ValentineXavier
-
Posts
6,917 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by ValentineXavier
-
-
> {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote}
> I just recently got Encore channels, because I'm newly subscribed to FIOS, and it is part of the initial year's package. I'm shocked that in 2010, movie channels are still cropping their films! It was the main reason I got rid of them (HBO, Cinemax, Showtime), years ago. The second the free-package is up, I'll be getting rid of it. I do like the Western one, though, for the television shows. But their films, ugh!
I gave up on HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime, to save money. But, most of what they show on their HD channels is in the proper aspect ratio. You would think that the cable co.s would realize that more and more people have HD TVs, and would prefer letterboxed films, even in SD. But, I fear it's been a 4x3 world for so long, that it will take them several more years to change.
-
I'm surprised that someone more knowledgeable than I hasn't answered by now, but I'll take a shot -
It is my understanding that TCM's policy is to show films in their Original Aspect Ratio, whenever possible. But, as we both know, they aren't always in OAR. Some are not available in transfers that are in OAR. Sometimes TCM believes they are getting a film in OAR, but they were really sent a pan-and-scan version, and have to show it that way. Once in a while, TCM has both prints, and grabs the wrong one to show. TCMpgmmr has posted that for a film or two. BTW, *The Green Slime* is really in 2.35:1, and I started a thread, complaining about the 4x3 showing. In 4x3, we only see 57% of the film.
Then, there are some other factors:
When the film world was first moving to wide screen, often films were shot in 35mm Spherical, which means the image on the film was 1.37:1, but they were meant to be matted to 1.85:1. Because TV was 4x3, and VHS is 4x3, these films were sometimes shown in a full, unmatted, 1.37:1 version, and that is the only version ready to be shown on TV today.
1.66:1 films are rarely shown in their OAR. It is close enough to 1.33:1 that some (not me!) think it's okay to show in 1.33:1. Sometimes that is from a 35mm Spherical print, so there is nothing missing, it just hasn't been matted to 1.66:1, so we see some extra at the top and bottom, like with unmatted 1.85:1 Spherical films. But, sometimes a matted 1.66:1 film is rematted down to 1.33:1, so we lose some of the sides.
1.85:1 films, both Spherical films, and anamorphic films - which are first squeezed horizontally onto the 1.37:1 film frame, then stretched back to 1.85:1 during projection, and don't require matting - are almost always shown in 1.78:1 (16x9) when shown in HD, losing just a bit off each side. In the very few cases where a 1.85:1 film is shown in OAR, you will see a very thin black bar on the top and bottom of your screen, unless your TV has too much 'overscan.'
Also, there is now "Super 35," which is shot "open matte," because it is meant to be used to produce various aspect ratios from the same film. *Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves* is an example of an open matte Super 35 film from which both 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 prints were made. Being more recent, these are usually in their intended theatrical aspect ratio on DVD, which is usually 1.85:1. But, they are usually shown in 1.78:1 on HDTV.
If I screwed up, or omitted anything, hopefully I will be corrected by some of the more knowledgeable people here.
-
> {quote:title=mongo wrote:}{quote}
>
> Host Ed Sullivan gets a rise out of Peter O'Tooole on the set
It looks like Ed is admiring Peter's "really big shew."
-
Most of my favorite Japanese filmmakers have been mentioned already, in fact I like all that have been mentioned. The first Japanese film I saw was Mizoguchi's *Ugetsu*, when I was a freshman at U. of Michigan. For many years, I considered it the best film of all time. I've seen many films in the years since, and it still holds up as one of the greatest. I'd also point out that Mizoguchi is considered one of the earliest feminist filmmakers, because of his films depicting the plight, and accomplishments, of women.
Since I still live near the U. of Mich., I have attended the UM Center for Japanese Studies film program for many years, and had the opportunity to see lots of films projected on a fair sized screen. This fall they will be showing a Kurosawa retrospective, with 8 recently restored 35mm prints. They are familiar films, but it will be nice to see them under such good conditions.
-
Although *Rear Window* is not my top Hitchcock film, *Vertigo* is, I think that part of *Rear Window's* appeal to so many, besides the voyeurism, is that Stewart, the protagonist, is himself helpless, and very vulnerable.
-
I recommend keeping a pitcher of icewater by your side. Or, if you have a big screen TV, maybe two pitchers, maybe lemonade...
-
> {quote:title=JakeHolman wrote:}{quote}
> He didn't wear elevator shoes or cry in movies. He epitomized what the American male should represent--fair, tough and a man of action.
>
Tough and a man of action, yes, most always. But fair? IMO, rarely. I see him as stubborn, so sure of himself he wouldn't consider that what others thought might have some validity, and most always governed by his own biases. Of course I realize that the image he projects is a lot of people's epitome of manliness, and 'Americaness', but it's not mine, and that's why I never cared for him as a person, and only like a few of his movies.
Obviously you are a great fan of his, and I said that not to **** you off, out of contrariness, or in the belief that my opinion is superior. I just want to make it clear that there is another view of him. Of course, if I had the Duke's attitude, I'd just think I'm right, and you're wrong, and there's nothing more to it...
