Posts: 501
Threads: 13
Joined: 2015 Mar
Thanks: 47
Given 77 thank(s) in 40 post(s)
Country:
Exactly. There's no reason. It's just wasted film. Most of the time, there are grids showing you the intended aspect ratio and safe areas in both viewfinder and monitor.
Posts: 2,049
Threads: 56
Joined: 2016 Dec
Thanks: 161
Given 1008 thank(s) in 612 post(s)
For a film shot and presented in widescreen 1.85:1 the only part of the negative that matters is the part that will be projected, the rest is 'wasted' but it's an accepted part of the process.
As for why shoot hard matted in the first place (or print hard-matted release prints), the main thing is it ensures the print is framed correctly when projected. Secondly when it comes to video transfers it gives you more control over what is shown, and JC loves control
Posts: 1,108
Threads: 26
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 679
Given 304 thank(s) in 205 post(s)
I get why there are Hard Matte release prints, from a control (and effects shots) point of view.
I'm surprised there are open matte release prints to be honest, why allow a projectionist to mess it up (although from what I understand very hard to mess up on most projection equipment).
My question was more about 'matting' at the capture stage (in camera).
deleted user
Unregistered
Thanks:
Given thank(s) in post(s)
I would guess it's cheaper to produce an open matte print, since all you have to do is copy it over 1:1.
And maybe some directors ... are freaks with a fascination of showing it unmatted like some of us?
Posts: 2,049
Threads: 56
Joined: 2016 Dec
Thanks: 161
Given 1008 thank(s) in 612 post(s)
Honestly I just think it boils down to controlling 100% what is captured on film
Posts: 2,693
Threads: 47
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1637
Given 954 thank(s) in 608 post(s)
The 1.66 prints were hard matted that way to avoid projectionists messing it up and showing the films in 1.37:1.
Posts: 120
Threads: 6
Joined: 2015 Nov
Thanks: 42
Given 74 thank(s) in 39 post(s)
Country:
I think an important question is: was the open matte frame protected for, or was junk visible?
Finest kind.