[Attebery]

E has reviewed 'Jurassic World' and 'Jurassic World - 3D'. Here's his take on the year's biggest movie.

'Jurassic World' - High-Def Digest Review:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2127...ssicworld.html

'Jurassic World - 3D' - High-Def Digest Review:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2237...icworld3d.html

[timcharger]

Originally Posted by E from the review

On a side note, the 2.00:1 aspect ratio, a format originally proposed by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro as a universal standard, which he coined as "Univisium," is an image size director Colin Trevorrow and Schwartzman believed as the most effective for creating the desired wow factor on all available screen types, from the home standard of 1.78:1 to the IMAX. For CIH enthusiasts, this means having to make a few adjustments that remove the top and bottom black bars, and after making such alterations on my system, which ended up with small black bars on the left and right of the screen, I was able to fully enjoy the movie as the filmmaker's intended.

Looking at the screen captures, I gotta say, Trevorrow should
have just shot it at 1.78. The relatively tiny slivers of black bars,
seem to be an unnecessary compromise.

Clarification:
My point isn't about hating black bars.
My point isn't about preferring in 1.78 over 2.39.
My point isn't about not having the release as the director wanted.

If Trevorrow really wanted the headroom, then just do what
Spielberg did with other Jurassic Parks.

Look at this shot E posted:

Spoiler

Give T-Rex just a little more headroom.

[timcharger]

Originally Posted by E from the review

In such moments, and several more like them, we're made to wonder if Trevorrow, despite clearly enjoying his involvement in this production, isn't also commenting on the irony of it all. When cleverly sneaking in bits of dialogue that interestingly transcend the actual conversation at hand, there's a sense of snide cynicism that apparently went undetected. Like tiny breadcrumbs strewn about, the seemingly wily comments — they could just as likely be pure coincidence, of course —sometime reach the level of self-awareness, little postmodern observations for the more astute moviegoers but not so esoteric as to scare away the general public. It hints at a possible deliberateness and intelligence beneath the façade of the thunderous bombast, the dazzling spectacle and the heart-pounding enormity of dino action, promising a deeper, stimulating layer. But for every time we imagine such a prospect, folly intervenes to remind us we forgot our brains at the door.

Yeah, well said E.

It did seem to be "promising a deeper, stimulating layer." I was
hoping by the end, something will tie back in and pick up the
"tiny breadcrumbs." He needed one more scene:

Spoiler

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5057[/ATTACH]

We know a sequel will come. More money to be made. Go full
bore. Give us the

Spoiler

Pepsisaurus and Tostitodon.

[Edit: Weird, link to Jake Johnson's pic works sporadically.]

[Plissken99]

I think I screwed up. I got talked into watching a bootleg of this at a friends house about a month ago. Problem is, I'm thinking it lacked the quality/loud presentation that a movie like this needs, because I couldn't get over how utterly dumb and boring it was lol. I can't get over the feeling that I'd have liked the movie better had I seen it at the IMAX.

[Super-VHS]

Originally Posted by timcharger

Looking at the screen captures, I gotta say, Trevorrow should have just shot it at 1.78. The relatively tiny slivers of black bars, seem to be an unnecessary compromise.

Clarification:
My point isn't about hating black bars.
My point isn't about preferring in 1.78 over 2.39.
My point isn't about not having the release as the director wanted.

If Trevorrow really wanted the headroom, then just do what Spielberg did with other Jurassic Parks.

You mean, shoot it at 1.85:1, like Spielberg and Cundey/Kaminski, so the black bars are even tinier, but still not gone?

Also, Trevorrow didn't want the headroom. But Spielberg did. Trevorrow originally wanted to use 2.4:1 for the widescreen landscapes and tighter (or wider; distanced) dialog scenes.

Both of them get some of what they wanted in the 2:1 ratio. Neither get everything. As with all compromise, it's imperfect. But it is what it is. And it -- meaning 2:1 -- is the OAR.

Here are some more examples of 2:1 in a 1.78:1 container, as Jurassic World is presented on the Blu-ray:

Spoiler

And here are some examples of Jurassic World at actual 2:1, as it would be seen in a theater that has the ability to properly mask the film to its OAR:

Spoiler

[ambientcafe]

As a scope fanatic and CIH owner, I was tickled pink when the creative powers had campaigned for, and were greenlit to go with the wider 2.00:1 canvas ... also completely agree with the reviewer that this is my favorite new audio track next to 'Fury Road' ... and oh yeah, 'San Andreas'

[Super-VHS]

Originally Posted by timcharger

Look at this shot E posted:

Spoiler

Give T-Rex just a little more headroom.

