i guess widescreen *isn't* better in this case! (was Re: Widescreen is better!)

[illyana delorean]

>i wrote:
>>  When a movie is filmed in widescreen (such as
>>  both of the Harry Potter movies), pieces of metal are placed at the
>>  top and the bottom of the gate on the camera - the gate is the area
>>  of the camera where the film will be exposed while shooting. It is
>>  basically the "shutter" of the camera - where the camera brings in
>>  information. This process is called "gating." Although parts of the
>>  film are not used during the filming, these pieces are not exposed
>>  and, therefore, do not contain any information (they did not film
>>  anything). This creates widescreen.

then, GulPlum totally proved me wrong:

>Not true. Super 35 exposes the full (roughly) 4:3 frame. Hence, as
>per PS/SS, there is information above and below the widescreen
>picture. What I found baffling about the PS/SS release was that the
>fullscreen version did not consist of the full Super 35 picture, but
>of a different sub-set of it, although there are exceptions (such as
>Harry's letter).

Thank you so much for clearing all of this up. I did not know that 
the movie was shot in Super 35; therefore, everything I said is 
untrue about the way they shot it! It is pretty strange that Chris 
Columbus chose to shoot the movie at 4:3, though, and I know that you 
(GulPlum) agree with this because I checked out your website!

>
>That is only true of widescreen films shot in Panavision, Scope or
>other similar processes. It is NOT true of most films shot on Super
>35 and similar. The widescreen version is as much "panned and
>scanned" as the full screen version, except that it's up and down
>rather than side to side. In a way, the widescreen vesion is even
>*more* panned and scanned than the full screen once, as the full
>screen usually is just that - the whole exposed frame, whereas the
>widescreen one is less than 2/3 of it.

Understood. I really need to watch the movie again, because I didn't 
notice any panning and scanning going on - maybe because it is 
up-and-down and not side-to-side, as I am used to (I really hate 
that!). Plus, I was totally not expecting any, so I guess my brain 
didn't register it as being panned and scanned.

>
>  > "Widescreen version presented in a "Letterbox" widescreen format
>>  preserving the "scope" aspect ratio of its original theatrical
>  > exhibition."
>>
>
>No. It's the name of the aspect ratio in which the film was released
>in cinemas, which is exactly what that sentence means. It does NOT
>say the film was *shot* in Scope. To discover that the film was
>*shot* in Super 35, you need to watch the technical section of the
>end credits.

Okay, it makes sense that way, too. Thanks for the clear-up.

GulPlum, I think that it is very cool that you took the time to set 
up that website. It obviously cleared-up a lot of confusion for me, 
and I am sure that other HP fans appreciate it, as well!

To make this less-OT: Does anyone want to venture a guess regarding 
which format Cuaron will choose to film POA? Do you think he will use 
Super 35 and continue what Columbus started, or will he go his own 
way? I have seen "Y Tu Mama Tambien," but, truthfully, I was not 
paying too much attention to the cinematography, so I don't know too 
much about Cuaron's style!

illyana

p.s. My boyfriend actually gave me a lot of the information that I 
presented in my previous post (he is a film student), and when he 
learned about the way Chris Columbus filmed the movie, and after he 
took a look at your website, he likes Columbus even less. Why should 
we have to buy both versions in order to catch every little bit of 
cinema?
-- 
HPGCv1
a22 e+ x+* Rm Ri HP4 S+++ Mo++ HG+/VK++ HaP+/SS+++& FGW++ DM++& VC-- 
GG-- CD+ VK++ SS+++& PT--- AF-- MM++ RL++ O+m FAo F- Sl FHo SfD

visit my livejournal! http://www.livejournal.com/users/illyanadmc