or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › X-Files (series)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

X-Files (series) - Page 5

post #121 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

-The Artist just came out a couple years ago. B&W and 4:3.
...and mostly silent, too. wink.gif

Now that I think about it, I think "Ed Wood" was black and white, along with a low budget western Johnny Depp did some years back. "Clerks" was also shot in Black and White for cost reasons.

Plus, there's the most recent one I can think of: "Nebraska". Before that, there was "Melancholia".

"Sin City" used black and white with periodic use of color for emphasis to give it a graphic novel feel.

Of course, I can't believe I forgot "Raging Bull" and "Doctor Strangelove".

Woody Allen shot "Manhattan" in black and white because it's how he remembers it via photographs from when he was younger.

However, there's one movie that is the finest example of shooting in black and white in a post color world: "Psycho".

As I started thinking of the above films, I decided to do a search to see what films were made in black and white after color film was available. I found this list:

List of Black and White Films Produced Since 1970

The gist of the above link is that color workflow was fully established by that point and everything was shot in color unless there was a specific reason. The transition period had ended, so availability of equipment or studio policies were no longer a deciding factor so much as cost or artistic intent.

In short, I don't think we can really say for sure just how many movies would have been shot in color even if color film had been available at the time. Some directors might have made the same choice in stock because they felt the subject matter warranted it.

Those gangster flicks from the 20's and 30's might not have looked nearly as gritty in technicolor. I can't imagine James Cagney firing a zip gun or calling someone a rat in color.

Edit: I should say, though, that Ray Harryhausen has said he doesn't mind having his movies colorized because he stands by the idea that he would have shot in color if he had the budget. Of course, since there's no way to ask many of the black and white era directors what they would have done or would want now, we should probably error on the side of leaving things as they were made.
Edited by NetworkTV - 2/27/14 at 12:33pm
post #122 of 134
This thread is getting off track. What a director wished he'd done is irrelevant. What matters is what he actually did. Whether he wanted to shoot in color or not, he actually shot in black & white, and made the best black & white movie he could at the time. He made decisions regarding grayscale and contrast and tone that were appropriate for black & white photography, not for color photography. Colorizing after the fact will not magically turn the movie into some hypothetical ideal that he may or may not have fantasized about at the time.

The same holds true for cropping a show composed for 4:3 down to 16:9. If the show wasn't composed for 16:9, then it wasn't composed for 16:9, and you can't rectify that years after the fact.
post #123 of 134
I believe everything I read on Reddit.
post #124 of 134
I want to believe... tongue.gif


you walked right into that one
post #125 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

This thread is getting off track. What a director wished he'd done is irrelevant. What matters is what he actually did. Whether he wanted to shoot in color or not, he actually shot in black & white, and made the best black & white movie he could at the time. He made decisions regarding grayscale and contrast and tone that were appropriate for black & white photography, not for color photography. Colorizing after the fact will not magically turn the movie into some hypothetical ideal that he may or may not have fantasized about at the time.

The same holds true for cropping a show composed for 4:3 down to 16:9. If the show wasn't composed for 16:9, then it wasn't composed for 16:9, and you can't rectify that years after the fact.

Agreed. Well said. The Blu-rays should be OAR.
post #126 of 134
Anything made for television prior to about 2000 would have been framed with significant overscan in mind. It would be possible to create 16:9 masters by scanning to the edges of the frame width-wise, while cropping only a minimal amount off the top and bottom beyond the TV-safe line. I'm not suggesting this should be done, only that it could be done, without butchering the original framing.
post #127 of 134
What they really need to do is give us the full open matte transfer on all movies and then enable Blu-ray players with the ability to generate custom mattes of the user's choosing. I'd really like to see that happen with the next home video format.
post #128 of 134
If the positioning of the matte never changed, that'd be doable now--heck, I believe it's been done already on DVD. Subtitle streams are just images you lay over the video with a transparent section that lets the film show through. Just one "subtitle" of black bars showing for the entire feature would work.

Two problems with this approach, of course. First--you could do a matte that shifts around that way, but the video frame would shift around too instead of being stable like it should. Second--what if you actually wanted to see text subtitles too?

It's probably easier just to make two releases, though, than to implement whatever technical solution there might be. One release for how the video was actually supposed to look, and another release for boom mike and deadspace enthusiasts.
post #129 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom Stranger View Post

What they really need to do is give us the full open matte transfer on all movies and then enable Blu-ray players with the ability to generate custom mattes of the user's choosing.

It's the filmmaker's job to decide how his shots are framed, not the viewer's. Would you also like them to provide you with all of the raw unedited footage and let you cobble the movie together yourself?
post #130 of 134
Looks like people these days want OAR as long as no black blars are visible wink.gif
post #131 of 134
I want OAR even if black bars are visible.
post #132 of 134
Well, in this case there is OAR and TAR (Televised Aspect Ratio).
Everybody in the world saw a different TAR when this originally aired due to the varying differences in overscan by CRTs of the time.
post #133 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by sqmzeea View Post

Well, in this case there is OAR and TAR (Televised Aspect Ratio).
Everybody in the world saw a different TAR when this originally aired due to the varying differences in overscan by CRTs of the time.

IMO, defects in the playback device, even if widespread, shouldn't be reproduced. I know I saw a number of films at the cheap theatre when I was growing up where the projectionist screwed something up and the film looked horizontally stretched, but that hardly counts as an alternate Theatrical Aspect Ratio. If the creator framed the image taking 5% overscan into account, then an argument can be made for that value only--but simulating the whole range of actual overscan values is as pointless as simulating stuck pixels just because some people had them when they originally watched it.
post #134 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Would you also like them to provide you with all of the raw unedited footage and let you cobble the movie together yourself?
Actually, on one of the DVD versions of "Die Hard", they provide that very thing for the board room sequence. It's used to show how the timing of cuts and camera shot selection can affect the mood of the scene.

Relevant to this thread, there's also a very good demonstration of why OAR is important on that same disc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › X-Files (series)