The Bird with the Crystal Plumage – The Archive Conversation

[skyofcrack]

From Filmmaker (2007):

Filmmaker: Apocalypse Now. Theatrically, it was amazing to see it in its Scope aspect ratio, in 2001. I know that at this point you’re preferential to 2:1, but some people were upset to see it on DVD cropped from the 35mm 2.35.

Storaro: Well, I always connected with one painting that Leonardo did, The Last Supper. The Last Supper is 2:1. At the time of shooting Apocalypse Now, I was not aware. I don’t really remember when I became conscious of the 2:1. Definitely when I started to originally transfer Apocalypse Now (to video). In my opinion, it wasn’t working in 2.35 — at that time, we were forced to do a pan-and-scan. That was the worst. So we had to find a common ground between film and television. The aspect ratio for 65mm is 1:2.21, and the new video aspect ratio is 1.78. If you remove 0.21 from the 65mm, and then you have high definition which is supposed to be the future film/television format, you’ll find the perfect balance between the two is 2:1. So any transfer I do is at 2:1. I remember with Bertolucci when we did The Last Emperor and we watched it on the television screen, we didn’t like it at 2.35. We found it was much better at 2:1. Now, I only shoot 2:1. I refuse to not shoot 2:1. And I only transfer with this, even the old films, because I know it’s the only solution for the future. It’s the only meeting point that we have. The DALSA at 4k gives me some encouragement to continue in this way.

Now, there’s this rumor they’re going to retransfer Apocalypse Now at 1:2.35 — I will not do it. I will not do it. Because on a television it doesn’t work.

Filmmaker: Not even if it’s being played on an HD 16:9 screen?

Storaro: 16:9 should be changed.

Filmmaker: There would still be black bars, but it would be less…

Storaro: No, no. We should change the screen and make it 18:9.

Filmmaker: 2:1.

Storaro: You can never be perfect. It could never work in television at 1:2.35. 2:1 is the perfect balance. Even if you lose something, you gain the most important things. Never again would it have to be chopped to 1:3.75 (pan-and-scan) like Americans do. In 18:9, easily you can see the Academy ratio with bars on the sides, or the French ratio of 1.66, even 1.85. The only thing that you miss a little from is the anamorphic.

I really do care about composition. Believe me. I even would discuss this with Stanley Kubrick if he could be here. You can never really do composition perfectly at 1:2.35. If you go in any theater and measure it, it’s not perfect 2.35 — because they don’t like to be so small.

Filmmaker: Stanley Kubrick hated 1.85. At the very least, he preferred 1.66. Because he started as a still photographer, he preferred to compose for the full negative. So he’d compose for 1.85 for theatrical at the same time using the whole frame at 1.33.

Storaro: I did the same thing for many films. When I knew that here in America we’d have to do the transfer at full screen, I did that with The Sheltering Sky.

Filmmaker: Super-35?

Storaro: Super-35. We kept the composition for theaters and instead of blocking it out had images at the top and bottom. At least we didn’t have to chop the sides. But, you know, it can’t work — you can’t have a painting at 2.35. If you go to Amsterdam, you go inside the Rijksmuseum, on the back wall you see a beautiful Rembrandt painting called Night Watch. You look at the painting… and something was wrong. It didn’t work. Then, next to the main painting there is a copy. It was a copy of the original. The painting by Rembrandt was cut because it didn’t fit between two windows. Somebody did the copy before that — so you can see the original composition. And that’s what’s happened to cinema on television. The answer: Univisium. 2:1. 25 frames.

This interview proves Storaro is legally insane.

[springjack]

Just imagine if George Lucas "Storaro-ized" the "Star Wars" films...

It would be the end of the world...

[Der Spieler]

Originally Posted by L'enfant Errant

I'm pretty sure what Der Spiler was getting at was, if one were to crop this particular scene, the entire effect of being within a camera's viewfinder would be obscured - or maybe even lost completely. The moment I read about the 2.0:1 ratio, these scenes immediately sprang to mind as a perfect example of why matting a film in retrospect is a VERY bad idea.

Exactly. I thought it was pretty simple to understand but it seemed to elude some people for some obscure reason that may or may not be "trying way too hard to defend Arrow by using every tiny element possible".

Like Nosferatu trying to make me look like a fool for presenting a screen cap not properly framed in 2.35:1. I guess it's only fair that they at least try to blur the water so we can't see the compromised AR lying beneath the surface.

[Stephen@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Der Spieler

Exactly. I thought it was pretty simple to understand but it seemed to elude some people for some obscure reason that may or may not be "trying way too hard to defend Arrow by using every tiny element possible".

Like Nosferatu trying to make me look like a fool for presenting a screen cap not properly framed in 2.35:1. I guess it's only fair that they at least try to blur the water so we can't see the compromised AR lying beneath the surface.

No-one tried to make you like a fool. Blur the water? So now we're being accused of covering up the aspect ratio concerns?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Der Spieler]

Not covering up, but I believe I was being made a fool of by Nosferatu who was acting in bad faith.

[Almar@Cult Labs]

I think we can safely say that the aspect ratio has been made clear and the is no shortage of opinions - all here with full aspect ratios preserved!

This is how the BD will be presented - let's see what we reckon once review discs surface - I suspect there will be plenty more thoughts then - I'm going to stock up on Berocca or booze or something meanwhile...

[brain dead]

Originally Posted by Stephen@Cult Labs

No-one tried to make you like a fool. Blur the water? So now we're being accused of covering up the aspect ratio concerns?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dunno, this post...

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

I'm just wondering how you became such an expert on aspect ratios when the image you have put up to illustrate the difference between 2.35:1 and Storaro's work when the image itself isn't even 2.35:1!

Sorry for being picky 'n all!

Certainly comes across as a bit condescending. Especially when the image is only 0.01 off.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by brain dead

I dunno, this post...

Certainly comes across as a bit condescending. Especially when the image is only 0.01 off.

Again, this is the problem with sarcasm in a written format as that post was sarcastic but I can see how it can be read differently and, if there was any offence taken, I'm sorry.

[Der Spieler]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

Again, this is the problem with sarcasm in a written format as that post was sarcastic but I can see how it can be read differently and, if there was any offence taken, I'm sorry.

Your being sarcastic is exactly the problem here...

[Almar@Cult Labs]

Guys with regard to stocking issues at DVD Diabolik about the BU release please keep them to a thread in the Entertainment section where you're free to chat about it at will:

Entertainment - Cult Labs

This thread is about the Arrow release - for good or bad!

Thanks for your help on this.