Question:
Hi,
Can anyone who's rented the R2 Gosford Park or had a sneak preview of the retail version confirm whether it's 1.78:1 as listed on the back cover, and if so (given that the correct AR of the film is 2.35:1), whether it's open-matte or cropped?
Thanks!
It was shot in anamorphic 2.35:1 I think the R2 has got the details wrong, but can't confirm.
Dunno what ratio it was shown in at the cinema, but having seen it on DVD, I can confirm that the disc is definitely 16:9 ratio.
The composition looked fine too, so maybe it was shot with TV in mind, or they've opened up the matte a bit.
The R1 is definately 2.35:1 though (if that helps at all)
Is this the same as U571 also from the same people Universal (R1) and Eiv (R2) as Gosford Park.
In that case it was matted w/s and EiV just opened the matte to 1.78 from 2.35
I have R1 so not an issue.
I'm sure the director didn't use Super35, anyone want to confirm?
Originally posted by Panavision
I'm sure the director didn't use Super35, anyone want to confirm?
I'd love to know where this cast-iron certainty came from, as both my sources (the <A HREF="http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0280707">IMDB</A> and the BFI's SIFT database) suggest that the film <U>was</U> shot in Super 35. What's your source that claims it wasn't?
Originally posted by Panavision
I'm sure the director didn't use Super35, anyone want to confirm?
...don't use the word 'sure' in your posts unless you are!! :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
I'd love to know where this cast-iron certainty came from, as both my sources (the <A HREF="http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0280707">IMDB</A> and the BFI's SIFT database) suggest that the film <U>was</U> shot in Super 35. What's your source that claims it wasn't?
Hmm, paying close attention to the composition, I thought it was the anamorphic process, out of focus shots looked like an elipse. Oh well, if IMDB and BFI say it was Super 35 then my bad.
...don't use the word 'sure' in your posts unless you are!!
BooHoo, just a slip-up. Get some work done, Casey is on your case :nono: :D
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
I'd love to know where this cast-iron certainty came from, as both my sources (the <A HREF="http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0280707">IMDB</A> and the BFI's SIFT database) suggest that the film <U>was</U> shot in Super 35. What's your source that claims it wasn't?
It certainly looked like Super 35 to me.
Can anyone who's rented the R2 Gosford Park or had a sneak preview of the retail version confirm whether it's 1.78:1 as listed on the back cover, and if so (given that the correct AR of the film is 2.35:1), whether it's open-matte or cropped?
Thanks!
Answers:
It was shot in anamorphic 2.35:1 I think the R2 has got the details wrong, but can't confirm.
Answers:
Dunno what ratio it was shown in at the cinema, but having seen it on DVD, I can confirm that the disc is definitely 16:9 ratio.
The composition looked fine too, so maybe it was shot with TV in mind, or they've opened up the matte a bit.
Answers:
The R1 is definately 2.35:1 though (if that helps at all)
Answers:
Is this the same as U571 also from the same people Universal (R1) and Eiv (R2) as Gosford Park.
In that case it was matted w/s and EiV just opened the matte to 1.78 from 2.35
I have R1 so not an issue.
Answers:
I'm sure the director didn't use Super35, anyone want to confirm?
Answers:
Originally posted by Panavision
I'm sure the director didn't use Super35, anyone want to confirm?
I'd love to know where this cast-iron certainty came from, as both my sources (the <A HREF="http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0280707">IMDB</A> and the BFI's SIFT database) suggest that the film <U>was</U> shot in Super 35. What's your source that claims it wasn't?
Answers:
Originally posted by Panavision
I'm sure the director didn't use Super35, anyone want to confirm?
...don't use the word 'sure' in your posts unless you are!! :rolleyes:
Answers:
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
I'd love to know where this cast-iron certainty came from, as both my sources (the <A HREF="http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0280707">IMDB</A> and the BFI's SIFT database) suggest that the film <U>was</U> shot in Super 35. What's your source that claims it wasn't?
Hmm, paying close attention to the composition, I thought it was the anamorphic process, out of focus shots looked like an elipse. Oh well, if IMDB and BFI say it was Super 35 then my bad.
...don't use the word 'sure' in your posts unless you are!!
BooHoo, just a slip-up. Get some work done, Casey is on your case :nono: :D
Answers:
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
I'd love to know where this cast-iron certainty came from, as both my sources (the <A HREF="http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0280707">IMDB</A> and the BFI's SIFT database) suggest that the film <U>was</U> shot in Super 35. What's your source that claims it wasn't?
It certainly looked like Super 35 to me.
1 2