Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » Apocalypse Now DVD (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Apocalypse Now DVD
Robert John Jeromson
Master Film Handler

Posts: 264
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Registered: Jul 2004


 - posted 07-21-2004 08:37 PM      Profile for Robert John Jeromson   Email Robert John Jeromson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hi, can anybody explain why Apcoalpse Now (the redux and the previous) are not available on DVD in their original 2.35:1 aspect ratio, I know that originally there were 70mm prints struck but even at their current 2:1 DVD ratio their not a 70mm ratio either.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 07-21-2004 09:48 PM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Because this is the preferred ratio (for this film)of cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, who personally supervised the transfer. He has said this was how he composed the film, and the rest of the image was wasted space.

 |  IP: Logged

Robert John Jeromson
Master Film Handler

Posts: 264
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Registered: Jul 2004


 - posted 07-21-2004 11:34 PM      Profile for Robert John Jeromson   Email Robert John Jeromson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I see, thanks for that [Smile]

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 07-22-2004 10:20 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Storaro and aspect ratios:

http://www.zoetrope.com/zoe_films.cgi?action=show_one&film_id=13

quote:
Question: Why is the aspect ratio of the Apocalypse Now Redux DVD not the 2.35:1 ratio of the cinematic release?

Answer:
(by Kim Aubry, Producer of Apocalypse Now Redux)

In fact, the transfer of Apocalypse Now Redux (from film elements to High Definition digital videotape) was made with an aspect ratio of 2.0:1. This is consistent with the 1998 transfer of the original film Apocalypse Now done for DVD.

The aspect ratio 2.0:1 was chosen by the cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, who supervised every aspect of this film transfer. Storaro believes that for the purpose of TV transfer, it is better to crop (slightly) the extreme left/right edges of the originally photographed frame and allow for a taller picture on both conventional and 16:9 TV monitors, because the video presentation will have more vertical resolution and detail and will be more impactful.

An orthodox 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 transfer would in some ways be a more accurate reflection of the framing seen in most cinemas, but the picture would be using only approximately 50% of the available scanning lines of the NTSC and PAL systems and hence have very limited vertical resolution. Storaro believes that since he himself composed these shots when the film was made and since he carefully made fine adjustments to the framing as needed in the transfer, the 2.0:1 transfer is the best possible compromise in adapting the very wide film picture to the very "square" TV.

Mr Coppola and I agree with Storaro's views and accepted his decision.

You are right to wonder about the discrepancy between the theatrical trailer and the feature itself. But the feature is not 1.85:1, it is 2.0:1. The transfer of the trailer was not supervised by Storaro, and was done using the conventional theatrical aspect of 2.35:1. It doesn't bother us, as this is considered a DVD "extra."


http://www.cameraguild.com/interviews/chat_storaro/storaro_univi.htm

quote:
If all of this happens, then the future audio-visuals recorded in these two different ways will depend on the specific need of the story. Considering High Definition and 65mm, I think it would therefore be sensible to propose a new standard for both.A new aspect ratio that will fit future, present, and past compositional needs. Currently 65mm is set at an aspect ratio of 1: 2,21 and High Definition at about 1:1,79, so, if we remove the 0,21 from the 65mm, and if we add the same number on top of High Definition TV, we will have a perfect balance between the two: that is, 1:2.


http://millimeter.com/mag/video_storaro_envisions_aspects/

quote:
Rather than simply bemoaning the problem, however, Storaro presents an alternative called "Univisium," a new composition standard with an aspect ratio of 1:2. "It will allow us to readily compose any new image in the future without being affected by the media used or the screen on which it will be projected."



 |  IP: Logged

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003


 - posted 07-22-2004 01:01 PM      Profile for Aaron Garman   Email Aaron Garman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting info John. But nevertheless, hasn't video (DVD in particular) advanced enough to enjoy both the wide aspect ratio and the proper resolution? Look at releases like the Extended editions of Lord of the Rings or even the Indiana Jones Boxset: both roughly 2.35:1 and the detail and resolution are excellent for DVD. I can see Storaro's point of view if he was working with VHS or even Laserdisc, but with DVD and future high definition formats on the horizon, doesn't this make his point somewhat moot?

