The Cinematic Apparatus: Discuss the Camera

[B-side]

This is something I'm very much lacking in knowledge about. I know nothing of aspect ratios, depth of field, focus, what constitutes a "medium shot" outside of a general guess at the distance of the camera from the stage, 16mm, 35mm, etc. I only know if a film is shot in 16mm or whatever other mm by reading about it. So, I guess what I'm asking is for you fine folks to discuss our fine apparatus here and in the process enlighten me. To attempt to spark discussion, I'll pose a few questions:

What film best utilizes the strengths and weaknesses of each print?

What are the fundamental differences between widescreen and full-screen?

What print do you believe, if any, tends to lend itself to better cinematography?

[BuffaloWilder]

What are the fundamental differences between widescreen and full-screen?

EDIT: A much better explanation, through pictures.

http://img447.imageshack.us/img447/250/wsvfs9gt.jpg

The left is full-screen. The right is widescreen.

[balmakboor]

This is something I'm very much lacking in knowledge about. I know nothing of aspect ratios, depth of field, focus, what constitutes a "medium shot" outside of a general guess at the distance of the camera from the stage, 16mm, 35mm, etc. I only know if a film is shot in 16mm or whatever other mm by reading about it. So, I guess what I'm asking is for you fine folks to discuss our fine apparatus here and in the process enlighten me. To attempt to spark discussion, I'll pose a few questions:

What film best utilizes the strengths and weaknesses of each print?

What are the fundamental differences between widescreen and full-screen?

What print do you believe, if any, tends to lend itself to better cinematography?

Honestly, I don't understand your first and third questions. What do you mean by "print?"

The second one, as asked, was correctly answered by BuffaloWilder, but, since your question really has nothing to do with the camera apparatus, I doubt if he answered the question you meant.

[balmakboor]

The best way to learn all about every variable of filmmaking -- which includes aspect ratios and shot types (close, medium, wide, etc.) is Bordwell's book Film Art. I do find it kind of dry reading though. It's best used as a reference work.

[B-side]

EDIT: A much better explanation, through pictures.

http://img447.imageshack.us/img447/250/wsvfs9gt.jpg

The left is full-screen. The right is widescreen.

Oh God. That's horrible. Why does full-screen even exist?

[B-side]

Honestly, I don't understand your first and third questions. What do you mean by "print?"

The second one, as asked, was correctly answered by BuffaloWilder, but, since your question really has nothing to do with the camera apparatus, I doubt if he answered the question you meant.

Print meaning 16mm, 35mm, etc.

[BuffaloWilder]

Oh God. That's horrible. Why does full-screen even exist?

Originally, it was for home video release and televised showings, although that's far from the case, now.

[B-side]

Originally, it was for home video release and televised showings, although that's far from the case, now.

So the full-screen effect would be lessened on a TV screen?

[balmakboor]

Print meaning 16mm, 35mm, etc.

So you mean film gauge. And you want to know examples of films that use each gauge well? Wow, too many to list in every case.

The larger the gauge the more it offers the cinematographer, I suppose.

[balmakboor]

So the full-screen effect would be lessened on a TV screen?

You're just funning with us, aren't you?

[BuffaloWilder]

So the full-screen effect would be lessened on a TV screen?

Not really. That would just be the entirety of the image you'd see, cutting off the ears and leaving the nose.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I can explain the use of "medium shot." Shots have different names depending on the relation of the subject to its size and position within the frame.

The three major terms are long shot, medium shot, and close-up. Long shots include an entire subject, frequently some distance from the camera. Medium shots are generally restricted to half of the subject; for people, it's a waist-up shot. Close-ups typically include a focus on the details. The face, the eyes, the top of a tea kettle.

An example from Almost Famous:

A long shot as Fugit and Hoffman talk...
http://leavemethewhite.com/caps/albums/movies/almostfamous/Almost_Famous_046.jpg

becomes a medium shot of Hoffman...
http://leavemethewhite.com/caps/albums/movies/almostfamous/Almost_Famous_047.jpg

before becoming a reverse close-up on Fugit.
http://leavemethewhite.com/caps/albums/movies/almostfamous/Almost_Famous_048.jpg

[B-side]

You're just funning with us, aren't you?

Heh. No, man. I told you, I really need to brush up on this stuff. Not sure why, but I've never bothered to look into it. It's embarrassing enough as it is.:evil:

[B-side]

I can explain the use of "medium shot." Shots have different names depending on the relation of the subject to its size and position within the frame.

The three major terms are long shot, medium shot, and close-up. Long shots include an entire subject, frequently some distance from the camera. Medium shots are generally restricted to half of the subject; for people, it's a waist-up shot. Close-ups typically include a focus on the details. The face, the eyes, the top of a tea kettle.

