8mm Forum: Just a thought concerning "Tender Mercies"

This is topic Just a thought concerning "Tender Mercies" in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003747

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 29, 2008, 09:15 PM:

I was watching "Tender Mercies" (1983, Robert duvall, Best actor oscar) this evening, and I thought I'd check out my own print because I was curious about something ...

I was right.

The DVD is cropped to give it the "letterboxed" image as presented in the movie theater. My optical sound Super 8mm print, (great color on that print, but slightly soft focus), isn't cropped and so I get the whole original image as it was originally shot. So I get to enjoy the film in a way that this DVD generation can't see it.

There are a num ber of other optical sound Super 8 releases that were done the same way, originally shot in non anamorphic full 35MM and then cropped for theatrical release.

But then, before the early 1950's (as a general rule) the aspect ratio was pretty darn near a perfect square, which you rarely see.

Just a thought.

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on May 30, 2008, 08:33 PM:

Osi

Let's keep this simple.

"Non anamorphic 35mm" is to confusing for some.

So peeps, let us know and understand aspect ratios, from this point forward. I do believe I have this right.....

1:33 = square like old tv sets

1:85 letter boxed widescreen flat

2:35 Cinemascope (35mm) I believe some of the Kempski super 8 prints are like this (sidematted vertically on the sides but a scope lens is needed to run them).

2:66 Cinemascope super 8 and 16. Extra cropping is done because 35mm is a taller frame (4 perf)

It has been awhile since I last researched this so I could be off base slightly.

Learn these numbers - know what they mean, use the numbers in your posts....everybody understands

CG

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 30, 2008, 09:58 PM:

Your right ...

1:33 for the un-initiated.

Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on May 30, 2008, 09:59 PM:

There are two ways to photograph a movie in 35mm. One is with spherical lenses or flat and the other is with anamorphic lenses or scope. In the Super35 format, spherical lenses are used and then the negative is blown up for an anamorphic release.

No as to aspect ratio. Generally no one shoot with a hard matte in the camera producing a 1.85 negative and thus shoot full frame and the masking is done in the final projection in the theatre. But that doesn't mean that you were supposed to see all the image photographed outside the 1.85 aspect ratio.

Way back in the days before video release, when we'd take a theatrical feature for television, we would screen it to make sure that there weren't "problems" on some scenes. Often the camera will see lighting equipment, mike booms and such. For those scenes we'd order an optical blow up and cut it into the negative before making tv prints.

There are many "classic" observations of these going on outside the indented viewing area. In Goldfinger the laser that starts to cut Bond in half doesn't extend to the top of the frame. Often opticals will suddenly hard letterbox since the optical company didn't create information for the part of the picture not shown.

In Pee Wee's Great Adventure (or something like that) when Pee Wee is riding the bicycle, there is no chain on the peddle sprocket. It's cut off in the theatre, but on the negative.

By the way, for what it's worth, Directors and Cinematographer have long fought against any prints not presented in the proper aspect ratio so you risk incurring the wrat of the Directors Guild of America and the American Society of Cinematographers which could break down your door at any moment and take your print!

Also for what it worth, 35mm anamorphic or scope prints have migrated over the years to the present SMPTE standard of 2.4:1. This was done to reflect common practice since the old 2.35 would show spliced on the screen and I guess they got tired of saying 2.39 so rounded it to 2.4.

Take a tape measure to your local cinema and you'll be suprised how far off most screens are since the aperture plates and lenses are picked for a particular auditorium with in commonly available focal lengths.

John

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 30, 2008, 10:06 PM:

The always wonderfully techincally superior John, we love ya!

So, I'll just say, full frame 35MM, not cropped, not anamorphic, just the full lovely 35MM frame.

Thats what Tender Mercies SEEMS to have been filled in.

I still stand by my statement about the DVD cropping of the image. Not only is there much more information on the top and the bottom of the frame, there is also more info on the left and the right oif the frame as well.

Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on May 31, 2008, 12:06 AM:

While not always accurate, IMDB states:
Runtime:100 min | 92 min (TCM print)
Country:USA
Language:English
Color:Color
Aspect Ratio:1.85 : 1 more
Sound Mix:Stereo
Certification:Iceland:L | Singapore:PG | Argentina:Atp | Australia:M (original rating) | Australia:PG (DVD rating) | Chile:TE | Finland:S | Sweden:Btl | USA:PG | UK:PG
Filming Locations:Palmer, Texas, USA

Just because a print is full frame doesn't mean that's the way it was composed and lit. Run a note off to the director.

John
(member DGA, been there, done that)

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on May 31, 2008, 02:34 AM:

My 16mm print is full frame.

As John says cinemas vary the projected image ratio depending on their masking plates. These probably have been set for sightlines, available width of stage, and often to give a similar screen shape to CinemaScope so that the latter also fills the same screen. Thus, there is no need to have variable masking.

However, none of this explains why Osi's DVD is "letterboxed."

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 31, 2008, 09:32 AM:

I think perhaps this is because people will feel that they are seeing the film widescreen for the first time, so it's a luxury of a sort. That's only my theory.

Strangely enough, for a film that's listed as stereo, I have NEVER heard it in stereo. The DVD is mono, just like my optical Super 8 print, but the sound is a little better.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2