Aspect Ratio...
jamesbondagent007
Divided States of TrumpPosts: 236MI6 Agent
For years the Bond films have had a 2.35:1 'super wide' aspect ratio, and while it does look nice, I much prefer the old 1.85:1 or 16:9 ratio. This, for me, gives a film more of a closer, personal feel to it, whereas the wider one makes a movie seem too blockbuster-ish. Most character-driven dramas these days seem to be 16:9, and all the big money-grabbers use the wider format because it looks more cinematic.
My point is this, which aspect ratio will CR be using? Both trailers seem to show 16:9, and I would love that because the cinematography looks excellent. But most movies of this caliber, especially action films, always use the other type, and I think it would ruin the cinematography and make it look average if they did.
This may not matter to many of you, but a crazy film buff like myself takes aspect ratios seriously because they're important in setting the mood.
My point is this, which aspect ratio will CR be using? Both trailers seem to show 16:9, and I would love that because the cinematography looks excellent. But most movies of this caliber, especially action films, always use the other type, and I think it would ruin the cinematography and make it look average if they did.
This may not matter to many of you, but a crazy film buff like myself takes aspect ratios seriously because they're important in setting the mood.
Comments
Oh well, it can't be all that terrible.
I'm curious if they've shot CR on film or if they've gone digital as more and more movies seem to be doing. Given the increasing importance of the home market, a digitally shot movie would probably yield a cleaner and sharper transfer to DVD (Episodes II and III of the Star Wars prequels were shot on digital tape and even their standard DVD's look amazing).
I'm sure this movie was shot on 35mm film as it should be. Although films shot digitally look great on DVD the quality is a long way short of 35mm film. Most of us see 35mm prints of digitally shot films as there are few theatres equipped for digital projection, and the images I've seen are unimpressive, lacking definition, clarity and verve. There are usually many unpleasant digital artifacts too. Digital cinematography may be superior when the technonlogy has improved, but at the moment 35mm film is still far better.
Bond films have traditionally used the Panavision 35mm anamorphic process, to achieve a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, not cropped 35mm.
Therefore, it is the TV version that gets cropped (on the right and left sides) not the cinema version.
Many films have been shot using this process, including Lord of the Rings but I believe this is the first time a Bond movie has used it.
Why do you think this?
It provides a vastly inferior quality image to Panavision, it would be odd that they change at this stage.
But you will notice that I said “traditionally” not “In Casino Royale”, as I don’t know what they are using yet.
Masking down a 35mm frame to 2.35 : 1 would mean that the film grain would be enormous on cinematic prints. I know that it is quit stranded to use masking to achieve 1.85 : 1 as this looses an acceptable amount of negative room when making cinematic prints and benefits TV transfers. However, Panavision utilises the entire frame to achieve its aspect ratio and therefore has the finest quality in terms of film grain and resolution when making and exibiting cinematic prints. (Plus Bond films are only made available on DVD in full frame Panivision anyway)
Furthermore, I notice when you see the monitors on the Casino Royale “making of” videos, they only show a “Chalk Mark” for 2.35 : 1 aspect ratio, and no alternative framing “Chalk Mark” , this indicates to me that they are indeed using an anamorphic process of some sort.
Also, Super 35mm is not strictly a masking process but an anamorphic process anyway, it simply involves making the anamorphic “squeeze” in the lab after the shoot and not using Panavision lenses from the image origin.
You can read about the details of the process here.
http://www.jkor.com/peter/super35compare.html
using Panavision Anamorphic Lenses. My experience has been you can't always tell by the trailer what the actual aspect ratio of a film is.I have read that sometimes trailers for 2.35:1 films are issued in a cropped 1.85 format so projectionists don't have to change lenses just to show a trailer when the feature is not in scope. I have also seen trailers to 1.85:1 films cropped to the 2.35:1 ratio. In the 80's and early 90's alot of directors shyed away from shooting in scope as their compositions were ruined when shown on TV or video. With the acceptance of letterboxing and advent of larger/
widescreen TVs along with DVDs, the 2.35:1 ratio
has made a huge comeback. Martin Scorcese, who for years avoided scope until "Cape Fear" has shot all his films since in 2.35:1. I personally prefer the 2.35:1 ratio for most action films, but 1.85:1 can be as effective if the images are well composed (Saving Private Ryan was 1.85 and looked amazing).
and Casino Royale is the featured article with a terrific picture of Daniel Craig on the cover.
The article is excellent and a must for any real Bond fans. Great tech information of the how's and why's of the film's look. As per CR's DP, CR was the first Bond film shot in Super 35 2.35 to 1 aspect ratio. He further explains that Super 35 was chosen over Panavision Anamorphic because it yields a much greater "depth of field". He also stated that alot of old 60's spy films like the "Ipcris Files" were shot in "Techniscope" which was the forerunner of Super 35 and he wanted to get that type of look for CR.
compromises so that they would translate to TV or
video better. Seeing Thunderball, etc on a 60 ft
wide screen in a packed 1,200 seat plus theatre
was an experience that cannot be approached no matter how large the television. For this reason I made sure that I saw CR in the largest theatre
I could find (650 seats, 50 ft screen)and it was well worth the extra planning, travel,etc. When I saw CR I assumed it was anamorphic Panavision as it did not display the graininess that is sometimes displayed with Super 35 2.35 to 1 films. Kudos to EON for the fine job they have done and also kudos to my local theatre for caring enough to provide sharp projection and good sound.