An example from Almost Famous:

A long shot as Fugit and Hoffman talk...
http://leavemethewhite.com/caps/albums/movies/almostfamous/Almost_Famous_046.jpg

becomes a medium shot of Hoffman...
http://leavemethewhite.com/caps/albums/movies/almostfamous/Almost_Famous_047.jpg

before becoming a reverse close-up on Fugit.
http://leavemethewhite.com/caps/albums/movies/almostfamous/Almost_Famous_048.jpg

See, I didn't know any of this. I knew close-ups, but I wasn't aware medium shots didn't include the full subject. Thanks for catering to my noobishness.:)

[Qrazy]

Oh God. That's horrible. Why does full-screen even exist?

The vast majority of films made before the 50's were shot in 4:3 or the aspect ratio we know as fullscreen. As televisions became more prominent filmmakers began to shoot in wider aspect ratios 16:9 or even wider, but then their films were trimmed to fit television sets.

[BuffaloWilder]

Heh. No, man. I told you, I really need to brush up on this stuff. Not sure why, but I've never bothered to look into it. It's embarrassing enough as it is.:evil:

To appreciate cinema, it isn't really required. It helps, sure, but -

[Epistemophobia]

My hands are really cold.

[Qrazy]

You can often tell the difference between 8, 16, 35, 70 mm by the quality of the image. Not going to get into it in detail but the higher the number the greater the number of visual bits in the image. 70mm is Imax usually, 35 most studio films, 16 and 8 student/independent films, etc.

[balmakboor]

Take a 35mm frame and look at its shape. (What I'm about to say is somewhat over-simplified but what the heck.) That frame was projected in its entirety on the screen from the dawn of cinema up until the proliferation of television. That frame is shaped like a standard television screen. That's why televisions were shaped that way.

Television started stealing viewers out of the theaters, so movies started trying things to steal them back. One of those things was making the picture wider. This was accomplished in two ways -- along with a few other novelties. One was to mask off the top and bottom of the picture and project a wider, more rectangular shape on the screen. The other was by using a special (anamorphic) lens on the camera that squeezed a wider rectangle onto the nearly square film frame. When projected, an opposite sort of anamorphic lens would spread the image back out into a wide rectangle.

A problem came into play when these wide rectangular movies were shown on television. Rectangles don't fit into squares without something having to give. This gave birth to Pan & Scan where from moment to moment throughout the film the viewer would be shown part of the film through a square window that would try to always allow us to look at what's most important. The results were terrible and yet that is how I first saw many great movies like 2001: ASO and Dressed to Kill.

Then came Letterboxing where the entire rectangular picture sits inside the square screen with black bar on the top and bottom. And then we got wider televisions and so on...

[Qrazy]

Very basic focus explanation... when part of the image looks clear/focused... that area of the image is in focus. Deep Focus photography keeps everything in the image in focus. Filmmakers often use focus and rack focus (changing the focus from a foreground object/plane to background object/plane or vice versa) in order to guide an audiences attention.

[B-side]

The vast majority of films made before the 50's were shot in 4:3 or the aspect ratio we know as fullscreen. As televisions became more prominent filmmakers began to shoot in wider aspect ratios 16:9 or even wider, but then their films were trimmed to fit television sets.

Ahh. OK.

[balmakboor]

70mm is Imax usually

That's true but a bit misleading. Isn't it? Both 70mm movies and Imax movies use 70mm gauge film. But, if you run a 70mm movie strip through your hands vertically, you'll be able to look at the images upright. For an Imax movie, you have to turned the strip sideways to see the images upright. Or, in other words, the width of a 70mm movie frame is the width of the film strip (less sprocket holes and optical sound strip). The height of an Imax film is the width of the film strip... Imax is a re-engineered way of using already existing film stock.

Also, 70mm films project at 24 frames per second. Imax at 48 frames per second.

[B-side]

Take a 35mm frame and look at its shape. (What I'm about to say is somewhat over-simplified but what the heck.) That frame was projected in its entirety on the screen from the dawn of cinema up until the proliferation of television. That frame is shaped like a standard television screen. That's why televisions were shaped that way.

Television started stealing viewers out of the theaters, so movies started trying things to steal them back. One of those things was making the picture wider. This was accomplished in two ways -- along with a few other novelties. One was to mask off the top and bottom of the picture and project a wider, more rectangular shape on the screen. The other was by using a special (anamorphic) lens on the camera that squeezed a wider rectangle onto the nearly square film frame. When projected, an opposite sort of anamorphic lens would spread the image back out into a wide rectangle.

A problem came into play when these wide rectangular movies were shown on television. Rectangles don't fit into squares without something having to give. This gave birth to Pan & Scan where from moment to moment throughout the film the viewer would be shown part of the film through a square window that would try to always allow us to look at what's most important. The results were terrible and yet that is how I first saw many great movies like 2001: ASO and Dressed to Kill.

