View Full Version : Jurassic Park - which ratio was it shot in?
what ratio was JP shot in, i would have expected 2.35:1
but the dvd is 1.85:1, anyone know why?
It was definately 1:85 in the cinema and on DVD
Why it wasn't shot in 2:35 is a question only Mr Spielberg could answer :D
hmmm... i was certain it was shot in 2.35:1
but i guess i must be wrong...
cheers anyways
It was shot in 1.85:1 to accomadate the height of the dinosaurs in the CGI effects etc.
From IMDB:
Technical Specifications for
Jurassic Park (1993)
Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm
Cinematographic process
Spherical
Printed film format
35 mm
Aspect ratio
1.85 : 1
Michael Brooke
10-01-2002, 08:56
I would never treat the IMDB's word as gospel (they still claim that <I>Ran</I> is 2.35:1 when it categorically isn't!), but I'm happy to confirm from direct personal experience of handling the 35mm print that <I>Jurassic Park</I> is 1.85:1.
And the reason? There was an interview where he explained that he shot it in 1:1.85 because of the advent of DVD and widescreen broadcasts. The ratio is the closest to (then new) widescreen TV's.
GAmbrose
10-01-2002, 11:51
Doesn't Spielberg always use 1.85:1?
Because I've Jurassic Park Trilogy, Empire of the Sun and Saving Private Ryan so far, and they are all 1.85:1
Plus AI which is released in March is 1.85:1
Gary A
Michael Brooke
10-01-2002, 12:34
<B>Doesn't Spielberg always use 1.85:1? </B>
No - <I>Jaws, Close Encounters, 1941</I> and the Indiana Jones films are all 2.35:1.
Paul Bennison
10-01-2002, 13:04
Pan & Scan versions of JP are open matt so you be seeing more of the picture top & bottom.
Original ration is 1.85:1 as previously stated.
Paul
What I don't get is that films shot in 1:1.85 fill the whole screen at the cinema (2.35:1) Can someone explain this for me?
Michael Brooke
10-01-2002, 13:58
<B>What I don't get is that films shot in 1:1.85 fill the whole screen at the cinema (2.35:1) Can someone explain this for me?</B>
Unlike a television, a cinema screen has a variable aspect ratio, with motorised masking cropping the sides or the top and bottom to create the correct shape.
For example, the Everyman Cinema in London (which I used to manage) has a 2.35:1-shaped screen, which can be masked off at the sides to show films at 1.85:1, 1.66:1 and 4:3 (or 1.33:1). Conversely, though, the Riverside Studios cinema has a 4:3-shaped screen that is masked off at the top and bottom to show wider films.
You’re less aware of this process than you would be at home, partly because the screen is a lot bigger and partly because you accept the black masking as being part of the surrounding wall in a way that you might not with the “black bars” on television – but the principle is roughly the same.
For the record, the overwhelming majority of current cinema films are designed to be projected at 1.85:1, with roughly 20% designed for 2.35:1. It feels as though the proportion of 2.35:1 films is higher than it is, because a disproportionate number of them are large-scale Hollywood blockbusters – it’s far less common in the independent sector because of the overwhelming need to earn back most of a film’s revenues on video.
saltysam
10-01-2002, 19:07
the excellent american magazine video watchdog ran a large article on jp aspect ratio ,basically the dinosaur effects sequences looked great in 1:85:1 while the non-effects sequences actually looked better fullframe.they illustrated this with side by side scene comparisons with the w/s / fullframe versions.
Originally posted by Paul Bennison
Pan & Scan versions of JP are open matt so you be seeing more of the picture top & bottom.
Was it shot with TV in mind, then? Does that mean that the P&S version is the best version of JP? What about JP2 and JP3?
Michael Brooke
10-01-2002, 22:00
There seems to be a bit of confusion here: open-matte is <U>not</U> pan-and-scan!
What often happens in these situations is that the live-action material is shot in open-matte 4:3 but the special effects shots are composed for 1.85:1. As a result, the 4:3 video version will show you more live-action picture than you'd have seen in the cinema... but the special-effects shots have to be cropped in order to recompose the 1.85:1 picture for 4:3.
