Home video release at that time was not unlike what multi-color space releases are now. You've got post houses doing separate passes on SDR and HDR deliverables in order to get the best in-home experience.
I wasn't working in the industry in the 70s, 80s, or 90s, but tv's on a whole were pretty small. I imagine the switch to widescreen happened as TV's got bigger, and you could actually see when the image was letterboxed. On top of that, the different standards (NTFS, PAL, SECAM) multiplies the difficulty of maintaining aspect ratios from the cinema in different regions.
To me, a guy who works in advertising, I'm often tasked with reframing for 16:9, 1:1, and 9:16 formats for the different digital outlets. You want the consumer to get the best experience, so you've got to fill the frame appropriately, even if it won't make sense in 10 years.
Looking back, it's hard to understand why anyone would do anything but widescreen, but there are so many variables that go into the decisions, and all of that happened after the freedom of the cinematic release.
Filmmakers are beholden to the technology of distribution. I'm sure in the future, people will wonder why today's production companies don't finish in ACES across the board, or why we would master in HLG but not Dolby Visions, depending on which standard wins out. Why would ads be vertical, or why does Adobe default its 'high bitrate' template to a measly 10 Mbps.
Disney+ doesn't need a standard, it needs a fluid player that plays ball with everything. Just like Youtube and Vimeo.
First, this is pretty cool.
Second, Colorists don't go on set. That's a DIT.
Third, you shouldn't use these for on-set color because, unless something has changed from the Palette days, this wont' be supported in Resolve or any other color software that needs trackballs. I have never seen anyone go on set using Premiere for dailies color and processing.
As a colorist, and a DIT, I've always been very disappointed with Lumetri's limitations; you can only push lift/gamma/gain to a certain point, masks are clunky, no tracking, ineffectual keying.
Besides which, trackballs are really amazing tools. You can have absolute control of where, and how quickly, you want to push your color to a certain point.
This seems to miss the mark for actual color grading, but would certainly make a great tool for an editor that needs to crank out something usable. That's an important distinction that is always glossed over in these pieces and in Palette/Monogram's marketing materials.
This is a really fascinating example of back seat driving.
I haven't seen the film, but I did look up Thomas Flight and John Ottman. That was pretty revealing. Additionally, while standards for editing certainly exist and ought to be taken seriously, the art of the edit evolves along with every other discipline in the beautiful world of film. Thinking back to the visual grammar of the early days of editing, through the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, etc., it's always moved forward. Some editors push the envelope now and then, and funny enough people actually like that. To hold an editor down to the norm restricts growth of the craft.
The editing from this scene to me did not feel confusing, or overedited. It felt alive, and I think that the vast majority of the viewership didn't notice those cuts or feel confused. Could it have been done differently? Sure, but then it probably wouldn't have won that Oscar, would it?
Curious that he would send the ripped file to be printed on film, then scan back to digital. He's just wasting contributions at that point.
It's one thing to rip and change people's work, it's another to use backwards workflow.
I don't think Rey's compositions in these shots mean anything besides a good, balanced frame. Only J.J. or the DP Can say for a certainty, but come on, guys.
How does the Cineform codec have "Support for ProRes, DNxHD, DPX, uncompressed, and virtually all RAW formats"