Then came Letterboxing where the entire rectangular picture sits inside the square screen with black bar on the top and bottom. And then we got wider televisions and so on...

Yeah, I watched something a while ago about pan and scan. They used Ben-Hur as an example, particularly the chariot race sequence. In the pan and scan, only, like, half of the horses were shown on either side. I vowed after that to make sure I never watched something that was pan and scan. Hell, I'm going to avoid all full-screens, too. I tended to anyway for fear of what I've been shown, but it's a definite now.

[Qrazy]

That's true but a bit misleading. Isn't it? Both 70mm movies and Imax movies use 70mm gauge film. But, if you run a 70mm movie strip through your hands vertically, you'll be able to look at the images upright. For an Imax movie, you have to turned the strip sideways to see the images upright. Or, in other words, the width of a 70mm movie frame is the width of the film strip (less sprocket holes and optical sound strip). The height of an Imax film is the width of the film strip... Imax is a re-engineered way of using already existing film stock.

Also, 70mm films project at 24 frames per second. Imax at 48 frames per second.

Yeah most of my comments in this thread have been bare bones... cause I'm lazy like that. Thanks for clarifying for him.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I watched something a while ago about pan and scan. They used Ben-Hur as an example, particularly the chariot race sequence. In the pan and scan, only, like, half of the horses were shown on either side. I vowed after that to make sure I never watched something that was pan and scan. Hell, I'm going to avoid all full-screens, too. I tended to anyway for fear of what I've been shown, but it's a definite now.

Just bear in mind that films pre 50s will be 'fullscreen'. What matters is OAR (original aspect ratio), look for that on the back of DVDs/VHSs.

[B-side]

Very basic focus explanation... when part of the image looks clear/focused... that area of the image is in focus. Deep Focus photography keeps everything in the image in focus. Filmmakers often use focus and rack focus (changing the focus from a foreground object/plane to background object/plane or vice versa) in order to guide an audiences attention.

Right, right. I've obviously had experience with focus pulls guiding attention, I just wasn't completely aware of what type of photography did what and all that.

Again, thanks everyone.

[B-side]

Just bear in mind that films pre 50s will be 'fullscreen'. What matters is OAR (original aspect ratio), look for that on the back of DVDs/VHSs.

That's another thing I don't know about. I knew older films were fullscreen anyway, but I don't know anything about aspect ratios.

*sigh*

[Qrazy]

That's another thing I don't know about. I knew older films were fullscreen anyway, but I don't know anything about aspect ratios.

*sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

[balmakboor]

Yeah, I watched something a while ago about pan and scan. They used Ben-Hur as an example, particularly the chariot race sequence. In the pan and scan, only, like, half of the horses were shown on either side. I vowed after that to make sure I never watched something that was pan and scan. Hell, I'm going to avoid all full-screens, too. I tended to anyway for fear of what I've been shown, but it's a definite now.

Just don't hide from all "full screen" movies. If they were shot and intended to be projected using the full frame -- like everything before the days of television and many things after like tons of documentarie -- then full screen is how they'll look. Unless, of course, you have a wide screen television. Then, you get black bars on the sides.

[B-side]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

This will come in handy.

[Ivan Drago]

I'm reliving Film Production 1 by reading this thread. But that's a good thing.

[B-side]

I'm reliving Film Production 1 by reading this thread. But that's a good thing.

I'm kinda embarrassed. I've yet to take any sort of film course. My studying has been done for fun, on my own time. One would think this would've been among the first things I acquainted myself with.:confused:

[Qrazy]

Don't worry about it. Everyone has to learn these things at some point.

[monolith94]

Film negative resolution per inch is constant. 35 mm is a larger area than 16 mm, therefore it has more resolution. Resolution tends toward more crisp images. If I had a choice, I'd shoot everything I made in 70mm, but… budget.

[balmakboor]

Film negative resolution per inch is constant. 35 mm is a larger area than 16 mm, therefore it has more resolution. Resolution tends toward more crisp images. If I had a choice, I'd shoot everything I made in 70mm, but… budget.

I used to make movies in super-8 and would edit the camera original with tape splices. Trust me, using that approach, it is quite easy to make something that looks like it spent two years on the grindhouse circuit.

[D_Davis]

Spend some time over at the Home Theater forums (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/index.php), and you'll discover a community in which people seem to appreciate the AR, sound quality, and fidelity of a film far more than they do the actual content of the movie. As much as I love film and music, video and audiophiles scare the crap out of me.

Also of interest is how different cultures approach these kinds of things. Bordwell has already been mentioned once, and so I will again turn to him and recommend Planet Hong Kong, a wonderfully in depth study of the modern Hong Kong film aesthetic.

[Sycophant]

I used to hang out at HTF a lot about seven years back until I realized that 90% of the members would prefer to watch footage of a 4th of July parade, so long as it didn't have edge enhancement, ran at a high bitrate, and used all six audio channels over a decent transfer of The Godfather.

