Jurassic Park in Uncropped 35mm

Tools    





Interesting comparison. Obviously I think the widescreen version looks "better" because that's the one I'm used to and I'm accustomed to thinking wider aspect ratios are more "cinematic" (even though films have been released theatrically in all aspect ratios). But the tighter framing in the widescreen versions works better dramatically as well. Jurassic Park leans heavily on reaction shots to convey a sense of wonder, and the fullscreen version leaves too much negative space, diluting the impact of the facial expressions.


On a related note, for years I'd been watching my fullscreen copy of Full Metal Jacket, which is "unmasked" (not 100% sure that's the right term, too lazy to Google it) and last year I decided to cough up five bucks for an HD rental so I could finally watch it in the proper aspect ratio. The difference was pretty dramatic, in a similar way as above. The tighter framing in the widescreen version increase the impact of the closeups, but also of the battle scenes, which looked playacted and obviously shot on sets in the fullscreen version but feel much more immediate in the widescreen version.



Interesting comparison. Obviously I think the widescreen version looks "better" because that's the one I'm used to and I'm accustomed to thinking wider aspect ratios are more "cinematic" (even though films have been released theatrically in all aspect ratios). But the tighter framing in the widescreen versions works better dramatically as well. Jurassic Park leans heavily on reaction shots to convey a sense of wonder, and the fullscreen version leaves too much negative space, diluting the impact of the facial expressions.


On a related note, for years I'd been watching my fullscreen copy of Full Metal Jacket, which is "unmasked" (not 100% sure that's the right term, too lazy to Google it) and last year I decided to cough up five bucks for an HD rental so I could finally watch it in the proper aspect ratio. The difference was pretty dramatic, in a similar way as above. The tighter framing in the widescreen version increase the impact of the closeups, but also of the battle scenes, which looked playacted and obviously shot on sets in the fullscreen version but feel much more immediate in the widescreen version.
The funny thing is we're a little bit further away from the action as the 35mm was cropped to 1.85 for the theater (e.g., you can see boom mics in some of the shots). We feel closer because of the geometry, right?

An old VHS or DVD copy of Jurassic Park for an old 4:3 monitor would be a crop-of-a-crop (zooming in on the 1.85 with some likely pen-and-scan action) which would also feel closer, but would (depending on the geometry of the TV screen) be a larger image on the screen.

At any rate, I think these shots are kind of cool, because it is like seeing part of a painting covered up by an old wood frame and seeing more of the image (even if it is best seen as the artist intended).

Sometimes a re-release with give us more image than was originally intended, as when ST: TNG was remastered and when Firefly was released on video. Occasionally, this has hilarious results, such as when Wash can clear be seen miming flying the Serenity with no controls anywhere near his hands.



I know with Dolemite, the preferred version of a lot of viewers is the unmasked version, as the visible boom mics add to the comedy value. Personally I think that approach is a bit condescending. The movie is goofy enough on its own terms, no need to "enhance" its silliness.



Interesting side-note about the verticality of 1.85.




I think that's what happens when you compare a visual storyteller of Spielberg's calibre to ****in' Joe Johnston and Colin Trevorrow. I find the third and fourth movies quite ugly to look at and lacking any real sense of spectacle. Fallen Kingdom has its issues, but I respect that it tries to make the dinosaurs fearsome again.