Interesting thing at Best Buy....
Shinner
where I live)....
Someone, I imagine a BB employee, put a note on the sign advertising the
Pirates of the Carribbean DVD for $15.99. Written at the top of the price
tag was "widescreen only".
How do you take that? Why would it be neccessary?
Is there any need for the note, or would you think that alot of people came
in looking for a P&S version and BB employees are sick of having to answer
the question?
Rich Clark
"Shinner" <fake...@fakeserver.com> wrote in message
news:3fd0a61b$0$78545$45be...@newscene.com...
> Is there any need for the note, or would you think that alot of people
came
> in looking for a P&S version and BB employees are sick of having to answer
> the question?
The second thing.
You would be amazed (or maybe not) by the vast number of Americans whose
entire understanding of the issue boils down to "I buy full screen DVD's
because I don't have a widescreen TV."
RichC
Irrat8ed
cutting off the top and bottom." They are retarded.
"Shinner" <fake...@fakeserver.com> wrote in message
news:3fd0a61b$0$78545$45be...@newscene.com...
Scot Gardner
news:ZU2Ab.9313$aw2.4...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> My relatives say "I'm not getting the whole picture with those black
> bars cutting off the top and bottom." They are retarded.
It's hard to believe, but I actually heard a girl explain to her mother
that the only difference between widescreen and fullscreen DVDs is that
the widescreen DVDs cut off the top and bottom of the picture. (While
this is actually the case in some instances (anamorphic enhancement
aside), the movie they were looking at had a 2.35:1 widescreen aspect
ratio.)
They then proceeded to buy the "fullscreen" version of _Die Another Day_
so that they would "be able to see the whole picture." Yep. They would
be able to see the whole 60% pan and scan image.
Scot Gardner
news:5J2Ab.38791$A%3.52...@ord-read.news.verio.net...
<<The second thing.>>
I've heard that one before. Some of these people might even have a
conventional TV which can do 16:9 vertical compression and not even know
it.
Or maybe they just don't like those annoying black bars, no matter how
good the picture quality might be.
Shinner
news:ZU2Ab.9313$aw2.4...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com:
> My relatives say "I'm not getting the whole picture with those black
> bars cutting off the top and bottom." They are retarded.
Yeah....total opposite of the truth.
Cernovog
(in message <ZU2Ab.9313$aw2.4...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>):
> My relatives say "I'm not getting the whole picture with those black bars
> cutting off the top and bottom." They are retarded.
Yes, yes, we've all heard the retarded arguments before:
1.) Those black bars are annoying. They distract me and I can't concentrate
on what's going on in the movie.
2.) I buy full screen DVDs because they fill the whole screen on my
widescreen TV when I hit the "fill" button on my remote.
3.) And the number one most retarded answer: "I'm not getting the whole
picture with those black bars cutting off the top and bottom."
Next on the alt.video.dvd never-ending gripe list:
People who refuse to watch subtitled movies.
"I don't go to the movies to read."
Shinner
news:slrnbt1hne...@jbell.dns2go.com:
> not always total. Open Mattes do indeed show more
nit picker :)
Richard C.
===========================
I think that is the answer.
I say BRAVO for Disney for having the balls to only release the real version of the
movie!
Shinner
news:3fd0d012$0$7517$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com:
> I say BRAVO for Disney for having the balls to only release the real
> version of the movie!
Wonder how many sales they (the retailer, I mean) lost because of it. I
would guess quite a few if they had to make special note on their sign that
it was WS only.
Grand Inquisitor
> Shinner wrote on [5 Dec 2003 11:49:10 -0600]:
>
> not always total. Open Mattes do indeed show more
It's rare these days for an open matte transfer to be totally open
matte, there are so many computer graphics and composite/optical effects
that you're lucky to get half of the movie open-matted, they just pan
and scan the shots that can't be open matted.
--
"Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
and tagging wildebeests."
--Michael J. Nelson
Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
Grand Inquisitor
> Yes, yes, we've all heard the retarded arguments before:
>
> 1.) Those black bars are annoying. They distract me and I can't concentrate
> on what's going on in the movie.
>
I find the sides of my tv distracting, as well as the wall behind it.
Do they make DVDs that get rid of your tv and wall? Can I have the
movie beamed directly onto my optic nerves?
> 2.) I buy full screen DVDs because they fill the whole screen on my
> widescreen TV when I hit the "fill" button on my remote.
