Not sure, but it was probably cost.
Do you mean they tested the anamorphic lenses and then didn’t shoot in that format? Panavision has both lenses, anamorphic and standard so whether or not they use Panavision equipment wouldn’t dictate the choice of format. I haven’t seen “Bottle Rocket”, just guessing (maybe unehelpfully)…
You might be confusing the word Panavision with the aspect ratio 2.35:1. Panavision is a camera and lens company who rent and maintain motion picture equipment. They are top of the line in the camera world.
When using Panavision cameras and lenses, you can shoot in anamorphic aspect ratio (2.35:1) but the equipment does not dictate that per se. Arriflex cameras and lenses can also shoot an anamorphic image.
Regardless, this film was shot using spherical lenses in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio (by what company, I do not know).
There’s a significant cost difference between rental of spherical and anamorphic lenses. Also, in shooting anamorphic you are using 4-perforations of film stock as apposed to 1.85 which can use 3-perfs. In shooting 1.85 you are essentially saving a frame of film stock per every 3 frames you shoot. So it’s more cost efficient to shoot in 1.85 3-perf than anamorphic 4-perf.
Helpful?
I know Kubrick avoided the 2.35:1 aspect ration because of his fears about television mangling his films. Does anyone know artistic or philosophical reasons why some directors choose their aspect ratio? Jacques Rivette’s first few films were all shot in 1.33:1 or the pre-widescreen format and I believe all of Straub-Huillet’s films are in that square format. David Lynch and many others go back and forth between 2.35:1 and the standard 1.85:1. Can anyone provide any explanations as to why? What makes him decide that Wild At Heart should be scope (2.35:1) and FWWM in 1.85:1? I am vaguely familiar with the idea of the scope format approximating the way we actually see. Can anyone provide some insight into specific reasons why specific filmmakers choose the aspect ration they use?
@Mike – I can’t promise you that I’ll be insightful but I will try to address this issue as best I as can. Different aspect ratios should be used depending on what the content of the film is. For an extreme example, you wouldn’t shoot Lawrence of Arabia in 1.33 because you’re not taking advantage of a wide vistas and landscapes. The same would be true on the opposite end – you wouldn’t shoot Faces in 2.35. Typically the decision of what aspect ratio to use is based on what the director and DP thinks best works for the story and how they want to tell the story (obviously you COULD shoot Larry of Arabia in 1.33 but you’re going to get a very different look).
There’s a great Criterion example of this for The Last Emperor and a lot of controversy when they released this disc because the aspect ratio. Vittorio Storaro, who INVENTED the aspect ratio 2.00:1, which he thought was the best compromise for films showing on both a theatrical screen and television screen. The problem of course is that now, more and more TVs are being made that are 1.78, which is the standard aspect ratio for digital, and so you don’t really need to worry about compromising your image for TVs.
The standard, most often used aspect ratio is 1.85 because that seems to be the most acceptable and least extreme. Going to 2.35 is usually a specific decision that is made for a specific reason.
There’s a lot more other people on this site who could probably contribute more to this than I can, since I’m not a DP, but that’s a generalized explanation.
And yes, Panavision is a camera not a format.
You do not need anamorphic lenses to shoot 2.40. You can crop spherical, of course.
Besides cost, weight, and depth of field issues, spherical lenses like Master Primes are a lot faster than most of Panny’s anamorphics.
Thanks Fredo, I’ve noticed what you’re talking about but I just wonder if it goes deeper than that. Blue Velvet really isn’t about wide open spaces so why shoot that in 2.35:1 and FWWM in 1.85. Abbas Kiarostami uses landscape to convey emotion in many of his films but I don’t think he has shot in 2.35:1(that may be for cost purposes. I feel this is an important decision or choice for many directors that isn’t explored in a lot of DVD making of docs.
Mike – Yeah, I think for most people this is just too technical and that’s why it’s not talked about by directors. It seems like it’s discussed quite a bit in American Cinematographer and discussions involving the DP. I’m not really sure why this is other than some directors just let their DP make the decision, even though it is a big decision. A friend of mine, who is a cinematography fellow at AFI, loves the 2.35 format because he thinks it “feels” more cinematic. I think for some it’s just a preference thing and for others dependent on the material.
I personally wish this was discussed more in docs because I’m interested in discussions about cinematography. Decisions on film stock, lenses, processing, etc. are all stuff I love learning about (even if a lot of the time I have no idea what they’re talking about) but my guess is that the general public just doesn’t care. I would actually guess that for most films, the decision on the aspect ratio usually comes from the DP and the director just approves it (which is bizarre to me because as a director I’ve always decided on the aspect ratio, even when my DP doesn’t agree with me). People like Kubrick are more the exception to the rule. In the end, it might just come down to a personal aesthetic choice that the director or DP likes (such as Storaro).
I agree completely with Fredo. I’d love to hear more filmmakers talk about the why of all this.
In the meantime, Mike, as always, Bordwell and Thompson have got our backs. http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1592
@Fredo
I agree. Anyone watching the extras would probably be somewhat interested. Casual viewers probably skip them. Those that want to learn more about the film would be interested.
@KJ
Thanks for that Bordwell article! It doesn’t clear things up but it was fascinating and pleasantly frustrating. I will be even more attentive to aspect ratios than before!
It’s a shame that Bottle Rocket ended up being filmed in 1.85:1, as that 2.35:1 test on the Blu-ray looks better and more Wes Anderson-like. One of the things I found disappointing about the film when I originally saw it on the slightly desaturated Sony DVD was that it just didn’t look like his other films, but the new Criterion release certainly improves that.
mario anima
i just watched the anamorphic test on the blu-ray release and was wondering if anyone knows why they opted not to shoot in Panavision? looks like the intent was there, and seeing as each film Wes has released after ‘Bottle Rocket’ is shot in Panavision, it seems curious. could just be a budget thing, but was wondering if there was more to it.
btw — wonderful film and the new transfer looks amazing. been waiting for this release for some time now.