Discussion in 'Movie Forum' started by Rindless, Aug 4, 2002.
Has anyone done a comparison between the two and is there any extra vertical image ?
Surely its a question of composition rather than extra image
From what I saw on the making of features, they filmed with panavison cameras so I would not have thought there would be and extra vertical image.
You need to see this in widescreen to get the full impact of if it. Pan and Scan will kill the epic look and beauty of the sets and cinematography.
You owe it to yourself and this film to get the widescreen version even if you have a 4:3 TV. Its just that good.
The 'fullscreen' is surely a cropped version of the widescreen in this case. I can't believe they would have rendered all the CGI to an aspect ratio that would have left big wodges of it invisible at the cinema.
...says it all....
i didn't think pan&scan ever involved cropping vertically ???
lechacal: of couse fullscreen is cropped widescreen. CGI would only have been produced at academy or cinemascope or whatever res. the film is. Rendering anything once is bad enough, particularly when its 2k+ lines
I was just making the point that a fullscreen DVD isn't always a cropped version of the widescreen. Often it's full academy frame from which the widescreen has been cropped. All I was saying was that this was unlikely for FotR (due to the CGI) so there's not much chance of extra vertical image.
Just answering the original question. Excuse me if I was stating the obvious.
Eli's pic settles it anyway. Thanks eli.
lechacal: no problem, ...... sorry the angry symbol wasn't meant for you, it was there 'cos I hate waiting for rendering (I am a CGI artist/supervisor)
LOTR was shot fullap ie super35. Cropped and squished to 2:35 in post ( either digitally or optically probably the former)
Panavision make spherical lenses as well as anamorphic amongst other bits and bobs.
VFX work is rarely done beyond the boundaries of the intended exhibition format.
Separate names with a comma.