![]() |
How far can a feature film not shot in widescreen go?
Can it win at a film festival? Can it get nationwide theatre release?
|
if your film is worth winning, then it will. Shouldn't matter that much wether your film was shot in 16:9 or not
Everyday I see more and more 4:3 footage broadcasted.... |
Quote:
Anyway, aspect ratio has nothing to do with it. If you're shooting a tiny production, than it all boils down to how much hype your content generates. Maximum hype = Maximum Distribution chances for tiny unknown productions. |
Quote:
1.66 : 1 (theatrical ratio, Europe) 1.85 : 1 (theatrical ratio, USA) Kubrick shoot a non cinema wide movie? I don't think so. Maybe it was Lawrence of Arabia you were thinking of? |
Blair Witch was Full Screen
|
What about 28 days later? That had to be shot in 4:3 because the XL1 doesn't have a true 16:9, right? I really shouldn't post things if I'm not sure, but I'm kind of doing it to find out the answers myself.
As for The Shining, there is no Wide Screen version available, that's for sure. |
About the Shining, they released it in theatres in widescreen, but for the TV/VHS-version Kubrick wanted to use the whole screen. So that was one of the few times (the first?) people saw 'more' of the film then in the theatres. Film is in 4:3 most of the times anyway, but they cut of top and bottom before release. Then, for TV-release, they cut of the sides again. Kubrick thought this was a waste and wanted the whole screen. That's why you see an accidental helicopter shadow in the opening credits at the bottom of the screen, it wasn't there in the movie theater!
Gotta love imdb :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As far as the Shinning goes the Ariflex cameras used, to my understanding don't shoot in a 4:3 ratio, unless it is being suggested that the letterboxed the sides the letterboxed again to get the 1.85:1 ratio. I really doubt this. My guess is that the "bigger screen" version is the European 1.66:1 version (the original shot) and was cropped further for 1:85:1 which is only logical. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
. |
Here's an interesting perspective on the 4:3 format versus widescreen:
THE DISASTER IN MODERN FILM, TV AND VIDEO OR OUR UNNATURAL WIDE-SCREEN FORMAT by Mark Anstendig http://www.anstendig.org/film_tv_disaster.htm |
Quote:
But there is some info from the Kubrick FAQ that I googled up, including stuff on the helicopter shot. Here's a comment about Kubrick's relationship with aspect ratio: http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/#n1s1 "It seems to have been Kubrick's preference for his films to be shown in the 4:3 or "full frame" aspect ratio, because, according to his long-standing personal assistant Leon Vitali, that was the way he composed them through the camera viewfinder and if it were technically still possible to do so, he would have liked them to be shown full frame in cinemas as well." |
I have several Kubrick DVD's and on the cover a couple of them say they're presented in full screen format because that's what the director wanted.
I know that 2001 is an exception however. Those shots are definitely composed for a wide screen. |
"Because a feature was shot on a camera that has native 4:3 chips does not mean the feature was released as such. 28 days later was edited and released wide screen"
I guess they used a 16:9 anamorphic lens adadpter and took advantage of the full chip size. btw. can somebody tell me where the square brackets are on a Mac with a European FCP Pro keyboard? I can't use the quote script without these... :( |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:00 AM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network