I decided I wanted everything to be a diamond format, as that is the shape of the logo and it does make everything I bit more interesting.
But after testing out the different format and trying out different layouts for this particular one, I dont think this shape works particularly well for a poster.
The format's just a but hard to work with but I still can't decide whether to stick to it or not
I thought the alternative could be..
I could have the poster in the format of what cinema screens actually look like so it would be as if the poster is imitating a cinema screen.
I quite like this idea but its not very subtle and might just look like a regular Aformat poster but horizontal
Why are many old movies in full frame (4:3) aspect ratio?
Because that was the standard frame aspect ratio for 35mm film and the apertures of 35mm cameras at the time. Probably decided upon by Eastman Kodak and the manufacturers of motion picture cameras. The wider ratios, 1.77 (in Europe), 1.85 and 2.35, were not developed until after the 1.33 (4:3) ratio had become an industry standard in the US.
In the beginning cheapskate producers went for this to get a wide screen effect on regular 35mm, but eventually all exhibitors followed suit. Photography was on regular 35mm Academy, then top and bottom of the picture were cropped in projection. Ratios changed from 1.66:1 through 1.85:1 to full 2:1. Just try to compose a decent shot with no idea how it will be cropped. Sometimes, marks in the viewfinder indicated what would be shown; but no exhibitor could check if these had actually been used (and there were no such hairlines in the projector, anyway). Old pre-widescreen movies were projected in the new format, regardless. Often, it already was too much to even ask not to show the line separating the frames, so you got to see any which part of the frame. In movies produced that way, it's quite usual to see microphones dangling up there; and when you look at the film strip, the translated sub-titles run about in the middle of the screen. This procedure managed to waste 25% of negative and positive film stock. There have been efforts to change the pull-down from 4 to 3 perforations but they never worked out.
But the operator may show you this:
and the waste!
Some web sites call this "super 35mm", describing the procedure as if the negative was actually masked off. Nobody ever took that trouble; why should they? Then, they go on to tell you that for television release this masked-off, and thus irrevocably lost, portion somehow has been restored magically. Nonsense, of course. It was there all the time. What's really called super 35mm is where they shoot full frame (for TV-release) and crop off a 'Scope frame for theater release. Who knows, they may even blow this up to 70mm? Essentially, it's just a regular Techniscope movie. If I were a cameraman, I'd hate this. It's just a plain schlock way to work. |
I'm going to print a couple of posters on A1
and a few on A2
The poster size printed on A1 is 760x570 mm
A2 is 530x398 mm
No comments:
Post a Comment