?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I know I've said it before... but this just kills me.

You take over 60 screen captures of The Fisher King... a movie that thrives on its visual style... as you would expect from Terry Gilliam.

Then, not only do you present them in a weird run together fashion in full frame - they're all stretched. There was only one release of this DVD in the US and it was in 1:85:1. Anamorphic widescreen. I've seen the movie a billion times and even shown full frame on TV it isn't stretched like this. And why on earth would you cap this at full frame?

In that community I've seen 3 different instances of Fallen Angels capped. In every single one of them they're so stretched that it looks like Christopher Doyle shot the whole movie through a fish eye lens. It's fucking ridiculous.

I realize that with many DVD programs when you say "fit to screen" it fits correctly to whatever monitor you're using. And when you cap it that way it's stretched all to fuck. So... maybe, and this is just a wacky idea... since you're capping the movies because the film maker was interesting/visually stimulating... why not CAP IT IN THE PROPER ASPECT RATIO?

I can't take your film snobbery seriously when you're drooling over a shot of River Phoenix asleep in the road again that makes him look like someone ran it through one of those "goo" effects programs. Not that I'd be able to take it seriously anyway given that we're talking about a Gus Van Sant movie ... but still.

Have some tech standards, fuckers. If you can't appreciate the technical aspects of a movie (and the size of the print is one of those things) then I don't think you're really APPRECIATING the movie. If you want to make your own "art" out of your captures that's cool. But this isn't the community for it.

Profile

NewYorkNewYork
maddening
A Non-Newtonian Fluid

Latest Month

March 2010
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow