SCREEN-L Archives

December 1994, Week 2


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Jeremy Butler <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 14 Dec 1994 09:35:05 CST
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (65 lines)
Author:  [log in to unmask] (Edmond  Chibeau)
Date:    12/14/94 2:20 AM
[Editor's note:  This message was submitted to SCREEN-L by the "Author" noted
above, and not by Jeremy Butler ([log in to unmask]).]
re: the meaning of the aspect ratio
I thought Greg Weir's statements on aspect ratios were really interesting!
But what did you mean "Super 35 leaves the option of composition to the
director"  ?
Isn't super 35 meant to be blown up to 70mm for release ?
Also, what was the aspect ratio of Vista Vision  (there was a size and
height difference)?
In what way did it leave the format up to the projectionist?   Were there
masks on the projector itself, and if so don't all projectors have masks,
and thus leave the aspect ration to the projectionist??
I find it interesting that Kubrick wanted "Strangelove" projected part 1.33
and part 1.66, I think that could really change the meaning of cuts between
scenes, I am embarrassed and sorry to say that, although I have seen the
movie,  I never noticed the change.
What is the relationship between aspect ratio and film size?
Yes I would like to know where I can read more about aspect ratios, you
recommend "The Perfect Vision" and "Widescreen Review"
Alan Rudolph spoke about shooting in super 35 as the "poor man's Scope" in
the November 1994 Millimeter magazine.  He says about widescreen "It is a
format that is only known, that we only relate to, as film, whereas 1.85
[spherical] and 1.66 and the older formats still kind of feel like what we
(Solman, Gregory.  "Roundtable Manners: Inside Alan Rudolph's Elite Circle"
in Millimeter November 1994 p44)
What is the difference between 1.66 and 1.85, how are they used today?
What are the major aspect ratios we might see today?
1.33 = pre 1953 and TV
1.85 = why is this called "spherical?"
2.20 is this the aspect ratio of 70 mm that we see today?
2.62 = Cinerama (used 3 cameras and 3 projectors to equal 2.62
2.66 = CinemaScope(anamorphic)by Fox in 1953 with "The Robe" then reduced it to
2.55 = CinemaScope(anamorphic lens) This enlarging of a 35 mm film leads to
a grainy picture thus we shoot super 35 or 70 mm
In 1919 E.W. Clark patented a method of laying a 35 mm camera on its side,
when Paramount put it to use it shot one image on two frames of 35 mm film
and then printed to 35 but yielding a larger image called Vista Vision.
The Omnimax formats of today run the film through on its side.
So the answer is yes, I would like to know more about aspect ratio and would
like to know if anyone can deny that it has an impact on the meaning of a film.
Although for me, a film has no original, no authentic "it" from which it
draws its aura and to which we must always give precedence.
  Edmond Chibeau
  [log in to unmask]