Did you ever stop and think maybe the shot is supposed to be like that? You know, like the bigger dinosaur is in fact so big it can't fit in the frame?

(Incidentally, both Spielberg films also frequently positioned the dinos out of view, towering above all, cut off by the boundaries of the frame.)

Compositionally, in that specific screenshot from Jurassic World,

Spoiler

the raptors are level at the bottom of the screen with the humans, because all are inferior (not exactly equal with each other, but nonetheless equally less powerful) than the massive and mean dino that's going to try and kill them.

Said mean dinosaur (which is actually the I-Rex, not T) is not just too big for the frame, but literally superior to them, above people and maybe even the raptors in the food chain. Indeed, the I-Rex kills

Spoiler

Echo, Delta, and (seemingly) Blue about a minute later.

----

We get a similar composition here, with Ron Howard's Daughter (RHD) and the Tyrannosaurus-Rex (Rexy):



RHD is smaller, and lower, in the frame than old Rexy (from the first movie!) running at her. The shot holds as the T-Rex gets closer and closer, thus bigger and bigger, until the very last second. The tyrannosaur is not just compositionally higher, more towards the top of the frame, as she gets closer because she is literally taller, but also because she's near(er) the top of the evolutionary food chain than RHD is.

Also, in that shot, we get a sense of the enormity of the (big ass) door/gate needed to keep Rexy locked up, and away from all the tasty humans she wants to eat. Big door = big dinosaur. Big dinosaur = big head filled with big sharp teeth, and big feet with big sharp claws -- all the better to kill you with.

Even then, all the screenshots in the world aren't going to do the film (nor the 2:1 ratio) justice. Trevorrow's camera often moves to "look up" at and/or "find" the biggies that don't fit into frame. Just like Spielberg's camera did in Jurassic Park and The Lost World, additional headroom at 1.85:1 or not. Lest anyone forget:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJlmYh27MHg

[timcharger]

Originally Posted by Super-VHS

Both of them get some of what they wanted in the 2:1 ratio. Neither get everything. As with all compromise, it's imperfect. But it is what it is. And it -- meaning 2:1 -- is the OAR.

Again, I've nothing against compromising. But maybe,
you'll understand my point better this way:

If one bidder makes the offer $185. And the seller
counters with an asking price of $239. I expect a
fair compromise is $212 (the midpoint).

But if the final agreed price is $200, I'd say one
side insisted on a rather marginal difference. Really
just a symbolic gesture. It's really a gesture to get a
perfectly round number.

-----

My point would be consistent if it was the other way
around, too.

If Trevorrow said that he'll compromise and shoot the
film at 2.24:1 (it's just the inverse math relative to
what it is now), I would say the same thing. I would
say, that he might as well have shot it at 2.39:1.

-----

Let me take it to an extreme so that it is really
obvious. If Trevorrow said that he decided to
compromise and frame his shots at 1.86:1, you would
easily call bullsh*t. And stop with the silliness, right?

The marginal difference seems trivial. That's all I'm
saying, so why bother?

[Super-VHS]

Originally Posted by timcharger

Again, I've nothing against compromising. But maybe, you'll understand my point better this way:

If one bidder makes the offer $185. And the seller counters with an asking price of $239. I expect a fair compromise is $212 (the midpoint).

But if the final agreed price is $200, I'd say one side insisted on a rather marginal difference. Really just a symbolic gesture. It's really a gesture to get a perfectly round number.

-----

My point would be consistent if it was the other way around, too.

If Trevorrow said that he'll compromise and shoot the film at 2.24:1 (it's just the inverse math relative to what it is now), I would say the same thing. I would say, that he might as well have shot it at 2.39:1.

-----

Let me take it to an extreme so that it is really obvious. If Trevorrow said that he decided to compromise and frame his shots at 1.86:1, you would easily call bullsh*t. And stop with the silliness, right?

The marginal difference seems trivial. That's all I'm saying, so why bother?

There's a lot to cover here in terms of 2:1... but let's just straighten the math out. Also, let's stop talking in hypotheticals, and cease any and all comparisons to dollars or other things that have nothing to do with the realities of photography/cinematography. And let's also not pretend, even as extreme hyperbole, that the difference between 1.86:1 and 1.85:1 is in any conceivable way the same as the difference between 2:1 and 1.85:1.

