Re: Episode 1.85 Download Di Film Mp4
Sibyl Piccuillo
Im myself not a filmaker but media collector, i have plenty of UHD blurays and over the years i always wondered why just arent current movies shot in 1.85 like old movies instead of 1.9 and paying royalties to imax, i think imax doesnt collect any royalty when other than 1.9 or 1.43 are played because i recently went to watch MI7 and it had 0 imax scenes, upon googling i realized that they cropped it at last payment to avoid paying royalties to imax, why just dont filmakers shoot in flat AR so they dont have to pay imax anything in cinemas, its also better for streaming as rhey dont have to pay imax for streaming too, 1.85 is also closer to 1.78:1 (compared to 1.9) which is usual AR for TVs
Both aspect ratios are very similar, and you can just frame in 1.78:1 in camera, but a lot of filmmakers will still make the final movie in 1.85:1 and I am wondering, is there a good reason why, when 1.78:1 is so close?
Open matte is a filming technique that involves matting out the top and bottom of the film frame in the movie projector (known as a soft matte) for the widescreen theatrical release and then scanning the film without a matte (at Academy ratio) for a full screen home video release.
Open matte can be used with non-anamorphic films presented in 2.20:1 or 2.39:1, but it isn't used as often, mainly because it adds too much additional headroom, depending upon how well the framing was protected or if the director chooses to create a certain visual aesthetic. Instead, those films will employ either pan and scan or reframing using either the well-protected areas or the areas of interest. Films shot anamorphically use the entire 35 mm frame (except for the soundtrack area), so they must use pan and scan as a result.
The rise of television and home media saw the use of a narrow aspect ratio of 4:3.[citation needed] To avoid letterboxing for broadcast releases, films were therefore reframed and cropped shot by shot to fit appropriately the full screen with the 4:3 aspect, with a process called pan and scan.[citation needed] Hence, only a cropped small portion of the theatrical frame was broadcast.[citation needed]
Many films over the years have used the open matte technique for home video releases and television broadcasts, the most prominent of which include the Back to the Future trilogy, the Jurassic Park trilogy, Schindler's List, Titanic, Top Gun, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, The Fugitive, and Predator, as well as many films that have been specially formatted for the IMAX expanded aspect ratio of 1.90:1 and 1.43:1. Stanley Kubrick also used this technique for his last three films The Shining (1980), Full Metal Jacket (1987) and Eyes Wide Shut (1999).
Pan and scan is an important process to optimise the film presentation for home viewing and television. For HDTV, a combination of zooming and cropping is done to a portion of a frame, usually in accordance to the most important details in a shot. Pan and scan can be done on a Scope (2.40:1) master for a film, or even the Open Matte version.
Open matte helps in the pan and scan process, as there is more image to work with, and use the extra image on the top and bottom to fill a 16:9 display for HDTV broadcasts. Additionally, filmmakers may choose to release the open matte version for a film's "widescreen" home video release, such as with James Cameron's Avatar and the Blu-ray 3D release of Titanic.
Usually, non-anamorphic 4-perf films are filmed directly on the entire full frame silent aperture gate (1.33:1). When a married print is created, this frame is slightly re-cropped by the frame line and optical soundtrack down to Academy ratio (1.37:1). The movie projector then uses an aperture mask to soft matte the academy frame to the intended aspect ratio (1.85:1 or 1.66:1). When the 4:3 full-screen video master is created, many filmmakers may prefer to use the full Academy frame ("open matte") instead of creating a pan and scan version from within the 1.85 framing. Because the framing is increased vertically in the open matte process, the decision to use it needs to be made prior to shooting, so that the camera operator can frame for 1.85:1 and "protect" for 4:3; otherwise unintended objects such as boom microphones, cables, and light stands may appear in the open matte frame, thus requiring some amount of pan and scan in some or all scenes. Additionally, the un-matted 4:3 version may often throw off an otherwise tightly framed shot and add an inordinate amount of headroom above actors (particularly with 1.85:1), depending upon how well the framing was protected or if the director chooses to create a certain visual aesthetic. With high-definition television now in common usage (with its standardized 16:9 (1.78:1) aspect ratio), the need to reformat 1.85:1 movies for television viewing has virtually evaporated, although television broadcasts still reformat 2.39:1 movies by means of using open matte or pan and scan. For films with wider aspect ratios (2.39:1, for example) the matting bars will appear on the top and bottom of the screen of the broadcast image, thus preserving each director's framing intent.
