lens speed and resolution, not depth of field. If you need depth of field then
either light the set and stop down or go to 16mm where you get even more depth
of field. Let's not start talking about the circle of confusion or I'll get a
headache.
--
Tra...@ix.netcom.com
Trawby
<film...@aol.com> wrote:
Perhaps we should tighten it up a bit more and make it just films that can be
projected anamorphically, width of 35mm, vertically, and from a contact print.
--
Tra...@ix.netcom.com
Bob Morris
> Perhaps we should limit this thread to films projected anamorphically,
>widths of 35mm and that run vertically through a projector. That should
>keep the bickering at a minimum!
So we *can't* discuss 70mm prints of Dr. Zhivago, though it was shot
anamorphically, but we *can* discuss 35mm prints of Lawrence of Arabia,
though it was shot flat on 65mm film?
What a bunch of crap!
Bob Morris
Bob Morris
>On 4/15/96 1:48PM, in message <4ku5mi$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, FILM4WORK
><film...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps we should limit this thread to films projected anamorphically,
>> widths of 35mm and that run vertically through a projector. That should
>> keep the bickering at a minimum!
>> Film4Work
>Perhaps we should tighten it up a bit more and make it just films that can be
>projected anamorphically, width of 35mm, vertically, and from a contact print.
>
Hmmm. So 35mm prints of Lawrence of Arabia *are* OK! :-)
LRM
Steven F Kraus
Sure assuming they were struck on ordinary contact printers.
Before someone tightens the definition to restrict it to films that were
contact printed each step of the way from camera neg to release prints I
would like to point out how silly this is. As this thread has mostly
been about appraising the compositions themselves and very little about
special problems that must be overcome to achieve such composition it
doesn't make much sense to try to restrict the discussion, especially, as
I have pointed out with "Blade Runner", different processes may be used in
the same film.
Lisle Foote
>>Hmmm. So 35mm prints of Lawrence of Arabia *are* OK! :-)
>Sure assuming they were struck on ordinary contact printers.
>Before someone tightens the definition to restrict it to films that were
>contact printed each step of the way from camera neg to release prints I
>would like to point out how silly this is.
I think the point of the original posting was to discuss 2.35 composition -
the term "anamorphic composition" doesn't really make sense, except in regards
to aspect ratio.
Personally, I still maintain that Kurosawa was the master of widescreen
composition. Many shots in "Red Beard" have the look of Japanese scroll art
because of his use of deep focus lighting with telephoto lenses (a real
technical challenge!) Of course, being a Japanese period film helps in
creating this painterly effect.
There is an interesting book called "Cinematic Landscapes" which compares
Japanese and Chinese art to the visual qualities of their respective cinema.
I also like Sergio Leone's 2.35 compositions, which could be described as a
more exaggerated "comic book" version of Kurosawa's work.
David M.
FILM4WORK
to be clairfied on this.
Mark
Theodore Gluck
wrote:
You want great CinemaScope composition? Try REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. One
of the early Scope films, and just maginicent.
--
Theodore Gluck: Director of Technical Operations
Disney Character Voices International, Inc.
The Walt Disney Studios
Los Angeles, California
th...@earthlink.net
Guy Badger
> Perhaps we should limit this thread to films projected anamorphically,
>widths of 35mm and that run vertically through a projector.
Before this thread vanishes I have to mention my all time favourite scope
movie:
Jaws
This film is one of the finest examples of film directing ever and the
scope cinematography is virtually perfect.
That' my opinion, so there!
Guy
PS: I use the term 'scope' to refer to any anamorphic or non-anamorphic
widescreen composition above 2.0:1. BTW I don't think non-anamorphic
scope formats should be omitted from this discussion just 'cos those films
were not optically squeezed.
Trawby
Trawby
Morris <mor...@sundance.sce.carleton.ca> wrote:
> Tra...@ix.netcom.com (Trawby) writes:
>
> >On 4/15/96 1:48PM, in message <4ku5mi$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, FILM4WORK
> ><film...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps we should limit this thread to films projected anamorphically,
> >> widths of 35mm and that run vertically through a projector. That should
> >> keep the bickering at a minimum!
