T3 misframed?

[jbat31]

On the home theatre forum, there a thread I read that started out about how there was more nudity on the full screen version and then it turned into how they used a technique called zoom boxing? to make certain scenes closer and that on dvd, the full screeen is almost a better representation of the theatre thann the widescreen. Several people said they remembered the theatrical version as including more

Hmm

[GaLvAtRoN187]

yea i thought i saw more of Kristanna Loken's ass in the theater

[unhdavid]

I believe Terminator 3 was shot with Super 35. A good explanation is at digital bits:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...eenorama2.html
It's listed under other options.

[GaLvAtRoN187]

Originally Posted by unhdavid

I believe Terminator 3 was shot with Super 35. A good explanation is at digital bits:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...eenorama2.html
It's listed under other options.

Mostow shot it in Super 35?? didnt know that i guess to keep the look of T2

[Hollow Man]

Even if it was shot in Super 35, it should still retain the same framing as the theater print. Perhaps they reframed certain scenes for the DVD? They can do this, but it's rather depressing if they did.

-HM

[C Roberts]

Call me an anarchist, but I'm happy with the ws DVD. Never saw the movie in theatres and don't feel I'm missing anything (I've seen women's asses before).

[snipsnapsappy]

I remember being very disappointed with the nudity in the theatrical version. There was only a very wide, dark shot of her butt. And it is on the DVD.

[limacharliewhiskey]

The DVD looks the same way I remember the theatrical version being shown. There was only one shot of Loken's butt shown in the theaters, and it's the same one on the DVD.

[jbat31]

It is more than just a nude shot

I will post a link

There are several shots that are messed up

[jbat31]

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...k">http://</a>

[moviezzz]

The DVD is the same as was shown in the theatre.

The framing of the film is different due to it being shot Super35.

[Flash Ahhh]

Wow, 8 pages of that crap?

Damn.

-Flash

[Oscar Antonio M]

My guess is that it was shot in Super35, i dont remember any truly graphic nudity in the film.

[TylerD]

Looks like I'll be purchasing a Full Screen version in addition to my Widescreen. I'm always up for seeing more of Kristanna's tits(covered by hair or not)

[Charlie & Tex]

We saw it in our local flea-pit here in the UK, and inspite of being rather unimpressed with it (both as a stand-alone movie and especially as a continuation of the franchise) one of the few highlights was Lokken's cul d'or.

Be it an arse, ass, butt or even seat, the fact remains that her shit-chute was very much on display in the UK 15-rated print. It is most curious that it should be obscured on the DVD even if it was shot in Super-35, as there would be much more of a tendency to crop off her cheeks when framing it for 2.35:1 for theatrical distribution.

This all sounds like a bit of self-censorship by Warner/Columbia, etc so as not to offend any of the puritanical major chains in the US. Funny that. You can kill teenage kids in the movie, but show the two mounds of muscle that Ms Loken sits on and the world goes to hell in a hand-basket. Oh, of course: the kids being killed are done-in off-screen. This makes it acceptable, so they must have used the logic that you can have Loken naked in the movie as long as the nude bits are also off-screen.

Mystery solved.

[Ryoohki]

We see her ass in full on the dvd, just like the Theatrical version..

[TylerD]

Originally Posted by Charlie & Tex

Oh, of course: the kids being killed are done-in off-screen. This makes it acceptable, so they must have used the logic that you can have Loken naked in the movie as long as the nude bits are also off-screen.

Mystery solved.

Which makes one wonder why the "Family Friendly" Full Screen version has the bigger shot of Ms. Loken walking down the street with an exposed left nipple for a good 15 seconds or more

[SilentBob]

Interesting about the P&S Vs. WS version. Personally i didn't notice anothing wrong framing wise for the dvd. I still wont buy the P&S for a few seconds of her boobs. (but i will admit they are nice) Never heard of that Zoom Out or Zoom In Boxing technique either. I did find the movie pretty tame for an R rating but this just might be me. Anyone notice/feel like they added the F-word in a few more times then theater run? Could just be me but i only really remember John saying it once to the machine nad that wa sit. Either way i'm happy with what i got in WS on the dvd

[Flash Ahhh]

OAR is where it is at. Period.