AJG

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 07-22-2004 03:51 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
When the director and/or cinematographer supervise the transfer for DVD release, you have to go with their artistic judgement. Not everyone has a high quality monitor or television, so 2.39:1 letterbox sometimes suffers.

 |  IP: Logged

Robert John Jeromson
Master Film Handler

Posts: 264
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Registered: Jul 2004


 - posted 07-22-2004 03:53 PM      Profile for Robert John Jeromson   Email Robert John Jeromson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Then why do they choose to compose for a cinema screen at 2.35 - 2.40 in the first place, surely it would be simpler to choose to shoot at 1.85:1 and preserve the integrity of the original composition.

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 07-22-2004 03:57 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Because they feel that 2.39:1 (or 70mm 2.20:1) looks best on a BIG theatre screen.

Some feel a 2.39:1 letterboxed image just isn't sharp enough on the typical home receiver, so they are willing to crop the sides to get more image height.

 |  IP: Logged

Robert John Jeromson
Master Film Handler

Posts: 264
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Registered: Jul 2004


 - posted 07-22-2004 04:09 PM      Profile for Robert John Jeromson   Email Robert John Jeromson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Do you believe that in a lot of cases Super 35 has resolved this issue, by that I mean giving cinematogaphers and directors the flexibility to choose an aspect ratio for each application?

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 07-22-2004 05:04 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Personally, I think the reasoning is assine. One should maintain the original ratio. While yes, a perfectly running "TV" with a theoretical max resolution of 480 lines will only allow just over 270 lines for a nominal 2.35 picture...changing it to 2:1 only gets you to 320 or so lines. Big deal...you are not seeing the original composition. Furthermore, the future of 4:3 monitors is coming to an end...heck they my go before film [Wink]

So on a 16:9 monitor...even if it is only 480 lines...your 2.35 nominal picture will be up to just over 360 lines or about 75% of the screen filled.

Now consider this...many of the wide screen systems understand some of the basic ratios...4:3, 16:9 and some even understand 1.85 and 2.35 with anamorphic lenses...so you have a ratio that is not in common use (filming wise) just because it makes a soon to be obsolete format look better? It makes no sense.

Have you ever noticed that when TV zooms in a scope film, even before you notice people are being left off the left and right sides, all of the perspectives look wrong...everything has a magnified feel.

If you shot it scope...leave it that way...technology will catch up...eventually.

I know I could give Apocolypse Now 768 "lines" with a 2.35:1 ratio with my home projector now (1366 x 768 projector with an anamorphic lens and scaler to bring the 480 DVD up to 768).

Steve

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 07-22-2004 10:24 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Steve Guttag
Personally, I think the reasoning is assine.
Then you should tell Signor Storaro of your opinion. [Wink]

Since he is the one who composed the images, he has the most right to his opinion.

(Since I have a good monitor, I would have most preferred the original 70mm theatrical aspect ratio of 2.20:1 in this case.)

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 07-23-2004 09:12 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Given the chance...I most certainly would. He should look at the clip on TCM...where they discuss perserving the orignal aspect ratios.

I never feel that once a film is released that it should be altered except maybe to add lost scenes...particularly if they were cut by the studio. I don't support Lucasfilm mucking around with Star Wars either. I sensible copyright law would force the copyright holder to turn over to the public domain the previous work if such a change is made.

If 2.0 was the best ratio for AN...then it should have been shot and shown that way (perhaps Edwards Theatres were ahead of their time). To say otherwise is hand-waving at its finest.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-23-2004 07:57 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
What the world needs is Guttagscope... That new no-nonsense format that can only be run the way it was filmed and cannot be transfered to other commonly used film formats.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 07-23-2004 09:56 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I LIKE it!

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003


 - posted 07-24-2004 02:09 AM      Profile for Aaron Garman   Email Aaron Garman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This reminds me of the DVD release of The Recruit, where the DVD was 1.85:1 and the theatrical presentation was 2.35:1. Sure, you will get more information in this case but why didn't they just release it theatrically this way? The only reason I could assume is that a scope image looks better theatrically than does a flat image in my experience. Also, if we can get Lawrence on DVD at 2.20:1 and it looks amazing, why can't we get AN the same way?!

AJG

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.