>
I hate anybody who can afford an HDTV but is too stupid to use it. What
a waste of technology.
> 3.) And the number one most retarded answer: "I'm not getting the whole
> picture with those black bars cutting off the top and bottom."
>
When I briefly worked in a HT department at a BB, I had to fight to keep
from socking people or at least grabbing them by the shirt collar and
screaming at them when they told me this.
> Next on the alt.video.dvd never-ending gripe list:
>
> People who refuse to watch subtitled movies.
>
> "I don't go to the movies to read."
>
Fools. What else is there to say?
Grand Inquisitor
If you stock equal amounts of WS and P&S, and give them equal prominence
(i.e. don't pull a Wal-Mart and hide the WS ones behind the counter), WS
sells better. Even at gas stations. Retailers are starting to notice
this too. People are slowly becoming more edu-macated and the "I want
my TV filled darnit" generation is thinning out.
Doonie
>My relatives say "I'm not getting the whole picture with those black bars
>cutting off the top and bottom." They are retarded.
There are a couple die-hards at my work whom I've shown printed-out
examples with widescreen vs. p&s right next to each other and they
think I'm full of it or just lying. =\ They probably just don't to
admit they're dumb enough to not have known what they were looking at
all these years. Talk about retarded. =\
I guess it's like the saying goes:
"You can't teach an ignorant, self-centred old dog a new trick."
Shinner
news:CM6Ab.23166$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com:
> If you stock equal amounts of WS and P&S, and give them equal
> prominence (i.e. don't pull a Wal-Mart and hide the WS ones behind the
> counter), WS sells better.
I won't argue that...I just figured that since the BB people added the
designation to the price tag sign, there must have been a significant
amount of people lookings for the butchered version.
> Even at gas stations.
Gas stations here are outta their mind....they sell used DVDs for $13.99
(and mostly movies that are completely forgettable).
> Retailers are
> starting to notice this too. People are slowly becoming more
> edu-macated and the "I want my TV filled darnit" generation is
> thinning out.
Doesn't bother me at all...
Shinner
> I find the sides of my tv distracting, as well as the wall behind it.
That's a little bit different isn't it? The sides of your TV and the wall
behind it aren't capable of showing a movie....a TV screen is. And when
people see part of the screen not being used, they think they're being
cheated. That's their perception, though wrong. Your example is
ridiculous.
> When I briefly worked in a HT department at a BB, I had to fight to
> keep from socking people or at least grabbing them by the shirt collar
> and screaming at them when they told me this.
You should have stayed there and pitched the BB management with the idea
to make you the "Widescreen Guy". Every time you saw someone pick up a
P&S DVD you could have politely offered to show them the light taking
them to the side and showing examples of why they're screwed in the head.
Most often, you probably could have even used a WS copy of whatever it
was buying. What a customer service that could have been. BB would
probably be considered revolutionary for providing such a service.
Of course, the P&S goofball could always tell you to mind your own
business and stay out of their wallet, but you never know, you might turn
a few people around.
Shinner
news:r0v1tvcubg8mjli9u...@4ax.com:
> "You can't teach an ignorant, self-centred old dog a new trick."
You should ammend this to end "....but you can sell them a P&S DVD".
Jay G
"Shinner" <fake...@fakeserver.com> wrote
> Is there any need for the note, or would you think that alot of people
came
> in looking for a P&S version and BB employees are sick of having to answer
> the question?
People are asking for the P&S version, or they're asking what
version the current one actually is, since it doesn't have a banner
proclaiming "widescreen" on the cover.
I don't think there is too much in a loss of sales. People want
the movie, and they want it on DVD. So even if they're
disappointed it's only WS, very few actually refuse to buy it.
In fact, they still buy the DVD even though the VHS is P&S.
-Jay
Grand Inquisitor
> Grand Inquisitor <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in
> news:EK6Ab.23137$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com:
>
>
>
>>I find the sides of my tv distracting, as well as the wall behind it.
>
>
> That's a little bit different isn't it? The sides of your TV and the wall
> behind it aren't capable of showing a movie....a TV screen is. And when
> people see part of the screen not being used, they think they're being
> cheated. That's their perception, though wrong. Your example is
> ridiculous.
>
Of course it's ridiculous, in keeping with the pan & scan theme. And if
you think I'm talking out of my butt, there are pan & scan people who
*are* irritated by the sides of their tv, they've posted here before and
I've met some of them.