Why anyone would buy a P&S over OAR to see 1/4 of a girls boobs for 2 seconds is beyond me.

You wanna see boobs, go buy a boob DVD. Damn.

We can have the framing/super 35/AOR/open matte arguement all day.

If there are multiple releases of a title we all need to support the releases that preserves the directors OAR. Remember, 1 year ago, if it was up to Blockbuster all DVD's would be P&S. Greanted, they've changed with tune now (because they couldn't manipulate the market, a nd they in tune don't want to loose any money since OAR is winning) but we don't want revenue going to P&S titles otherwise the market share might turn. That's rare that it can happen, but we definitely don't want that.

So please support OAR.

-Flash

[tqpix]

If a movie is shot in super 35 and matted for theatrical release, wouldn't the OAR be fullframe? Because originally (hence the term original aspect ratio), the movie was shot in fullframe, and turned into widescreen for the theaters.

[Oscar Antonio M]

Originally Posted by tqpix

If a movie is shot in super 35 and matted for theatrical release, wouldn't the OAR be fullframe? Because originally (hence the term original aspect ratio), the movie was shot in fullframe, and turned into widescreen for the theaters.

Not really.

The Super35 process is used by directors to have more flexibility with framings and to avoid distortion problems with the lenses and with special effects shots. But they always intend the film to be 2.35:1 and the FS version is done later when it comes to video and DVD, sometimes they compose it at the same time.

[disclover]

Oscar is correct. Super 35 uses a negative ratio (someone chime in and correct me if I'm wrong) of about 1.60:1 (there is no soundtrack area on the negative). It's essentially academy standard 1.37:1 plus the area for the soundtrack. Sooo....when you frame a Super 35 image for 4:3, you gain some image at the top, bottom, or both, but you still lose information on the sides.

This was demonstrated nicely on the T2 Ultimate Edition DVD.

[unwinded]

REGARDLESS of how the film was shot, the DVD is MISFRAMED!!! Follow the link to the thread on the home theater forum and LOOK at the screen shot comparisons from the theatrical release and the WS DVD release!! It might be the OAR but the framing is way off just like on Back to the Future which everybody made quite a fuss about!

[jbat31]

The above post is exactly what I have been talkng about. I don't care about nudity, but for the overall misframing. I was upset too about Back to the future. How is this any different?

[airic43]

Click on the link for an explanation.

http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml#Super35

[moviezzz]

Originally Posted by unwinded

REGARDLESS of how the film was shot, the DVD is MISFRAMED!!! Follow the link to the thread on the home theater forum and LOOK at the screen shot comparisons from the theatrical release and the WS DVD release!! It might be the OAR but the framing is way off just like on Back to the Future which everybody made quite a fuss about!

It isn't misframed, it is the same aspect ratio that was shown in theatres. That is the only framing that is important.

It can't be compared to the BTTF case.

And as for the person that said the shot in question lasts 15 seconds??? What movie are they watching? Maybe 3 seconds at the most.

[limacharliewhiskey]

So who is willing to rent the fullframe version and do a shot by shot comparison to figure out which shots showed more info and which shots were hacked in the pan-and-scan method?

[Flash Ahhh]

Originally Posted by limacharliewhis

So who is willing to rent the fullframe version and do a shot by shot comparison to figure out which shots showed more info and which shots were hacked in the pan-and-scan method?

Hey, you could do it.

Or if you prefer, just click the link at the beginning of this thread and you can see the numerous comparisons already made. Pics a plenty in that thread.

-Flash

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...=&pagenumber=1

[jbat31]

It just looks like to me as if they took the fullscreen image and made a widescreeen image out of it. There are more shots than just the nudity one

[med]

Originally Posted by moviezzz

It isn't misframed, it is the same aspect ratio that was shown in theatres. That is the only framing that is important.

Not necessarily. With Super 35 it is very possible to maintain the OAR but not have it framed as the director intended, which is the whole point of OAR in the first place.