-
> {quote:title=CelluloidKid wrote:}{quote}
> *Aspect Ratio: Widescreen- 1.85:1 anamorphic* imdb.com
The IMDb lists *Anatomy of a Murder* as 1.85:1, but shot in 35mm Spherical, not anamorphic.
Spherical means that the full 35mm frame is in 1.37:1, and meant to be cropped to 1.85:1.
Anamorphic means that special lenses are used to squeeze the widescreen image into a 1.37:1 frame, and it is then stretched to 1.85:1 with an anamorphic lens when projected.
-
At the risk of drawing laughter, I'll have to say that I never saw greater devotion and romantic attachment between a couple than that between Johnny Weismuller and Maureen O'Sullivan in the Tarzan series. Some of it was sexy, too!
-
> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}
> There was one real give-it-away scene just after they fool the character Karl Nielson into believing that this was Monty. Mills and Clifton-James sit in chairs opposite each other to discuss the deception. As seen on TV, we hear them talking but all we see are their respective knees on opposite sides of the screen.
Exactly. There were also a couple of other scenes where two principles were on opposite sides of the frame, and we could only see a fraction of both.
Perhaps the 1.66:1 version was recropped to 1.33:1. I have seen such a version of *How I Won The War*.
Edited by: ValentineXavier on Aug 28, 2010 8:05 PM
-
> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote}
> That was a hostile post. You need to stop taking things so personally. If people find other ways to enjoy films, other than thru TCM, that's their prerogative.
If you are referring to my post stating that I could, in the comfort of my own home, watch a TCM film of my choice, from my DVR, at no additional charge, while you are digging through the bins at Walmart, that was not the least bit hostile. I was merely stating my prerogative, and why I prefer it to yours. You "need to stop taking things so personally."
-
O'Toole is a favorite of mine. IMO, *Lawrence of Arabia* is the greatest epic film I have seen. And, *The Ruling Class* is one of my all-time favorite comedies. Well, at least in part, a black comedy. I'm also looking forward to *The Stunt Man*, since I have never seen it. I programmed to record it on both the HD and SD channels, so if they mess up and letterbox it in HD, I can watch the SD version, and zoom it to fill the screen.
-
> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote}
> I agree...I do think the director's cut is the definitive version.
I too think that the director should be able to determine the final cut of the film, and that is the film that should be released. When the director is forced to make cuts, and they are later allowed to restore what they wanted, usually to a successful film, well that is also a good thing. But, sometimes a film is recut, longer, and called the "director's cut," to make more money, either by a rerelease, a new DVD version, or both. I don't think this always adds to the artistry of the film.
> But then there are directors who tend to over-film (we won't mention names because there have been a few with each generation). Budgets run over, studio heads get panicky and it's scissor time, especially when the film doesn't score well with preview audiences. An extreme example: HEAVEN'S GATE (cut from 228 minutes to 149 minutes).
>
I have seen the 228m version of *Heaven's Gate* several times, and it is a wonderful film. I think it should actually be longer. There is too much skipped over in the last third, or so, of the film.
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}
>
> A cameraman working on that type of film would have a regular 1:37 viewfinder, with a colored see-through matte in front of it showing the wide-screen portion of the image. That way the cameraman could see both the full 1:37 area of his scene, and the matte that showed the 2 : 1 area of the scene (or 1:85 to 1, or whatever), and he could compose his scenes for BOTH wide-screen and normal 1:37 viewing, while using only one camera to shoot the whole movie.
>
I always wondered how that part worked. So, they could see the whole image, but with a colored matte!
-
Wanna bet it's 4x3 pan and scan?
-
> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}
>
> *Mourning Becomes Electa Glide in Blue Hawaii* Robert Blake investigates Michael Redgrave's suicide note but Rosalind Russell wanting to make him her new love interest and Elvis Presley's singing drives him back to safe, quiet desert.
Ooh! I like that title! But, I'm going for a spoonerism, and a pun, this time.
*The Lying Feathernecks*
A squadron of disgruntled and cowardly Marine aviators refuse to engage the enemy, but claim they did, upon return from their missions. So, The Duke is sent in to straighten them out.
*Two Mules for Sinister Sara*
A Voodoo priestess, pretending to be a nun, searches for two mules she needs to perform a ritual to conjure up a demonic gunfighter to help the Juaristias drive the French from Mexico.
-
> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=markfp2 wrote:}{quote}
> I can not record movies on FMC at home with cable and Philips DVD recorder. I can not record movies on FMC at esso's home with satellite and Sony DVD recorder. Both will record commercials and some featurettes on FMC but both give anti-copy warning at start of or just after opening credits on movies. I think he can record all of FMC on his hard-drive recorder but he has modified it so heavily one must have advanced degree in electronics, experience in data decryption and know magic spells to operate it.
Philips DVDRs are not known to have false positives for CPRM, but Sonys are notorious for it. If your Philips really won't record FMC movies, but will record other things on FMC, I'll admit that certainly sounds like it is coming from FMC, and I'm stunned. I have no trouble recording from FMC over Comcast, with my Pioneer DVDR.