>
>
>>When I briefly worked in a HT department at a BB, I had to fight to
>>keep from socking people or at least grabbing them by the shirt collar
>>and screaming at them when they told me this.
>
>
> You should have stayed there and pitched the BB management with the idea
> to make you the "Widescreen Guy". Every time you saw someone pick up a
> P&S DVD you could have politely offered to show them the light taking
> them to the side and showing examples of why they're screwed in the head.
If'n I were in media, yeah, but I was in home theater.
www.widescreen.org has a printout sheet for demonstrating why WS is
better, and some stores have used it. He says he once went into a Media
Play that had it on display.
> Most often, you probably could have even used a WS copy of whatever it
> was buying. What a customer service that could have been. BB would
> probably be considered revolutionary for providing such a service.
>
Oh, BB and other stores are really screwed up with their HT departments
these days, it's not the 80s, people need to *see* what you're trying to
sell. My BB had only one or two of its three dozen HDTVs showing an
actual HD picture, the rest were showing a blurry, widened SD picture
sent through composite video. Sad, I know. And they should have put up
two identical TVs, side by side, showing the same movie, one P&S,
t'other WS, so people could actually see the difference in action.
Believe it or not, but some people just can't visualize. You explain
the difference to them over and over and they just don't get it, you
have to actually *show* them what you're talking about, and only then
will they be sold. I believe about 90% of the population or more would
buy WS if they were educated on the subject, the rest are the "I hate
black bars" morons.
> Of course, the P&S goofball could always tell you to mind your own
> business and stay out of their wallet, but you never know, you might turn
> a few people around.
>
>
You'd turn a lot of people around just by showing them, that's why I
love www.widescreen.org, he takes real-life caps of popular movies, and
shows you what you miss in the pan & scan version. Most people don't
have a clue the things they're missing in the "standard" or "full frame"
releases. (I hate those terms)
Kevin Scholl
Shinner wrote:
>>I say BRAVO for Disney for having the balls to only release the real
>>version of the movie!
>
>
> Wonder how many sales they (the retailer, I mean) lost because of it. I
> would guess quite a few if they had to make special note on their sign that
> it was WS only.
It would become less and less of an problem if they had someone there
with knowledge of the issue who could properly explain widescreen to people.
WhenI went by BB to get my copy of PIRATES this past Tuesday, there was
a guy there asking for the P&S version. When the sales person told him
that it was a widescreen only release, he got a little testy. I asked
him why he'd want to miss up to 40% of the movie, which in turn opened a
good exchange explaining widescreen. Turns out he was one of the
"black bars are cutting off the top and bottom" crowd. Once it was
properly explained, he saw the light -- even put back a couple P&S
titles and picked up the widescreen versions.
--
*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***
======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
ksc...@comcast.DELETE.net
------------------------------------------------------
Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
the dreams...
======================================================
Grand Inquisitor
> Grand Inquisitor <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in
> news:CM6Ab.23166$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com:
>
>
>>If you stock equal amounts of WS and P&S, and give them equal
>>prominence (i.e. don't pull a Wal-Mart and hide the WS ones behind the
>>counter), WS sells better.
>
>
> I won't argue that...I just figured that since the BB people added the
> designation to the price tag sign, there must have been a significant
> amount of people lookings for the butchered version.
>
I once worked at a BB, my best guess is that the person who put that up
there, either from the Merch or Media department, was a WS fanatic and
wanted to clarify that. I would ask my pals in the Media dept. how
often they get asked for pan & scan versions of popular movies, when we
only had WS, and they said rarely. More often than not there were no
more WS copies on the shelf and so people would ask for one from storage.
>
>
>>Even at gas stations.
>
>
> Gas stations here are outta their mind....they sell used DVDs for $13.99
> (and mostly movies that are completely forgettable).
>
Yikes. Are these little mom and pop (more these days, strip-club-owner)
gas stations, or big chains like BP and Shell? Have you seen what
Blockbuster charges for used DVDs? About two bucks less than new. I
found a used place nearby called CD Warehouse that charges *more* than
new for used DVDs. And don't even ask about Barnes and Nobles. (the
stores, not the website)
Shinner
> Of course it's ridiculous, in keeping with the pan & scan theme. And
> if you think I'm talking out of my butt, there are pan & scan people
> who *are* irritated by the sides of their tv, they've posted here
> before and I've met some of them.
Really? That's wacky...I thought you were just joking. No way you'll
convert someone like that.