Either way you'll lose something, but it's probably better to lose material that wasn't that important in preference to losing special effects shots. As a result, the best version of <I>Jurassic Park</I> (and <I>Back to the Future</I>, which is an identical situation) is the 1.85:1 cinema version.
Paul Bennison
10-01-2002, 22:47
Sorry, I was instrumental in the confusion there.
4:3 versions of JP are open-matte not pan & scan - I knew what I was talking about, my fingers and my keyboard didn't :)
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
For example, the Everyman Cinema in London (which I used to manage) has a 2.35:1-shaped screen, which can be masked off at the sides to show films at 1.85:1, 1.66:1 and 4:3 (or 1.33:1). Conversely, though, the Riverside Studios cinema has a 4:3-shaped screen that is masked off at the top and bottom to show wider films. Michael - If you get a really good (sic) cinema, say UGC Rubery, they don't even bother masking at the sides and you end up watching the 1.85:1 film on a 2.35:1 screen with some simply yummy fuzzy edges. :brickwall In hindsight, I should have had a whinge.
My hobby is Home Cinema. By definition, this hobby is about recreating (to an extent) the cinema experience in the home.
So, all this discussion about whether Pan & Scan or Open Matte is better is, IMHO, academic.
To recreate the cinema experience in the home, one should watch a film in the same aspect ratio that it was presented in the cinema, no other.
Gary Couzens
11-01-2002, 08:29
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
<B>Doesn't Spielberg always use 1.85:1? </B>
No - <I>Jaws, Close Encounters, 1941</I> and the Indiana Jones films are all 2.35:1.
As is his debut cinema feature <i>The Sugarland Express</i>.
From <i>E.T.</i> (1982) onwards, Spielberg has used 1.85:1 for all his films, with the exceptions of the Indiana Jones sequels and <i>Hook</i>.
Michael Brooke
11-01-2002, 08:29
<B>To recreate the cinema experience in the home, one should watch a film in the same aspect ratio that it was presented in the cinema, no other.</B>
Does this rigid stricture apply even when the director intended the film to be seen in 4:3 but was forced to compromise because most cinemas can't go narrower than 1.85:1?
Stanley Kubrick is the obvious example, but there are plenty of others - particularly people who shot films for TV in 4:3 and then managed to get a cinema release. And I'm none too happy with the DVDs of John Waters' <I>Pink Flamingos</I> and <I>Female Trouble</I> because they're obviously cropped - but presumably you'd find this acceptable because they reproduce the same botch job you'd have seen in cinemas?
All this illustrates just how silly it is to apply blanket edicts to all films - you should <U>always</U> approach these issues on a case-by-case basis. As a former repertory cinema manager, I know better than most that the cinema version is most definitely not invariably the best!
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
the cinema version is most definitely not invariably the best!
Never said it was. What I said was, that, if, by definition, "home cinema" is about recreating the cinema experience in the home, then the most "accurate" way to do this is to watch films in the same format as they were shown theatrically - best or not.
Michael Brooke
11-01-2002, 12:37
Well, that's just silly. If your home system is more versatile than the average cinema - and most are! - it makes much more sense to watch the <U>best</U> version, not to slavishy reproduce a compromised cinema version!
Dear Mr Echo
11-01-2002, 12:46
Lets just say it's best to see a film the way the director intended it to be.
Andrew
Gary Couzens
11-01-2002, 12:47
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
<B>To recreate the cinema experience in the home, one should watch a film in the same aspect ratio that it was presented in the cinema, no other.</B>
Does this rigid stricture apply even when the director intended the film to be seen in 4:3 but was forced to compromise because most cinemas can't go narrower than 1.85:1?
Or the somewhat different cases where directors quite happily compose a film for 1.85:1 for cinemas but prefer a narrower version for home viewing, usually because it involves less letterboxing? Examples include the Criterion editions of <i>Picnic at Hanging Rock, Dead Ringers</i> and <i>RoboCop</i> - not to mention James Cameron's Super 35 features.
