With my timeline working flat out producing Nativity play copies I was able to watch TV last night. I sat through Fight Club and generally admired the imaginative camera movements and clever artistic effects. At various points I also found I was admiring the script and the original story, but oh, how quickly this can be brought crashing to the ground.
How?
By having the microphone included in the shot. Twice I saw it - not wanting to, but who can miss a wind-shield flitting about disrupting the top mask? Yet it wasn't as if the Beeb were transmitting a 4:3 pan 'n scan version, this was shown in 16:9.
tom.
hi tom,
I only checked the end of 'Fight Club' on TV - but I have had it on DVD for some time.
anyhow, in answer to your question :
The film was shot on Super35. The theatrical prints (and the DVD) are correctly matted for the wide 2.35:1 aspect ratio.
when the BBC did their 16:9 transfer, they will have opened up the frame. This will have lost some information from the side of the screen, and included a lot of extra image at the top and bottom that the director had not intended to be seen.
if you scroll down to Super 35 on this link you can see what i am on about ...
http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml
this screen shot is from terminator2 directed by Cameron who uses top-align (the shots are composed to a common top line). I think David Fincher shoots a little nearer the center of the frame, which is what allowed you to see the mics. (a common top line is bad for dolly shots, as the tracks will creep in the bottom of the frame)
pretty much any time you see a boom (or dolly tracks), it is the cinema projectionist or the telecine operator's fault, never the cinematographer.
this (and the lack of Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack) is why I chose to miss the BBC2 transmission - if these guys broadcast it right, i'll maybe watch it.
David.
[This message has been edited by defjam99 (edited 26 December 2002).]
[This message has been edited by defjam99 (edited 26 December 2002).]
I was fascinated to read the explanation for this but at the same time was amazed that a director/cinematographer, using super 35, would apparently be happy to leave the ultimate framing of his masterpiece to telecine operators and projectionsts.
It didn't take me long to find this link http://www.vfxhq.com/spotlight97/9707b.html which shows that at least one wanted to retain complete control!
Interesting stuff.
Regards NL
[This message has been edited by Nigel Longman (edited 26 December 2002).]
hi nigel,
the article is slightly misleading, the CGI for the Fifth Element is composed and hard-matted to the wide 2.35:1 aspect ratio.
the live action was still shot using the full frame of the Super35 negative.
if you look at the fullscreen version on DVD (purely for research) you will see lots of floor and ceiling, except in the FX shots which are cruelly pan+scanned down to 4:3 (the edges just cropped right off).
the reasons are pretty much down to money; CGI is still pretty expensive, and like old Japanese artworks, it is priced by the square foot. the bigger the frame to be rendered the more it costs. (which is one reason why Digital Domain tried to sell Besson the 1.66:1 visuals)
if you are working to a budget, you will normally only pay for what you need up on the screen.
fortunately a lot of the new younger directors (Paul Thomas Anderson onwards), seem a lot more strident, and a mischevious about this. shooting in anamorphic, and deliberatley composing shots to use the full width of the frame.
their view, anyone watching a full-screen version of a film deserve all they get
BTW, cheers for mentioning The Fifth Element - it had been too long since I saw this, and it was great to see it again.
David
Hi, great film (I also love the explanation of the plane collision on the DVD extras). There's a fabulous article on how the lighting schema/palettes etc were chosen at http://www.edward-norton.org/fc/articles/amcin.html by cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth. Fascinating stuff, cheers Mark