> If'n I were in media, yeah, but I was in home theater.
> www.widescreen.org has a printout sheet for demonstrating why WS is
> better, and some stores have used it. He says he once went into a
> Media Play that had it on display.
I've seen that and pointed others to it, including my wife. She doesn't
dislike widescreen but did understand better when I showed her those
comparisons.
> Oh, BB and other stores are really screwed up with their HT
> departments these days, it's not the 80s, people need to *see* what
> you're trying to sell. My BB had only one or two of its three dozen
> HDTVs showing an actual HD picture, the rest were showing a blurry,
> widened SD picture sent through composite video. Sad, I know.
I'm afraid to look at a real HD picture, I'm sure I'd start jonesin' for
a HD receiver for satellite.
> And
> they should have put up two identical TVs, side by side, showing the
> same movie, one P&S, t'other WS, so people could actually see the
> difference in action.
That would be good but it overlooks their whole reason for being...make
money. They're not really concerned with educating consumers, they just
want them to get their wallet out.
> You'd turn a lot of people around just by showing them, that's why I
> love www.widescreen.org, he takes real-life caps of popular movies,
> and shows you what you miss in the pan & scan version. Most people
> don't have a clue the things they're missing in the "standard" or
> "full frame" releases. (I hate those terms)
Someone like my wife will see the difference, while I don't think my
parents would appreciate it all that much. Maybe if they had a huge
screen, but at the age they're getting to, a 2.35:1 movie on their 32" is
pushing their limits.
Shinner
> Yikes. Are these little mom and pop (more these days,
> strip-club-owner) gas stations, or big chains like BP and Shell?
"Local" chain called Turkey Hill (which I believe is owned by Hershey
Foods). Not mom and pop by any means though, they're all over
Pennsylvania, mostly from mid-State east to Philly. The town I live in
has 6 or 7 of them but no 7-11s.
> Have
> you seen what Blockbuster charges for used DVDs? About two bucks less
> than new.
I've rented a few from BB, they're always scratched to hell and loaded
with fingerprints. The consumer should be able to charge them for having
to clean the damn disc in order to play it without problems. I can't
imagine wanting to buy one of their used discs. Well, maybe in 1
case...they have the original release of "Patton". If that ever finds
it's way to the used bin, I'll buy it for the special feature documentary
that isn't on the "Fox War Classics" release that I have.
> I found a used place nearby called CD Warehouse that
> charges *more* than new for used DVDs.
I've not found anywhere good to buy used DVDs. They seem to hold their
value. I usually stop in a place called Disc Go Round when I'm in the
Atlanta area. And I found a place in the suburbs around KC, Kansas but I
forget the name. In fact the name of the place had changed since the
phone book was printed and I had a hard time finding it. They even had
about 15 laserdiscs in there but nothing I was looking for (which is
limited to movies not released on DVD yet).
Marci
My neighber and I were very excited when it came out on DVD because we
saw it this summer and totally fell in love with it! I snapped one up
in a flash. She out and out refused to buy it because she won't buy
anything in WS no matter how great the movie is. I had her over to
watch it at my house (unfortunately, I only have a 36" 'regular' TV) to
show her how it really doesn't look bad with the "black bars". I told
her to just concentrate on the picture and she wouldn't even notice
them. After the movie she just shrugged and said "Eh, I'll take what I
have. Thanks anyway"
I guess there's just no way to educate some people.
Grand Inquisitor
> Grand Inquisitor <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in
> news:n_8Ab.26129$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com:
>
>
>>Of course it's ridiculous, in keeping with the pan & scan theme. And
>>if you think I'm talking out of my butt, there are pan & scan people
>>who *are* irritated by the sides of their tv, they've posted here
>>before and I've met some of them.
>
>
> Really? That's wacky...I thought you were just joking. No way you'll
> convert someone like that.
>
>
Yup, one in particular was amusing us with his antics about a cardboard
covering he wanted to design, to cover his tv. Another guy suggested
that they should make tvs with little flip-up panels to cover the black
bars when you watch a WS movie, which apparently would make it more
bearable for him.
>>Oh, BB and other stores are really screwed up with their HT
>>departments these days, it's not the 80s, people need to *see* what
>>you're trying to sell. My BB had only one or two of its three dozen
>>HDTVs showing an actual HD picture, the rest were showing a blurry,
>>widened SD picture sent through composite video. Sad, I know.