DVDWotcha
11-01-2002, 12:54
Originally posted by Paul Bennison
Pan & Scan versions of JP are open matt so you be seeing more of the picture top & bottom.
Original ration is 1.85:1 as previously stated.
Paul
This doesn't make sense.
What you are implying is that all the CG was rendered in 4:3 and then cut down to 1.85:1. That would have been a huge waste of rendering time and probably a big cost.
:confused:
DVDWotcha
11-01-2002, 13:11
Originally posted by Paul Bennison
Michael - If you get a really good (sic) cinema, say UGC Rubery, they don't even bother masking at the sides and you end up watching the 1.85:1 film on a 2.35:1 screen with some simply yummy fuzzy edges. :brickwall In hindsight, I should have had a whinge.
The Filmworks in Greenwich do this. I didn't realise that the 35mm film has rounded corners !!
FlangeMonkey
11-01-2002, 13:52
Originally posted by DVDWotcha
This doesn't make sense.
What you are implying is that all the CG was rendered in 4:3 and then cut down to 1.85:1. That would have been a huge waste of rendering time and probably a big cost.
:confused:
No-one said that! :rolleyes: The sfx are compsed in 1.85:1, the live action in 4:3. The sfx shots are cropped just like any other movie (2.35:1 especially) to fit within a 4:3 ratio.
Refer to Michael's post (which described it extremely well...)
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
What often happens in these situations is that the live-action material is shot in open-matte 4:3 but the special effects shots are composed for 1.85:1. As a result, the 4:3 video version will show you more live-action picture than you'd have seen in the cinema... but the special-effects shots have to be cropped in order to recompose the 1.85:1 picture for 4:3.
Either way you'll lose something, but it's probably better to lose material that wasn't that important in preference to losing special effects shots. As a result, the best version of Jurassic Park (and Back to the Future, which is an identical situation) is the 1.85:1 cinema version.
Michael Mackenzie
11-01-2002, 13:57
Originally posted by Paul Bennison
Michael - If you get a really good (sic) cinema, say UGC Rubery, they don't even bother masking at the sides and you end up watching the 1.85:1 film on a 2.35:1 screen with some simply yummy fuzzy edges. :brickwall In hindsight, I should have had a whinge. My local UCI at Clydebank, where I see most of my films, regularly mattes its 2.35:1 showings to fill a 1.85:1 screen. Initially I didn't notice, until Angelina Jolie got cut in half whilst being the center of attention in a scene in Tomb Raider. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when they opened the gate to 2.35:1 for The Lord of the Rings! The first time I'd ever seen them do that.
Next time they do it, I shall DEFINITELY have a whinge.
AQUALUNG
14-01-2002, 20:11
As an ex cinema projectionist, its sad to hear so many stories of bad cinema presentation. I sound like an old fogey here but I'm 'only 35' :lol but it's multiplexes putting pressure on projectionists, making them run many sceens single manning that lets all these mistakes from happening. UCI are supposed to pride themselves on their presentation, I know I used to work for them but if they are showing the films with the masking in the wrong format, then they are serioulsy lacking in their projection skills.
I know it happens at old 'fleapit' cinemas too but I still amazed that patrons let this happen. Go out and get your money back ASAP when you know somethings wrong, theres no excuses from them.
I find all the latest termology for ratios very confusing because for me and my fellow projectionists, there are three formats,
Scope (Cinemascope)= 2.25:1
W/S = 1.85.1
and 70mm !!
I get very confused when you lot talk about a film being in Widescreen when you actually mean in projectionist language scope!! I still say to my hubby, look, its scope when I watch a 2.35.1 film :)
But I haven't worked in cinema's for 6 years so I might be very wrong :( Miss it very much.
Louise
Gary Couzens
14-01-2002, 20:38
Originally posted by AQUALUNG
I find all the latest termology for ratios very confusing because for me and my fellow projectionists, there are three formats,
Scope (Cinemascope)= 2.25:1
W/S = 1.85.1
and 70mm !!
