And playing around with the screen size has been done in other productions, like Scott Pilgrim which would go letterboxed for some scenes, and even lett some of the effects spill over the letterbox. And I have been wanting to make movies that do this. I would however probably prefer to have cinemascope as the "parent"-format instead of a square. Because most screens are optimized for that extra wide format. It would still have the WOW-factor while not forcing theaters to rebuild their screens.
While the simplification does help (not mentioning things like VistaVision and 70mm formats) it does however lack the mention of the IMAX screenings of popular blockbusters which actually do this, though in reverse. They show most scenes in 2.35:1 and occasionally pop out to the insane height that the 1.33:1 IMAX screen allows. And I have even noticed this on some blurays of these films like the new TRON. The funny part is however that when I asked friends who saw it with me, they didn't notice.
I agree with this sentiment a lot. There is a lot of potential for varying frames. It would enhance the effect of images a lot. Fritz Lang used to do this on occasion and I've seen some filmmakers try it, but it's definitely under-done. I'm going to be boldly conscious of each shot's shape and size in my own films from now on. Thanks!
Thankyou Sebastien - you are a good teacher. Great archive on where we have got to so far...
And playing around with the screen size has been done in other productions, like Scott Pilgrim which would go letterboxed for some scenes, and even lett some of the effects spill over the letterbox. And I have been wanting to make movies that do this.
I would however probably prefer to have cinemascope as the "parent"-format instead of a square. Because most screens are optimized for that extra wide format. It would still have the WOW-factor while not forcing theaters to rebuild their screens.
While the simplification does help (not mentioning things like VistaVision and 70mm formats) it does however lack the mention of the IMAX screenings of popular blockbusters which actually do this, though in reverse. They show most scenes in 2.35:1 and occasionally pop out to the insane height that the 1.33:1 IMAX screen allows. And I have even noticed this on some blurays of these films like the new TRON. The funny part is however that when I asked friends who saw it with me, they didn't notice.
I agree with this sentiment a lot. There is a lot of potential for varying frames. It would enhance the effect of images a lot. Fritz Lang used to do this on occasion and I've seen some filmmakers try it, but it's definitely under-done. I'm going to be boldly conscious of each shot's shape and size in my own films from now on. Thanks!
I've never seen tally marks like that, they're kinda cool. I might start using them...
Genial!!
Thanks Neilamadhava!!!
Sébastien.
Just out of curiosity, in which films did Lang utilize multiple aspect ratios?
I've never seen tally marks like that, they're kinda cool. I might start using them... But don't tell anyone I got it from the French.
ahah bellissimo, complimenti!