>
>
> I'm afraid to look at a real HD picture, I'm sure I'd start jonesin' for
> a HD receiver for satellite.
>
Just makes me drool for HD-DVD. They say the difference between D-VHS
and broadcast HD is like the difference between DVD and NTSC, IOW,
HD-DVD will look even better. I can't wait to get 2001 in that format.
How many times am I going to buy that movie? I had two VHS versions,
I would have bought the LD if DVD hadn't usurped the videophile throne,
and the DVD was one of the first I bought (I still get misty-eyed
thinking about my first DVDs, Barry Lyndon and The Searchers).
>
>
>>And
>>they should have put up two identical TVs, side by side, showing the
>>same movie, one P&S, t'other WS, so people could actually see the
>>difference in action.
>
>
> That would be good but it overlooks their whole reason for being...make
> money. They're not really concerned with educating consumers, they just
> want them to get their wallet out.
>
It will help them push WS tvs, don't ya think?
>
>
>>You'd turn a lot of people around just by showing them, that's why I
>>love www.widescreen.org, he takes real-life caps of popular movies,
>>and shows you what you miss in the pan & scan version. Most people
>>don't have a clue the things they're missing in the "standard" or
>>"full frame" releases. (I hate those terms)
>
>
> Someone like my wife will see the difference, while I don't think my
> parents would appreciate it all that much. Maybe if they had a huge
> screen, but at the age they're getting to, a 2.35:1 movie on their 32" is
> pushing their limits.
>
>
2.35:1 on my 27" analog Philips is just fine (a bigger screen would be
nice though).
Grand Inquisitor
> Grand Inquisitor <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in
> news:i69Ab.26233$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com:
>
>
>
>>Yikes. Are these little mom and pop (more these days,
>>strip-club-owner) gas stations, or big chains like BP and Shell?
>
>
> "Local" chain called Turkey Hill (which I believe is owned by Hershey
> Foods). Not mom and pop by any means though, they're all over
> Pennsylvania, mostly from mid-State east to Philly. The town I live in
> has 6 or 7 of them but no 7-11s.
>
I saw a 7-11 only once before. Where I'm from, BP is the big one, and
Shell, Ashland, and Speedway share second.
> I've not found anywhere good to buy used DVDs. They seem to hold their
> value.
Try videogame places like EB Games, Funcoland, and Gamestop, they always
have a used DVD section. Selection is often limited but I check each
time I go in, because I've gotten the 2-disc Lawrence of Arabia (with
some *great* special features, I believe this one is OOP), Double
Indemnity, Ninja Scroll, Star Trek: TMP Special Edition, and Star Trek:
First Contact for very reasonable prices. Also, I dare you to find a
videogame store whose DVD section does *not* have all of the following:
Scary Movie, Lost World, Glass House, Lord of the Rings 1 & 2, and at
least four Dragonball Z's. Go ahead, see if I'm wrong. They're always
there. I once found the OOP Criterion version of Silence of the Lambs
for eleven bucks. Don't care for the movie, but you can pay up to fifty
bucks for that elsewhere.
Grand Inquisitor
> WhenI went by BB to get my copy of PIRATES this past Tuesday, there was
> a guy there asking for the P&S version. When the sales person told him
> that it was a widescreen only release, he got a little testy. I asked
> him why he'd want to miss up to 40% of the movie, which in turn opened a
> good exchange explaining widescreen. Turns out he was one of the "black
> bars are cutting off the top and bottom" crowd. Once it was properly
> explained, he saw the light -- even put back a couple P&S titles and
> picked up the widescreen versions.
>
Well congratulations! Doesn't that restore your faith?
Shinner
> Yup, one in particular was amusing us with his antics about a
> cardboard covering he wanted to design, to cover his tv. Another guy
> suggested that they should make tvs with little flip-up panels to
> cover the black bars when you watch a WS movie, which apparently would
> make it more bearable for him.
Whatever it takes I guess....make a frame and hang some curtains like in
the theater :)
> I would have bought the LD if DVD hadn't usurped the videophile
> throne, and the DVD was one of the first I bought (I still get
> misty-eyed thinking about my first DVDs, Barry Lyndon and The
> Searchers).
I can't get into that one...not a big space movie fan.
> It will help them push WS tvs, don't ya think?
Maybe....maybe not. I don't know if things have changed but it used to be
that you bought a TV every great once in a while, that being when the one
you have, dies. I don't know how many people would buy a new TV after
seeing the benefits of WS DVD.....especially if it's sold to them that WS
is good even on their existing 4:3 TV.
