How far can a feature film not shot in widescreen go? at DVinfo.net

Anthony Vincent · April 19th, 2007, 07:21 AM

Can it win at a film festival? Can it get nationwide theatre release?

Andzei Matsukevits · April 19th, 2007, 08:13 AM

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....

Glenn Gipson · April 19th, 2007, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Vincent

Can it win at a film festival? Can it get nationwide theatre release?

I could be wrong about this, but I believe THE SHINING wasn't shot in wide screen.

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.

Ken Hodson · April 20th, 2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn Gipson

I could be wrong about this, but I believe THE SHINING wasn't shot in wide screen.

Aspect ratio
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?

John Hudson · April 20th, 2007, 11:57 AM

Blair Witch was Full Screen

Glenn Gipson · April 20th, 2007, 12:55 PM

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.

Steven Fokkinga · April 20th, 2007, 01:17 PM

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 :)

Glenn Gipson · April 20th, 2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Fokkinga

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 :)

Interesting...I've always wondered about that damn helicopter shadow lol. Good info.

Ken Hodson · April 20th, 2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn Gipson

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.

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.
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.

Ken Hodson · April 21st, 2007, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Hudson

Blair Witch was Full Screen

No it was 16mm wide screen mixed with with 4:3 video portions, which were meant to look that way so they stayed their native 4:3 (what the hell was 16:9 video in 1997 anyways?). As well this was one of the first true block-busters that had video footage, and gave many of us hope in a future of video film making.

David Garvin · April 21st, 2007, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Hodson

Kubrick shoot a non cinema wide movie? I don't think so.

Kubrick was into full aperture 1.33 (or 1.37) filmmaking. I don't know about The Shining in particular, but it would not be unheard of for Kubrick (or any filmmaker, for that matter) to choose to shoot full screen; he liked full screen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Hodson

As far as the Shinning goes the Ariflex cameras used, to my understanding don't shoot in a 4:3 ratio

That's simply not true.

.

James R. Leong · April 21st, 2007, 03:28 AM

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

David Garvin · April 21st, 2007, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James R. Leong

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

No offense, but I can't even take that article seriously.

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."

Boyd Ostroff · April 21st, 2007, 07:40 AM

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.

Heiko Saele · April 21st, 2007, 01:38 PM

"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... :(

April 19th, 2007, 07:21 AM	#1
Anthony Vincent Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 47	How far can a feature film not shot in widescreen go? Can it win at a film festival? Can it get nationwide theatre release?

April 19th, 2007, 08:13 AM	#2
Andzei Matsukevits Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Tallinn, Estonia Posts: 300	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....

April 20th, 2007, 11:57 AM	#5
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	Blair Witch was Full Screen

April 20th, 2007, 12:55 PM	#6
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	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.

April 20th, 2007, 01:17 PM	#7
Steven Fokkinga Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 204	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 :)

April 21st, 2007, 03:28 AM	#12
James R. Leong Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Canada Posts: 81	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

April 21st, 2007, 07:40 AM	#14
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	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.

April 21st, 2007, 01:38 PM	#15
Heiko Saele Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Wurzburg, Germany Posts: 316	"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... :(