So I understand that originally the American widescreen 1.85 ratio was actually shot in camera on the 1.375 Academy ratio and then cropped in projector with a mask on the top and bottom (ex. Jurassic Park).
Wouldn't it make more sense to shoot the 1.85 aspect ratio on 3 perf over 4 perf? It would be printed back for a 4 perf projector, but the film negative itself would make more economical sense to shoot 3 perf?
Every time I saw the trailer for this, it was in 2.39:1, bar the one time I saw a trailer, on Sunday, which was 1.85:1 as it was before a PG-rated movie, and it felt a lot more toned down. I'd assumed they'd cropped the image, but when I saw the film last night, it actually is in 1.85:1!
I see the cinematic appeal for sure. However, if distribution happens, it will most likely be straight to streaming distribution, and not theatrical, likely. But I would send the movie into film festivals though, where it will be shown on theater screens to get it noticed first, which 2.39 could be useful for.
What do you think? Does anyone have any experience with what distributors prefer in terms of aspect ratio? One filmmaker told me that 2.39 shows that you are serious about your craft, whereas another told me that distributors prefer 1.85:1 because it fills TV screens more.
Countless other aspect ratios had been used exhaustively over the years too of course (including the once standard 1.33:1), but by the time HDTV took over in the early 2000s it was basically a two-horse race between 1.85:1 and 2.39:1.
A couple years ago when I made my second feature film Psychosynthesis, I decided to shoot the movie in a 1.33:1 aspect. At the time, there were a handful of other films (like American Honey and Son of Saul) that had used the format brilliantly. But it was noticeable when they did it, because few other movies were experimenting that way.
Noam Kroll is an award-winning Los Angeles based filmmaker, and the founder of the boutique production house, Creative Rebellion. His work can be seen at international film festivals, on network television, and in various publications across the globe. Follow Noam on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook for more content like this!
Disney also had a big week, with the second season of The Mandalorian ranking No. 3 on the Nielsen list after its debut on October 30. The launch of the show, along with Disney+, was in November 2019, months before Nielsen started publishing its weekly ratings over the summer. Disney also releases most of its streaming originals one at a time, which meant that only the Season 2 premiere episode, along with Season 1, could be counted toward overall viewing.
Regardless of whether productions choose to shoot on film or digitally, they will also have to pick an aspect ratio. This is the ratio of the width of the frame to the height, commonly expressed as a ratio such as 1.85 : 1. In the early days of film, movies were 1.33 : 1 (also called 4:3) which is close to being a square frame. However, when television came along and used the 4:3 format, Hollywood looked for new ways to make the cinema look bigger. They experimented with ever-wider formats, including ToddAO (2.20 :1), CinemaScope (2.35 : 1), anamorphic (2.39 : 1 ) and Cinerama (2.59 : 1) to name just a few.
These data may not be very accurate. but it is suggestive of digital taking an upper hand over film. If there was a 2.35:1 format in 16mm films, I am sure many would re work the economics of film. It is actually cheaper for pro. ( shot @ 5:1 ratio ).
100% correct. Thanks Doug.
I think many people feel shame when they talk about electronic imaging as digital. They tend to avoid it.
Digital has social inferior meaning(and negative psychological impact) compared to other classical visual forms of arts. Also, digital denotes truly no craftsmanship.
So, in a non declared agreement, practitioners have chosen to use film and photography terminology, in the place of the true and correct electronic imaging terminology.
Thanks for the great article. My dad was a camera operator with several companies (Technicolor,Fox and Twentieth Century-Fox. ) I always thought the best cinematography was in VistaVision films (so clear and sharp). The best color was the original three strip Technicolor!
In this episode he talks about his work on Jojo Rabbit, how he collaborated with Taika Waititi, and how he used an incredible quirk of mathematics to frame the film in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio while using anamorphic lenses.
A graduate of the University of Southern California School of Cinematic Arts, Schwartzman has shot the vast majority of his motion picture narrative credits on film. These include Pearl Harbor (2001); SeaBiscuit (2003), for which he received an Academy Award nomination for best cinematography, The Bucket List (2007); Saving Mr Banks (2013); and Jurassic World (2015).
aa06259810