> 2.35:1 on my 27" analog Philips is just fine (a bigger screen would be
> nice though).
You are already starting out appreciative of the WS format...the people
that are locked into 4:3 would probably have a harder time, I think. I
ought to hook up a DVD player to my "junk" 27 inch that I have in the
basement for the kids to play video games on. Something tells me I
probably wouldn't like it much.
Shinner
> Try videogame places like EB Games, Funcoland, and Gamestop, they
> always have a used DVD section. Selection is often limited but I
> check each time I go in, because I've gotten the 2-disc Lawrence of
> Arabia (with some *great* special features, I believe this one is
> OOP), Double Indemnity, Ninja Scroll, Star Trek: TMP Special Edition,
> and Star Trek: First Contact for very reasonable prices. Also, I dare
> you to find a videogame store whose DVD section does *not* have all of
> the following:
> Scary Movie, Lost World, Glass House, Lord of the Rings 1 & 2, and
> at
> least four Dragonball Z's. Go ahead, see if I'm wrong. They're
> always there.
I always look for used places, especially when I'm away from home,
working. Good way to waste time instead of sitting in a hotel room.
>I once found the OOP Criterion version of Silence of the Lambs
> for eleven bucks. Don't care for the movie, but you can pay up to
> fifty bucks for that elsewhere.
I'd buy it for $11...it's probably not in my top 50 favorite movies, but
$11 for nearly and DVD is a pretty good deal these days.
Grand Inquisitor
> My girlfriend has the argument that she doesn't like it smaller, which
> on my standard is the case, a widescreen is smaller, but it is a 32"
> TV and we are only 8 feet from it. WOmen. :-)
She'll be dissapointed when she gets a WS tv and her pan and scan
releases take up less screen space than an anamorphic one would.
Doonie
>Doonie wrote:
>
>> "You can't teach an ignorant, self-centred old dog a new trick."
>
>You should ammend this to end "....but you can sell them a P&S DVD".
That's an old trick. =\
Doonie
>2.35:1 on my 27" analog Philips is just fine (a bigger screen would be
>nice though).
I watched widescreen movies on my little 20" JVC for years! It
died, so I got this new Sony 27" with 16:9 mode (read; Poor Man's
16:9). This will do me for a few years until I buy _the_ TV.
Con
> > matte, there are so many computer graphics and composite/optical
effects
> > that you're lucky to get half of the movie open-matted, they just
pan
> > and scan the shots that can't be open matted.
>
> crappy chip flicks mostly.
Exactly true. A buddy of mine, a big Drew Barrymore fan, did a
side-by-side comparison of one of her more recent efforts (I think it
was that Cinderella "Ever After" thing). Anyway, the supposed
"widescreen" edition showed little if anything extra on the sides and
neatly snipped away roughly HALF of the available picture info on the
top and/or bottom of the frame. Granted, a lot of the time this
missing info is just empty space, but in some movies (e.g. "The
Abyss") you DO get the odd crucial detail in that area that is ONLY
visible in the full-frame version. Sad, but true.
Con
Doonie
>WhenI went by BB to get my copy of PIRATES this past Tuesday, there was
>a guy there asking for the P&S version. When the sales person told him
>that it was a widescreen only release, he got a little testy. I asked
>him why he'd want to miss up to 40% of the movie, which in turn opened a
> good exchange explaining widescreen. Turns out he was one of the
>"black bars are cutting off the top and bottom" crowd. Once it was
>properly explained, he saw the light -- even put back a couple P&S
>titles and picked up the widescreen versions.
Fuckin' "A"!! Way to go!
Doonie
>My neighber and I were very excited when it came out on DVD because we
>saw it this summer and totally fell in love with it! I snapped one up
>in a flash. She out and out refused to buy it because she won't buy
>anything in WS no matter how great the movie is. I had her over to
>watch it at my house (unfortunately, I only have a 36" 'regular' TV) to
>show her how it really doesn't look bad with the "black bars". I told
>her to just concentrate on the picture and she wouldn't even notice
>them. After the movie she just shrugged and said "Eh, I'll take what I
>have. Thanks anyway"
>
>I guess there's just no way to educate some people.
You showing her a whole widescreen movie was her first baby steps.
Takes longer for some people (sometimes years). Show her side-by-side
examples. Don't give up!
luminos
widescreen portable!
