posted 07-13-2014 06:52 PM                       

quote:

---

Reeves: So I wanted to shoot the film in anamorphic 2.35:1. But we couldn’t do that, because of 3D. Because in 3D the lenses have to match perfectly and they are only now coming up with 3D matched lenses that will allow you to shoot 2.35:1. And the reason I wanted to shoot anamorphic, 2.35:1 was the aspect ratio but also because the depth of field is more shallow, and I think makes for a more intimate and realistic visual approach. And when it turned out that I could not shoot anamorphic, the only way to shoot with the kind of depth of field that I wanted was to shoot in 1.85:1. Because (and this is so technical) but in order to shoot super 35, which is NON-anamorphic, I would have had to have used wider lenses, which would have made for a different kind of depth of field than I wanted. So I shot 1.85:1 so I could get the kind of depth of field that I wanted.

And it would have cost more money, probably, to shoot the film in anamorphic and render the ape effects – it would have been more expensive. And actually no, because they rebuilt everything from the ground up for Ceasar to make it better. WETA sort of makes an overall deal, and tries to give you the best value they can give you, but there were 1,000 artists working on the film, and the overhead for that is basically a small village, so it works out to roughly around somewhere to $50-60,000 per 5 seconds of a shot of apes. Broadly, broadly.

---

posted 07-13-2014 11:33 PM                    

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Heard some crazy buzz that we're gonna see a lot of 1.85:1 releases since the practice of open masking screens is now common, and doing scope features to get a 'letterboxed' presentation on these screens is a very tacky way to present a widescreen feature.

---

posted 07-15-2014 12:09 AM                    

quote: Mike Croaro

---

The 1:85 image doesn't bother me. I've mentioned in the past that I actually prefer it.

---

quote:

---

This is what I read:

quote:Reeves: So I wanted to shoot the film in anamorphic 2.35:1. But we couldn’t do that, because of 3D. Because in 3D the lenses have to match perfectly and they are only now coming up with 3D matched lenses that will allow you to shoot 2.35:1. And the reason I wanted to shoot anamorphic, 2.35:1 was the aspect ratio but also because the depth of field is more shallow, and I think makes for a more intimate and realistic visual approach. And when it turned out that I could not shoot anamorphic, the only way to shoot with the kind of depth of field that I wanted was to shoot in 1.85:1. Because (and this is so technical) but in order to shoot super 35, which is NON-anamorphic, I would have had to have used wider lenses, which would have made for a different kind of depth of field than I wanted. So I shot 1.85:1 so I could get the kind of depth of field that I wanted.

And it would have cost more money, probably, to shoot the film in anamorphic and render the ape effects – it would have been more expensive. And actually no, because they rebuilt everything from the ground up for Ceasar to make it better. WETA sort of makes an overall deal, and tries to give you the best value they can give you, but there were 1,000 artists working on the film, and the overhead for that is basically a small village, so it works out to roughly around somewhere to $50-60,000 per 5 seconds of a shot of apes. Broadly, broadly.

http://www.slashfilm.com/matt-reeves-michael-giacchino-reddit-ama/

---

Or perhaps Matt Reeves thought he was going to get an IMAX release and then Fox bailed on the idea

But seriously, Reeves should not have to justify why it was 1.85 and not 2.35.1, it just is and there should be some wonder on our part "the audience" as to why he chose that format. The wonder and awe of going to the movies is diminished when we hear every reason why something was done or when see all the behind the scenes footage. Going to the movies in the 70s, 80s, and most of the 90s was so much better than it is today.

posted 07-15-2014 12:22 AM                       

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Reeves should not have to justify why it was 1.85 and not 2.35.1, it just is and there should be some wonder on our part "the audience" as to why he chose that format. The wonder and awe of going to the movies is diminished when we hear every reason why something was done

---

Then why did you read that article and THEN post it here to ruin it for the rest of us?

I do agree that seeing/hearing all the behind-the-scenes stuff (and the constant stream of weekly grosses) has taken a lot of the magic out of the movies. But nobody's forcing anyone to pay attention to that stuff. People are just curious and want to know details; it's human nature, and the media has a lot of hours/pages to fill.

posted 07-15-2014 05:46 AM                    

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Heard some crazy buzz that we're gonna see a lot of 1.85:1 releases since the practice of open masking screens is now common, and doing scope features to get a 'letterboxed' presentation on these screens is a very tacky way to present a widescreen feature.

It's like, "you forgot to close the maskings", or "why am I getting a feature that only fills a portion of the screen? Am I being cheated out of my admit ticket?"

Thus, we might be heading back to full circle - going one lens format only so the screens can be filled. (and it will benefit the DMD chips in the projectors since they'll be filled as well and get 1080 HD on the screen).

---