Not a single film thread

Not a single film thread

Attached: _91408619_55df76d5-2245-41c1-8031-07a4da3f313f.jpg (976x850, 57.91K)

Then why don't you make one?

I saw one, but your frog thread killed it

Nice film thread faggot

>friday night
>this is the state of Any Forums
it's over

Be the change you want to see in the world user

Attached: From the TWISTED mind fo jordan peele.jpg (846x1024, 135.64K)

that's honestly so cute

I can never have that

Attached: 16420416986635414087687524489450.jpg (561x561, 29.83K)

I made a good one but it died. Have you ever considered "faux widescreen"? Mostly just really wide like 2.40 but it's secretly filmed and intended to be seen at home on 1.33. Ladyhakwe and 2010 are good examples but I'm pretty sure there's a bunch others.

Attached: 91DoMsHRhBL._RI_.jpg (1920x2560, 589.61K)

This is now a film thread

Attached: 16563943675761037227995155585361.jpg (1920x804, 133.3K)

ITs never too late. Just dont give up, and go hang out in Any Forums instead of here

I've been fit since 2010
I'm not white

oh well then yeah you'll never have that image

Are you sure they weren't just shot Super35?
Regardless, Kubrick was like this. Aside from 2001 which was 70mm, most of his later work was 1.33 protected so the open matte was also considered when he shot in order to get the best image on 4:3 televisions. That is to say, the widescreen cropped composition and the open matte were both technically intentional and legitimate versions.

Attached: 1553387375271.png (500x340, 217.89K)

Replying to myself... This was a major disservice that happened with the advent of DVD. Hollywood pushed the idea that widescreen always gave you more of the image. This was only true of anamorphic 2.40:1. In the cases of flat 1.85 and Super35 2.40 that was completely wrong. However, generally speaking the theatrical aspect ratio was the "intended" composition. This is why lots of open matte 1.33 versions show boom mics and production equipment in frame. They were not made to be seen full screen and did not protect for the open matte TV presentation.

Didn't know they made "should I kill myself" tests

>it go down

Attached: 1569730002379.jpg (250x250, 10.78K)

I don't know but when I watched Ladyhawke and 2010 ('84) and some others I'm not remembering offhand, they looked suspiciously very good in 1.33 pan and scan on dvd. Ladyhawke had very little if any pan and scan that I noticed. What really catches my attention is how small a lot of stuff often is in their shots. On 2.40 that seems like it would just be completely insane. I can only assume the theatrical release of 2.40 for some films is yet another in a very long list of theater gimmicks and they were truly filmed as intentended for the recently extremely exploded home video and cable market.

Any Forums ruined this board

I think I'm what I'm talking about is sort if the opposite. Like you're talking about 1.33 filmed but released in 2.40 and I'm talking about filmed in 2.40 I assume but sort if secretly framed, the shots designed, etc as to be secretly intended to be seen pan and scan 1.33 at home. Like in the theater if you weren't sitting front and center then you'd just be looking at basically dead air most of the time.

Attached: 16531010103931435390312322687693.jpg (577x433, 59.91K)

marry kill fuck (bottom one is excluded because it’s presumably a boy)