I get very confused when you lot talk about a film being in Widescreen when you actually mean in projectionist language scope!! I still say to my hubby, look, its scope when I watch a 2.35.1 film :)
When I started at Southampton University (1984), we had three ratios, labelled "standard" (1.37:1), "W/S" (1.75:1) and "Scope" (2.35:1). A year later we acquired "Euro W/S" (1.66:1) and "US W/S" (1.85:1) though we still used 1.75:1 now and again when appropriate (after a lot of trial and error). Oh and of course, as we did show old movies as well as modern ones, we kept "standard" as well.
I still refer to 2.35:1 as "Scope" but call it "widescreen" when I'm talking to someone who won't know what Scope means.
Am interested by all this cinema ratio talk, to be honist i have never really noticed anything bad.
I mostly go to Warner/Odeon cinemas are these two know for being good/bad at getting the right ratio???
Any tell tale signs i can look out for, to see if a film is being projected at the wrong ratio?
Cheers:)
AQUALUNG
14-01-2002, 22:31
I have no connections with Warner Cinemas but I have connections with Odeon. Odeon cinema now is an amalgamtion of Odeon and ABC cinemas. They tend to be ran by 'older' projectionists unless its a multiplex then its run by mostly young 'uns, you need to be fit to do the job, quite physical.
Tell tale signs, fluffy curved edges like previously mentioned if the masking has been left on scope or widesceen to home cinema enthusiasts. I'll use your terminology cause its getting confusing.:p
If a 2.35.1 film is being shown through a 1.85:1 lens, that where the squashed up image appears on screen.
And vice versa, thats where everyone gets very very wide.
If you see the film on the ceiling then the film lens hasn't rotated properly and run and get them to sort it out . If the feet of people are at the top of the screen then the film is out of rack but thats a whole new thing and not about ratios.
And my favourite, if the writing is backwards onscreen or things are running backward, the projectionists made a massive error!!!
Oh what fun, Trainee Projectionist's have all done that.
:nuts:
Louise
Michael Brooke
15-01-2002, 08:30
<B>I know it happens at old 'fleapit' cinemas too but I still amazed that patrons let this happen. Go out and get your money back ASAP when you know somethings wrong, theres no excuses from them. </B>
...unless the problem is inherent in the film! For many years, the only commercial distribution print of Eisenstein's <I>Strike</I> had a reel whose subtitles were actually printed out of rack and were cut off at the bottom, with the result that it looked like awful projection, but there was nothing the projectionist could do!
Unfortunately, in this case the choice was between showing this print and not showing the film at all - but I used to dread every screening as we <U>always</U> had at least one walkout from an irate punter demanding that the projectionist be sacked. The only consolation I could give is that things would clear up after the first reel (about ten minutes in), and as a silent film its appeal was mostly visual anyway - but the moral here is: don't automatically blame the projectionist!
Gary Couzens
15-01-2002, 18:12
Another good one is John Sayles's <i>The Return of the Secaucus Seven</i>. The film was shot on 16mm and blown up to 35mm. However, the end credits are designed to be shown in 4:3 but whoever did the blow-up added masked off the top and bottom of the picture, therefore cutting off a good deal of the text!
Is the "motorised" screen to accomodate the different ratios particular to the UK? I don't think I've ever seen a movie overseas where the screen has changed shape to accomodate the film - indeed, in the US their screens seem to be a standard 1.85:1 and when a scope movie is projected you get the dreaded black bars!
loujareth
15-01-2002, 21:26
TBH I don't know (this is Mrs Aqualung, the previous poster who's an ex-projectionist, BTW) It sounds like they don't have motorised masking from your discription but this could depend on each individual comany/cinema.
Louise
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
And I'm none too happy with the DVDs of John Waters' <I>Pink Flamingos</I> and <I>Female Trouble</I> because they're obviously cropped
Pink Flamingos' cropping has the blessing of John Waters, and I'm pretty sure Female Trouble does too. In any case, both look fine, apart from a few, widely scattered shots with slightly cropped heads.
Besides, they're shot by Waters himself mainly handheld - most news coverage has better compositional sense!
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.