2:35:1 or 1:85:1

I too have always felt most comfortable composing for 2.35:1. I really love the look and would take it over 2.85 and especially over 16:9 any day.

Shooting 2.35 requires a strong sense of composition which really leads to better images in my opinion. It's beautiful. Actually, I'm sort of convinced that it takes a lot more talent to compose for 16:9 than 2.35 since you can't rely on the aspect ratio alone.

Lately I've been experimenting with a 2:1 aspect ratio. It's non-standard but I've really grown to like it too. It's still wide enough for interesting composition in the horizontal direction but it's just different enough to make the composition unique.
 
I think 2:35:1 and 1:85:1 are very close in feel.
Click to expand...

You sure Brandon ?

Thanks for chiming in everyone. 2:35:1 definately has an epic feel but it is not a rule:

Spielberg seems to have preferred Scope early on with his first 4 films shot 2:35:1 ... (7 of first 10 in fact)

and only three times of last 13 has shot scope

Hmmm; I wonder why

Munich 2:35:1
War of the Worlds 1:85:1
The Terminal 1:85:1
Catch Me if you Can 1:85:1
Minority Report 2:35:1
AI 1:85:1
Private Ryan 1:85:1
Amistad 1:85:1
Lost World 1:85:1
Schindler's List 1:85:1
Jurassic Park 1:85:1
Hook 2:35:1
Always 1:85:1
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 2:35:1
Empire of the Sun 1:85:1
The Color Purple 1:85:1
Temple of Doom 2:35:1
E.T. 1:85:1
Raiders of the Lost Ark 2:35:1
1941 2:35:1
Close Encounters of the Third Kind 2:35:1
Jaws 2:35:1
The Sugarland Express 2:35:1
 
John_Hudson said:
You sure Brandon ?

Thanks for chiming in everyone. 2:35:1 definately has an epic feel but it is not a rule:

Spielberg seems to have preferred Scope early on with his first 4 films shot 2:35:1 ... (7 of first 10 in fact)

and only three times of last 13 has shot scope

Hmmm; I wonder why

Munich 2:35:1
War of the Worlds 1:85:1
The Terminal 1:85:1
Catch Me if you Can 1:85:1
Minority Report 2:35:1
AI 1:85:1
Private Ryan 1:85:1
Amistad 1:85:1
Lost World 1:85:1
Schindler's List 1:85:1
Jurassic Park 1:85:1
Hook 2:35:1
Always 1:85:1
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 2:35:1
Empire of the Sun 1:85:1
The Color Purple 1:85:1
Temple of Doom 2:35:1
E.T. 1:85:1
Raiders of the Lost Ark 2:35:1
1941 2:35:1
Close Encounters of the Third Kind 2:35:1
Jaws 2:35:1
The Sugarland Express 2:35:1
Click to expand...

Yeah, I do think the feel's are close... uh, I wonder why he has gone to 1:85:1... interesting...
 
Yas Kassana said:
Also, one thing that bugs me is Kubrick never shot in 2:35:1 always full frame. Interesting isn't? I've always imagined Kubricks films as being in full cinemascope, but no they never were or are, but look just as good.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Spartacus is in scope. And 2001 is 70mm 2.20, which is pretty close. But I agree they looked just as good. The Shining sort of makes me want to shoot in 1.33, just for the asthetic and framing, I guess.
 
Brandon you crazy fool. 2:35:1 and 1:85:1 aren't even close mang. 16:9 and 1:85:1 are

640x272 - 2.35:1 (Star Wars)***********
640x278 - 2.30:1
640x284 - 2.25:1
640x290 - 2.21:1
640x291 - 2.20:1 (2001)
640x300 - 2.13:1
640x305 - 2.10:1
640x320 - 2.00:1 (Austin Powers)
640x332 - 1.93:1
640x337 - 1.90:1
640x346 - 1.85:1 (Saving Private Ryan)*****
640x360 - 1.78:1
640x360 - 1.77:1 (16:9 - Widescreen TV's)


Billy

You do know that The Shining's intended aspect ratio was 1:66:1 (Not 1:33:1)
 
John_Hudson said:
Billy

You do know that The Shining's intended aspect ratio was 1:66:1 (Not 1:33:1)
Click to expand...


Hm :/ The Kubrick collection DVD says "...presented in the full aspect ratio of the original camera negative, as Stanley Kubrick intended" Those misleading bastards. I'd like to see a non-cropped version of Full Metal Jacket too. It was shot 1.37, cropped to 1.85 for theatrical exhibition, then cropped again to 1.33 for DVD.
 
Weird. Regardless, this makes me wonder if any of Kubrick's films on DVD are actually presented in their intended aspec ratios.
 
Billy Pilgrim said:
Weird. Regardless, this makes me wonder if any of Kubrick's films on DVD are actually presented in their intended aspec ratios.
Click to expand...

Not sure ... I am still waiting for FULL METAL to come out in 1:85:1 and not be only in FF

Interesting he'd intend Europe to be FF (For them) and 1:85:1 for us (U.S.)

640x232 - 2.76:1 (Ben-Hur)
640x233 - 2.75:1
640x251 - 2.55:1
640x256 - 2.50:1
640x267 - 2.40:1 (Fight Club)
640x272 - 2.35:1 (Star Wars)***********
640x278 - 2.30:1
640x284 - 2.25:1
640x290 - 2.21:1
640x291 - 2.20:1 (2001)
640x300 - 2.13:1
640x305 - 2.10:1
640x320 - 2.00:1 (Austin Powers)
640x332 - 1.93:1
640x337 - 1.90:1
640x346 - 1.85:1 (Saving Private Ryan)*****
640x360 - 1.78:1
640x360 - 1.77:1 (16:9 - Widescreen TV's)
640x366 - 1.75:1
640x368 - 1.74:1
640x376 - 1.70:1
640x386 - 1.66:1 (Army of Darkness)********
640x413 - 1.55:1
640x427 - 1.50:1
640x467 - 1.37:1
640x480 - 1.33:1 (Television)****

Hey Brandon

Tigerland and Devil's Rejects were shot in 16mm and cropped to 1:85:1 and 16mm has a frame of 1
:33
 
Whoa, I've never heard of anything above 2.40. According to wikipedia, no movie has actually been shot in 2.35 since 1970, and for soun synch reasons, it's actually been 2.39 (or 2.40) but called 2.35 because of the aesthetic.
 
Billy Pilgrim said:
Whoa, I've never heard of anything above 2.40. According to wikipedia, no movie has actually been shot in 2.35 since 1970, and for soun synch reasons, it's actually been 2.39 (or 2.40) but called 2.35 because of the aesthetic.
Click to expand...

Huh ?

But 2:35:1 is simply a crop (shooting Scope is 4:3)

Why would they say that ?

So, everyone is lazy and just writing 2:35:1 ? LOL
 
I like the fact that your title still says "The Anti Ray Carney". I have an old Sankor scope lens. Too bad it's too small to really work with the GL2 or DVX.
 
John_Hudson said:
Huh ?

But 2:35:1 is simply a crop (shooting Scope is 4:3)
Click to expand...


I could be wrong, but my understanding was that most 2.35 or 2.40 movies were shot anamorphic (scope), not cropped, since the loss of rez would be great (or increase of grain or however film people put it. It's still shot 4:3 (sometimes) just not cropped.

Unless I just misunderstood what u were saying.
 
Of course, of course ! I stand corrected !

I was focused on the print negative being 4:3 on not the fact that the anamorphic lens is used (and projected) .

Of course then there Super35 to further confuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top