[D_Davis]

I used to hang out at HTF a lot about seven years back until I realized that 90% of the members would prefer to watch footage of a 4th of July parade, so long as it didn't have edge enhancement, ran at a high bitrate, and used all six audio channels over a decent transfer of The Godfather.

Exactly.

It's crazy.

"OMG!!11 Look at the artifacting...!!111 BLAH BLAGHA GHAFHA"

[trotchky]

De Palma, Van Sant, Kubrick, and probably others I'm forgetting used 4:3 aspect ratios for various artistic reasons even after the '50s.

[Ivan Drago]

I'm kinda embarrassed. I've yet to take any sort of film course. My studying has been done for fun, on my own time. One would think this would've been among the first things I acquainted myself with.:confused:

Sorry if I came off mean or like a jerk - I didn't mean anything of the sort or to make you feel that way.

[B-side]

Sorry if I came off mean or like a jerk - I didn't mean anything of the sort or to make you feel that way.

Oh, no. It's fine. I realize I'm in a minority not knowing this stuff. Gotta learn sometime. Figured I'd turn to you guys.

[D_Davis]

Oh, no. It's fine. I realize I'm in a minority not knowing this stuff. Gotta learn sometime. Figured I'd turn to you guys.

My big revelation came in the mid-90s when I befriended a dude who had a laserdisc player. He had a bunch of the Criterion discs, and that's when I became more aware of pan-and-scan, LB, OAR, and stuff like commentaries. The first commentary I ever listened to was for Taxi Driver. That was awesome.

[B-side]

My big revelation came in the mid-90s when I befriended a dude who had a laserdisc player. He had a bunch of the Criterion discs, and that's when I became more aware of pan-and-scan, LB, OAR, and stuff like commentaries. The first commentary I ever listened to was for Taxi Driver. That was awesome.

I haven't listened to a commentary in so long. Maybe the next time I actually rent a DVD... :P

[balmakboor]

De Palma, Van Sant, Kubrick, and probably others I'm forgetting used 4:3 aspect ratios for various artistic reasons even after the '50s.

Which De Palmas are you thinking of? He is so often associated with cinemascope. I've been trying to think of some and only came up with Murder a la Mod. Greetings is full screen on the DVD, but that's a shame because it was intended to be 1.85:1.

The Kubrick thing is a bit of a myth. He composed his films simultaneously in multiple aspect ratios for different purposes. For instance, Eyes Wide Shut was composed for 1.85:1 in the US, 1.66:1 in Europe, and 1.37:1 for DVD. This was so he could guarantee a satisfactory composition wherever and however it was seen. Must've driven his steadicam operator nuts. "Sure. The Big Wheel is framed perfectly for those two rectangles Garrett. But it looks like shit in that third one. Do it again."

[Ezee E]

Still wish I could hear that Taxi Driver commentary.

[trotchky]

Which De Palmas are you thinking of? He is so often associated with cinemascope. I've been trying to think of some and only came up with Murder a la Mod. Greetings is full screen on the DVD, but that's a shame because it was intended to be 1.85:1.

The Kubrick thing is a bit of a myth. He composed his films simultaneously in multiple aspect ratios for different purposes. For instance, Eyes Wide Shut was composed for 1.85:1 in the US, 1.66:1 in Europe, and 1.37:1 for DVD. This was so he could guarantee a satisfactory composition wherever and however it was seen. Must've driven his steadicam operator nuts. "Sure. The Big Wheel is framed perfectly for those two rectangles Garrett. But it looks like shit in that third one. Do it again."

That's pretty awesome.

The De Palma movie I was thinking of was The Bonfire of the Vanities but now I realize I must have seen a pan-and-scanned version of it.

[balmakboor]

That's pretty awesome.

Another bit of Kubrick trivia (although, admittedly, how much of it is merely legend is questionable):

He would send a technician to every theater that was intending to show his film to verify that it met his technical standards. Projector is cleaned and maintained properly, the lamp is sufficiently bright, the screen is free of tears and stains, the projectionist knows what the hell he's doing...

[Ezee E]

Another bit of Kubrick trivia (although, admittedly, how much of it is merely legend is questionable):

He would send a technician to every theater that was intending to show his film to verify that it met his technical standards. Projector is cleaned and maintained properly, the lamp is sufficiently bright, the screen is free of tears and stains, the projectionist knows what the hell he's doing...
It's certainly possible up until Eyes Wide Shut I'd say, since no movies were put into 3000 theaters until the 90's.

Not sure about something like FMJ though.

[eternity]

It's certainly possible up until Eyes Wide Shut I'd say, since no movies were put into 3000 theaters until the 90's.

Not sure about something like FMJ though.
FMJ got 1,000 screens and EWS got 2,400. That's all I can find info on.