-
> {quote:title=HarryLong wrote:}{quote}
> IMDB also shows the aspect ratio as 1.85.
> Very few films after the arly 1950s (because of the perceived threat from television) were shown theatrically in Academy Ratio, though a number were filmed that way with the intention of masking off the top and bottom in theaters (unless the theater owner was too lazy to bother adjusting the black strips on his screen*)
The IMDb also says that the film was shot in 35mm Spherical, which would make an Academy ratio 1.37:1 print. I think it is safe to say that the 1.85:1 ratio was intended, but it was shot in 1.37:1.
I'm not a projectionist, but I have projected a bit, and know several projectionists. It is my understanding that the intended aspect ratio of the film is matched by the aspect ratio of the aperture plate in the projector. So, there should actually be very little image bleeding on to the masking, unless the wrong aperture plate was used.
-
Thanks for posting that! I will soon be shooting my last rolls of Kodachrome slide film at a music festival, and send them in to Dwayne's Photo, the last place in the world that processes it. They will stop in December, as Kodachrome is no longer made. That's very sad. It was the best.
-
> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote}
> Not necessarily true. The Walmart in my neighborhood has a few of those bins, and there are a fair number of good quality films.
Okay, you go to Walled Mart, search through their bins for the occasional decent film, pay $5, and bring it home. I'll sit down on my comfortable couch, check my DVR listing for films I've recorded from TCM, and watch one at no additional cost while you're at Walmart. When you get back from Walmart, I'll be watching another one. And, I'll have a much bigger selection.
-
> {quote:title=Big_Bopper wrote:}{quote}
> i just told you Night Tide. Why dont you check your copy & see its fake letterbox?
Although you mentioned *Night Tide*, you did not specifically say it was in "fake letterbox." *Night Tide* is an odd case. The IMDb says it was shot in 1.66:1. However, the official commercial release, by Image Entertainment, is 1.85:1, which would be cropped top and bottom. My guess is that Sinister Cinema doesn't own broadcast rights, perhaps not even DVD rights, and has issued the film in OAR, but the people who own the broadcast rights only release the film in 1.85:1.
That is odd, and it may sound stupid, which I think it is. But, studios do dumb things. Warner Home Video released the first season of the Kung Fu TV show in 16x9 WS, cropped from the original 4x3. Go figure. But, I don't believe for a minute that TCM would get an OAR print, then crop it for broadcast. That makes no sense whatsoever.
-
> {quote:title=cujas wrote:}{quote}
> I've seen Kitano on Japanese TV--he's the same as in his movies. I don't usually go for gangster films, but I loved *Brother*. Very Japanese and American.
Well, I liked *Brother*, but to me it paled beside his other films. If you haven't seen *Fireworks* or *Sonatine*, you should check them out, I think they are his best gangster flicks.
I know he's a comedian on Japanese TV, but that is hard to imagine, only having seen his films. But, he did make *Kikujiro*, which is comedic, and a good film.
-
I'm sure my favorite SUTS day will be Peter O'Toole. They are showing *The Ruling Class*, which is one of my favorite films, *Lawrence of Arabia*, which is great, and *The Stunt Man*, which I've heard so much about, but I've never seen, and it isn't on DVD, just to name a few.
As to Julie Christie. Before I watched several of her films on TCM that I had not seen before, I thought she was always rather wooden, and didn't think much of her. After seeing her in a few more films, I still don't think she's a great actress by any means, but I think she is not always wooden, and usually adequate.
-
> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}
> >>Now there's a name I haven't heard in years. I really liked his comic work in CASTLE OF FRANKENSTEIN. He illustrated DR. STRANGE fo a while, too, I think...
>
> Although Chris did write a few articles for CoF, I think that you must be thinking of another old friend of mine, Frank Brunner. I'm happy to report that he's still alive.
>
Frank was definitely my favorite Dr. Strange artist. Sorry, Gene Colan...
Lawrence of Arabia is on
in Hot Topics
Posted
> {quote:title=fredbaetz wrote:}{quote}
> This is one of the great ones. Even if you have a 50 inch screen, it still doesn't do justice. If you ever get a chance to see it on the big screen, well, it's one of the greatest film going experiences of all time' I saw it when it opened in New York and never forget the beauty of that film....
Well, I have a 56" screen, sit 8' away, and you're right, it doesn't do it justice. I saw the 1989 restoration during its rerelease, on a Cinerama screen, 70mm print, in downtown Detroit. It was stunning, but the film broke 6 or 8 times! The desert was so overwhelming, that I actually felt constantly parched! The score added to that parched feeling. Thus my joke about the pitchers of water...
Edited by: ValentineXavier on Aug 29, 2010 8:15 PM
Addendum: In the wee hours of the morning, I began transferring *LoA* from the HDD of my DVR to the HDD of my DVDR. Of course, I had to watch a bit to see how it looked. I meant to watch just a few minutes, but wound up watching half, and going to bed after 6am.I was going to stop after they reached the well, and met Ali. Then I was going to stop when they crossed the uncrossable waste, then I was going to stop when they took Aqaba, then... Hard to tear myself away.
Edited by: ValentineXavier on Aug 29, 2010 8:17 PM