> >> Film4Work
>
> >Perhaps we should tighten it up a bit more and make it just films that can
> be
> >projected anamorphically, width of 35mm, vertically, and from a contact
> print.
> >
>
> Hmmm. So 35mm prints of Lawrence of Arabia *are* OK! :-)
>
> LRM
Yes, but only if you can make a 35mm contact print from the 65mm negative.
That could be tough on the sprocket holes.
--
Tra...@ix.netcom.com
ato...@concentric.net
>I think the point of the original posting was to discuss 2.35 composition -
>the term "anamorphic composition" doesn't really make sense, except in regards
>to aspect ratio.
Neither does "Matted Letterboxed Edition," and "Widescreen Edition" is
unclear. "Anamorphic" is my shorthand for something finally projected
wider than 1.85:1, and I wanted to make the easy (I thought)
distinction that LD jacket banners don't. Frankly, 65 mm didn't even
occur to me, because I wasn't really writing a thesis, and I've yet to
knowingly see a 65mm film. It's a viewer's point of view, not a
creator's.
Antinl
We blew a great opportunity because companies insist on mixing Letterboxed
with Widescreen. We are going to have "Anamorphic NTSC" soon; with the
comming of the DVD. What should have been done was:
Letterbox = black bars
Widescreen = anamorphic NTSC
Unfortunately, now it is too late
Lisle Foote
>After 'Jaws' I'd put the Sergio Leone 'dollar' trilogy (and 'Once Upon A
>Time In The West')near the top of my all time favourite scope productions.
>I believe these were all Techniscope productions (2.35:1 camera ratio) and
>the director clearly knew how to get the best out it.
>Anyone remember who the DP's were on these films?
>Guy.
Tonino delli Colli photographed "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" and "Once
Upon a Time in the West." More recently he shot "The Name of the Rose" and
"Death and the Maiden".
One of the advantages of Techniscope was an increased depth of field, which
Leone used to great advantage, especially in bright daytime exteriors. I
remember a great sequence in "For A Few Dollars More" when the villians are
watching guards walk around the perimeter of a bank. Each villian was big in
foreground with the guards still in focus in the background. I also love the
shootout at the end, with Eastwood holding a pocket watch in the foreground as
the Van Cleef and the bad guy square off in the background.
David M.
Trawby
<film...@aol.com> wrote:
Mark, that's a pretty dicey question. There are just so many things to take
into consideration. For instance, it we do that contact print from 65mm to
35mm can we even afford to have perforations? I think we need to continue this
thread and let everyone become totally anal on the subject. Better yet, I'll
take one of those 300 AOL disks I've got and subscribe to that service if
everyone else will. Then we can go to a chat room and iron this whole thing
out. Maybe we can get an off duty member of the NLRB to mediate. What we most
want to do is loose track of the original subject, which, If I recall, and you
can correct me on this, had something to do with composition. Personally, I
would think that any format wider than 1.85:1 would merit inclusion in such a
discussion, but it looks like this is such a sensitive subject that maybe we'd
better get that chat room going as soon as possible. ;-)
Marty
--
Tra...@ix.netcom.com
Steven F Kraus
>
>Widescreen = anamorphic NTSC
>
>Unfortunately, now it is too late
Better still to leave video out of this discussion entirely. (Yes, I see
the cross posting.) For how many years were ordinary 1.33 projection
televisions touted as "widescreen"?
I'd rather suffer through the whole 70mm aspect ratio
debate over again than waste even a second discussing why a particular
laser disc is matted to a certain size. Movies are meant to be seen in
theatres. To the extent that video can re-create some semblance of that
experience, great. To the extent that it does not I am inclined to
remark, "Eh, it's video."
Guy Badger
>
>I also like Sergio Leone's 2.35 compositions, which could be described as a
>more exaggerated "comic book" version of Kurosawa's work.
>
>David M.
After 'Jaws' I'd put the Sergio Leone 'dollar' trilogy (and 'Once Upon A
Brad Hohle
> You want great CinemaScope composition? Try REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. One
> of the early Scope films, and just maginicent.