During pre-production, Trevorrow shared scouting images and test shots in 2.4:1, as seen here:

Spoiler

At some point, Trevorrow abandoned his 2.4:1 anamorphic vision (while at the same time thinking bigger, in large-format) and started planning 5-perf 65mm for at least part of the film:

Spoiler

5-perf 65mm has a native ratio of 2.2:1.

And, in interviews both during production and after the release, Trevorrow seems set on constant height, which means no alternating/shifting as a compromise.

Spielberg was pushing for 1.85:1, but clearly Trevorrow wanted something wider, and without a variable AR... what's the compromise?

Well, let's look closer at 1.85:1 in relation to Jurassic World. As a "flat" process, the creators most easily get to 1.85:1 by using either 3-perf or 4-perf 35mm, and extracting (matting) as desired.

3-perf is close enough to 1.85:1 that the ratio is essentially native. Technically, it's almost spot on at 1.78:1, or the shape of HDTV. But the near-1.85:1 ratio also comes at the cost of lost resolution/real estate from the outset, and it offers little wiggle room for recomposition in post.

4-perf is standard academy (good ol' 1.37:1), which means a lot of, um, compromise to get to 1.85:1. However, 4-perf has the benefit of more available surface area, so it also offers a considerable amount of latitude for recomposition.

Since JW did ultimately end up being a (spherical) 4-perf 35mm & 5-perf 65mm hybrid, with some digital RED Dragon thrown in, 2:1 is a compromise ratio that's the result of near equal give however you approach it.

If we take the starting "negotiation figures" as 5-perf 65mm at 2.2:1 (Trevorrow) or 4-perf 35mm cropped to 1.85:1 (Spielberg), we do indeed get a midpoint "compromise" of about 2:1, and everybody wins because neither of them do!

2:1 is also very close to the shape of 1.9:1 digital IMAX 3D. That probably played a huge part in deciding on the so-called compromise ratio.

-------

On a related note...

While the RED Dragon was only used for select shots on Jurassic World, the camera's sensor is natively very close to 2:1 (1.944:1), with framing/masking presets for 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.4:1, and, of course, a 2:1 default.

More and more digital (mostly RED) productions are shooting for 2:1, including House of Cards on Netflix.

Admittedly, the RED Dragon only factored into JW as a tertiary format, if that. Still, I find it interesting that the Dragon's native ratio is so close to the 2:1 compromise.

[timcharger]

Originally Posted by Super-VHS

There's a lot to cover here in terms of 2:1... but let's just straighten the math out. Also, let's stop talking in hypotheticals, and cease any and all comparisons to dollars or other things that have nothing to do with the realities of photography/cinematography. And let's also not pretend, even as extreme hyperbole, that the difference between 1.86:1 and 1.85:1 is in any conceivable way the same as the difference between 2:1 and 1.85:1.

And let's not pretend that the difference between 2.40 and
2.00 isn't an even greater magnitude, an extreme hyperbole
of relative difference, using your words.

The extreme example 1.86 was to have you see that there will
be at least some point of agreement, and make that a starting
point for our discussion.

1)
We clearly agree that shooting in 1.86 versus 1.85 would be a
pointless act. No dispute, right?

2)
I'd easily wager that 1.90 vs 1.85 is pointless, too. You agree,
yes?

3)
You see where I'm going. I'd wager that 1.95 vs 1.85 is likely
indistinguishable without a side by side comparison. If we didn't
know going in, we'd likely miss the difference. Sure, if we knew
in advance, we'd spot it.

4)
And here's where we disagree, I say 2.00 vs 1.85's difference is
marginal, so why bother?

-----

Here's a simple visual:

X==Y=======Z
(if viewed in fixed-width fonts; each character space is 0.05)
X is 1.85
Y is 2.00
Z is 2.40

All I'm saying is Y is so much closer to X than it is to Z, hardly
seems like the "best of both worlds" to me.

Originally Posted by Super-VHS

Spielberg was pushing for 1.85:1, but clearly Trevorrow wanted something wider, and without a variable AR... what's the compromise?

And my point is that, what Trevorrow achieved is only
marginally wider.

Super-VHS, I'm NOT saying Trevorrow is evil or stupid or
wrong to make a film in a 2.00:1 aspect ratio. You seem to
want to defend his decision like I said those things.

If the choices were between 1.85 and 2.40, and 2.00 was
chosen, that tells us, headroom was clearly more important
than scope in his decision.

-----

I usually set my receiver at 24 dB. My wife prefers to listen
at 19 dB (18.5 dB to be precise). She says that we'll
"compromise" and proceeds to set the receiver at 20 dB.
And I would never say my wife is evil, stupid, or wrong.