Pics here. I understand why Storaro may have felt the need to do this when everyone was watching these on 480i tube sets, but I really think someone needs to sit down with him – in front of a standard 42” Plasma or LCD monitor – and tell him to stop dumbing down his own product.

I’d really like to hear how Criterion spins this.

Here you go --> Peter Becker on Emperor

It's wonderful that Storaro's cinematography is finally be presented the way he ALWAYS wanted it.

Ya know, ...If he wants to reframe it at 2:1, that's fine by me, but it sounds like he's reframing history too. To insist that he always envisioned at 2:1, but then allowed the release prints to be 2.35:1, sounds ...unbelievable and doesn't ring true to me.

Anyways, enough bitchin', my copy is in the mail and should be here anyday now.

Mine, too. Can't wait. Oh, the fracas this has caused at the Home Theater Forum. I'll fill in the .35 missing people and scenery with my imagination...hey, what happened to that? :)

The problem is that 2:1 is not a standard shape for theatrical projection. In 35mm, especially in 1987, you're stuck with either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. Storaro obviously choose to shoot anamorphically, likely due to the larger negative is affords, and thus the film was stuck with being projected at 2.35:1 in theaters (2.2:1 for 70mm blow-ups, closer to the 2:1 shape). He could still have been framing for 2:1 on set via the video taps monitors or even by marking the ground-glass in camera, but the labs at the time simply weren't as accommodating when it came to "non-standard" shapes when making release prints. The simple truth is, it's easier to present a "non-standard" aspect ratio at home- in the 35mm world, that's not the case.

Vincent

It's interesting in the Criterion article cited above, Peter Becker states that "[Storaro] told us that THE LAST EMPEROR was the first film he shot specifically for 2.0 framing, and Bertolucci backs him up," yet Storaro goes back to an earlier film, APOCALYPSE NOW, which he apparently didn't specifically shoot for 2.0, but still feels the need to frame it at 2.0 for the DVD release. Interesting.


In the future there will be four standard ratios, Academy, 1.85:1, Storaro and 2.35:1.

Either way, the framing has been approved by not only the DPs of the films in question, but the directors.

And actually, I like the 2:1 shape. I wouldn't mind it becoming a true "standard" ratio added to the ones in common use today. Mind you, I'm not talking about cropping here, I'm talking about a true, 2:1 standardized aspect ratio along with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 for cinemas.

Vincent

Isn't the Storaro ratio called "Univisium" or something like that?

Eric, it would appear so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium

http://www.cameraguild.com/interviews/chat...oraro_univi.htm

The frustration factor here comes from his motivation. If this were truly part of an attempt to “unify” ratios, fine – but I do remember reading that his excuse was the poor resolution of monitors, and their inability to show detail in a letterboxed image. Back in the day, William Friedkin was against letterboxing for the same reason, and this stance led to the issuing of Sorcerer on laserdisc in a full-frame edition (rare for lasers at that time)

It’s as if he’s preparing his films for the lowest common denominator among consumers (a group less likely to be purchasing his films, anyway)

It's funny that you mention Friedkin, because after my last post in this thread, I was thinking of how he and Kubrick released a lot of their films full-frame for 4:3 TV monitor presentation, and was hoping that SORCERER and JADE would get the 16x9 anamorphic treatment that some of Kuricks films recently received. I've heard that he is working on an SE of SORCERER.

Anyways, I'm opposed to the idea of unfying ratios, which limits, not liberates, filmmakers options. I'm sure not a real controversial opinion 'round here. :o

Maybe this appears somewhere, but I'm not clear on this--did he chop off some of the sides? Or is there more room at the top and bottom of the screen? (Or is this a dumb question?)

LAST EMPEROR is anamorphic 2.35:1, a full-negative format, so the only recourse to fitting it to 2:1 is to chop the .35 from each side.

An important distinction that few who support the “reframing” argument have made.

If I have a 5x7 photograph and a 4x6 frame, then I’m reframing. If I have a 5x7 photo and a 5x5 frame, there’s no way I can “reframe” without chopping off information that the photographer thought was important enough to have there in the first place.

Maybe Criterion should put a sticker on the box that says “this film has been formatted to fit the screen”

I agree with everything that Vincent is saying,here.

Keep in mind also, that in about 99.5.65 percent of all theaters, the extreme sides of a 2.35:1 frame are cut off by the masking and curtains. It's at least a foot on each end. I've forgotten how much it is, but it's certainly not a complete 2.35:1 image. Many D.P.'s shoot with this in mind.

I really don't see the issue with this, especially if both the director and cinematographer approve and are doing it themselves. It's an artistically correct decision, and I would even say that you're not going to miss much,especially if the extreme sides are just "filled up' anyway, as what's being said. We're talking about the elimination of "dead space" if I'm reading the statements correctly.

I'll admit, I do agree with Storaro's opinion that it fills up a 16x9 monitor much better. but then again, I suppose it depends on how big your screen is, as to whether it has a lot of impact, in that regard. I certainly wouldn't advocate reformatting every widescreen film to that ratio.

People get very possessive with movies, and I understand this. But in this case, there's a lot of overreaction,imo, and I think that one ought to respect the artists intentions.

Have you seen what the cropping has done to the original cinematography (you know, the cinematography that won the Oscar, not this new version)?

It's turned medium shots into close ups, and long shots into medium shots!

A comparison.

Interesting captures. The region 2 actually looks better, to my eyes, in terms of colour.

The shots do look quite zoomed in. I don't think we're losing anything vital, but I wish that Storaro, whose work I absolutely adore, would just have left everything as it was and live with it like that.

Oh, you're just being possessive! :P

Exxtremely! :)