Maginicent?..... You mean Magnescope???....... Or maybe "The lenses have been changed to
protect the maginicent"?
Love and Kisses,
Brad
--
########################################################################
Brad Hohle * bho...@planet.net * b...@dolby.com * IATSE Locals 636,306
__o&vo__ * "Ya ain't been booed 'til ya been
1987 XLH * booed by six thousand people" -Bob Endres
########################################################################
Trawby
<ant...@aol.com> wrote:
> We blew a great opportunity because companies insist on mixing Letterboxed
> with Widescreen. We are going to have "Anamorphic NTSC" soon; with the
> comming of the DVD. What should have been done was:
>
> Letterbox = black bars
>
> Widescreen = anamorphic NTSC
>
> Unfortunately, now it is too late
I'm a little thick headed so maybe you could tell me why it's too late? I
don't think that the average laser disc user is too old to retrain. The great
unwashed masses using VHS aren't exposed to letterboxing on a regular basis so
they'll accept whatever comes along. Other terms that were in common use have
been changed and the public has managed to follow along. Dolby System movies
became Dolby Stereo, their AC-3 is now renamed Dolby Digital, Betamax was a
generic term for video cassette recorder for a couple of years, to mention just
a few examples.
Personally I have a problem with the term anamorphic NTSC. What about
anamorphic PAL and anamorphic SECAM? All these systems start with a 1.33:1
(4:3 for you t.v. mavins) image, and the anamorphic compression for any given
film will be the same when applied to any of the broadcast standards.
HDTV will come to fruition in the near future. Perhaps we can get our
semantics in line for that debut.
--
Tra...@ix.netcom.com
Trawby
Trawby
Trawby
Scott Pickering
Bridge On the River Kwai- David Lean is the best for composing
Dr. Zhivago widescreen images.
Scott Pickering
Young.
Its a shame Baraka wasn't recognized more as I believe that was a
perfect example of class A cinematography. It was flawless.
Lorr Kramer
how beautifully composed Becket is. The DP was Geoffrey Unsworth.
J.C. O'Connell
One of the most powerful widescreen shots I've ever seen is
the beginning of the scene in "Ben-Hur" where Judah visits
the loser of the chariot race ( his name escapes me at the moment ).
In the left foreground, the the fallen man is lain out on a table. On
the extreme right background, Judah is silhouetted at the doorway
looking upon his fallen adversary. Powerful, beautiful composition!
This film has a lot of great shots, but this one sticks out in my mind
as the best shot of the film which has many great ones. Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. O'Connell
(954)-755-0396 "Accidents seldom have such system"
hifi...@gate.net
hifis...@aol.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawby
On 4/27/96 2:03AM, in message <4ls69p$12...@news.gate.net>, J.C. O'Connell
<hifi...@gate.net> wrote:
> One of the most powerful widescreen shots I've ever seen is
> the beginning of the scene in "Ben-Hur" where Judah visits
> the loser of the chariot race ( his name escapes me at the moment ).
> In the left foreground, the the fallen man is lain out on a table. On
> the extreme right background, Judah is silhouetted at the doorway
> looking upon his fallen adversary. Powerful, beautiful composition!
> This film has a lot of great shots, but this one sticks out in my mind
> as the best shot of the film which has many great ones. Chris
It's pretty hard to fault Robert L. Surtees on his widescreen capabilities.
Inasmuch as he did "Oklahoma", the first Todd-AO film, and "Raintree County",
"Ben-Hur", and "Mutiny on the Bounty", the first three Camera 65/Ultra
Panavision films, in addition to other stuff in regular old CinemaScope,
Panavision, and other Todd-AO and Ultra Panavision features, it may be assumed
that a number of people thought highly of his talents. In the case of
"Ben-Hur" I suspect that the partnership with William Wyler made for a pair of
people with a keen sense of dramatic composition.
It is interesting to note that as a young film critic know-it-all Rex Reed
criticized Surtees photography for "Sweet Charity" for being too full of camera
moves. Reed stated that obviously Surtees had gotten the big head from doing
"The Graduate". Reed obviously didn't know Surtees history and wasn't aware of
the fact that he held three Oscars at that time.
--
Tra...@ix.netcom.com