Jay G
"Con" <cpfe...@personainternet.com> wrote
>
> Exactly true. A buddy of mine, a big Drew Barrymore fan, did a
> side-by-side comparison of one of her more recent efforts (I think it
> was that Cinderella "Ever After" thing). Anyway, the supposed
> "widescreen" edition showed little if anything extra on the sides and
> neatly snipped away roughly HALF of the available picture info on the
> top and/or bottom of the frame.
Yet the important part of the image, the part framed for WS and
what the director intended you to see, stays exactly the same size.
So you substitute useless picture info for black bars, and the only
thing lost is composition.
> Granted, a lot of the time this
> missing info is just empty space, but in some movies (e.g. "The
> Abyss") you DO get the odd crucial detail in that area that is ONLY
> visible in the full-frame version. Sad, but true.
If it's not in the WS frame, it's not crucial. The director didn't intend
for you to see it. It might be an *interesting* detail, and for T3
some people find the additional image info of the Terminatrix
*very* interesting, but it's not crucial.
-Jay
luminos
widescreen these days. These people are watching widescreen and don't even
realize it. For some, this realization turns off the WS is cut-up mindset
(just remind them that no advertiser is going to show less per second for
his dollar!)
"Doonie" <doonie666...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tmn2tvsolvenema9p...@4ax.com...
Jay G
"luminos" <x...@x.net> wrote ...
> The funny thing is, these same WS phobics think nothing of buying a
> widescreen portable!
I actually walked by a customer today who was wondering aloud to
her friend whether the PotC DVD would look ok on her family's
portable DVD player. When I kindly pointed out that most portable
DVD players have WS screens, it was news to her.
-Jay
Grand Inquisitor
> Exactly true. A buddy of mine, a big Drew Barrymore fan, did a
> side-by-side comparison of one of her more recent efforts (I think it
> was that Cinderella "Ever After" thing). Anyway, the supposed
> "widescreen" edition showed little if anything extra on the sides and
> neatly snipped away roughly HALF of the available picture info on the
> top and/or bottom of the frame. Granted, a lot of the time this
> missing info is just empty space, but in some movies (e.g. "The
> Abyss") you DO get the odd crucial detail in that area that is ONLY
> visible in the full-frame version. Sad, but true.
>
> Con
>
>
>
There are a few directors, such as James Cameron who did Abyss, who have
the 4:3 frame in mind when filming, and then matte it only for the
theatrical presentation. If I were making a film I might do it the same
way, I like the Academy Ratio. Kubrick also does this, which is why you
can only get some of his movies 4:3, they are open-matted.
Patrick Neve
OK.. so who's got the list of DVD's which are open-matte?
Tarkus
I have no problem watching widescreen movies on my 17" bedroom TV.
--
"I'm sorry, Wendy, but I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five
days and doesn't die."
Now playing: "Bachman-Turner Overdrive - Blown"
3W
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.03...@darkwing.uoregon.edu...
> OK.. so who's got the list of DVD's which are open-matte?
http://us.imdb.com/Sections/DVDs/PictureFormats/Unmatted/
Black Locust
Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> not always total. Open Mattes do indeed show more
And movies shot on Super 35. But how many movies are shot on Super 35
and open matte? I haven't seen many.
--
BL
Black Locust
"Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> I think that is the answer.
>
> I say BRAVO for Disney for having the balls to only release the real version
> of the
> movie!
You've gotta give Disney some credit. They went from being completely
anti-widescreen just a couple years back to coming full circle with a
surprisingly pro-widescreen stance. Even going so far as to include a
widescreen vs pan & scan featurette on the Sleeping Beauty DVD.
--
BL
Black Locust
Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Very true. But there are also a lot of movies that have no effects,
> crappy chip flicks mostly.
Chasing Papi is a good example. Crappy chick flick that was shot in open
matte. But that's ok, the yentas can have their POS open matte movies.
I'll go bask in 2:35:1 widescreen glory with my copy of Die Hard. Grrrr!
:)
--
BL
Shinner
@fe3.columbus.rr.com:
> She'll be dissapointed when she gets a WS tv and her pan and scan
> releases take up less screen space than an anamorphic one would.
Hehe....that's what the fill button is for :)
(and it makes women feel better about themselves seeing starlettes
automatically "gain weight")
Jay G
"Black Locust" <bl2...@hotmail.com> wrote...
> Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> > not always total. Open Mattes do indeed show more
>
> And movies shot on Super 35. But how many movies are shot on Super 35
> and open matte? I haven't seen many.
Opening the mattes completely on a Super35 film is rare, it usually only
occurs in a few shots of the 4:3 version. However, the rest of the film
is typically a mix of opening the top and bottom a little and cutting the
sides a bit.
-Jay
Peter
Rich Clark wrote:
> "Shinner" <fake...@fakeserver.com> wrote in message
> news:3fd0a61b$0$78545$45be...@newscene.com...
> The second thing.
>
> You would be amazed (or maybe not) by the vast number of Americans whose
> entire understanding of the issue boils down to "I buy full screen DVD's
> because I don't have a widescreen TV."
>
> RichC
Yep.. In Canada, I heard that at walmart. These two ladies were walking
through the aisle saying "All these DVD's are Widescreen, we can't play
them..." and they were getting a little annoyed.
However, my favorite was several years ago, before DVD's. I was at an
HMV downtown Toronto, and over heard a guy ask a clerk "Can I have this
in widescreen, but without the black bars."
and the guy said "Uh sir, that IS widescreen"
"yea I know, but I don't want those black bars"
(sigh)
--
At the source of every error which is blamed on the
computer you will find at least two human errors,
including the error of blaming it on the computer.
--
Thats not funny!
---
Signature generated by SillySigz!
http://www.sturec.com/sillysigz.shtml
Peter
Richard C. wrote:
> "Shinner" <fake...@fakeserver.com> wrote in message
> news:3fd0a61b$0$78545$45be...@newscene.com...
> : Stopped in BB yesterday since I was working near one (isn't one close to
> : where I live)....
> :
> : Someone, I imagine a BB employee, put a note on the sign advertising the
> : Pirates of the Carribbean DVD for $15.99. Written at the top of the price
> : tag was "widescreen only".
> :
> : How do you take that? Why would it be neccessary?
> :
> : Is there any need for the note, or would you think that alot of people came
> : in looking for a P&S version and BB employees are sick of having to answer
> : the question?
> :
> ===========================
> I think that is the answer.
>
> I say BRAVO for Disney for having the balls to only release the real version of the
> movie!
>
However, Jeers to Disney, for having tons of commercials and trailers
before their movies. EVEN IF you can skip them, I don't like 'em. Leave
them as a menu option.
Brian "Demolition Man" Little
<zo...@columbus.rr.com>! Stand still laddie. Oh, and which one is Pink?"
> Shinner wrote:
> once found the OOP Criterion
> version of Silence of the Lambs for eleven bucks. Don't care for the
> movie, but you can pay up to fifty bucks for that elsewhere.
I payed $10.99 for a new copy at a local grocery store.
--
Brian "Demolition Man" Little
Grand Inquisitor
Hold on buster, I'm talking about the out-of-print Criterion Collection
version.
Doonie
>There are a few directors, such as James Cameron who did Abyss, who have
>the 4:3 frame in mind when filming, and then matte it only for the
>theatrical presentation. If I were making a film I might do it the same
>way, I like the Academy Ratio. Kubrick also does this, which is why you
>can only get some of his movies 4:3, they are open-matted.
Sure they aren't open matte because Kubrick didn't want his 1:85:1
movies pan and scanned?
Brian "Demolition Man" Little
<zo...@columbus.rr.com>! Stand still laddie. Oh, and which one is Pink?"
> Brian "Demolition Man" Little wrote:
>> From on top of The Wall I yelled "YOU! YES YOU Grand Inquisitor
>> <zo...@columbus.rr.com>! Stand still laddie. Oh, and which one is
>> Pink?"
>>
>>> Shinner wrote:
>>> once found the OOP Criterion
>>> version of Silence of the Lambs for eleven bucks. Don't care for
>>> the movie, but you can pay up to fifty bucks for that elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> I payed $10.99 for a new copy at a local grocery store.
>>
>
> Hold on buster, I'm talking about the out-of-print Criterion
> Collection version.
You mean the one that has the audio commentary that is NOT
on the MGM? That's from a little company named Criterion?
Yeah... so am I! :)
jayembee
> Shinner wrote:
>>
>> Someone like my wife will see the difference, while I
>> don't think my parents would appreciate it all that much.
>> Maybe if they had a huge screen, but at the age they're
>> getting to, a 2.35:1 movie on their 32" is pushing their
>> limits.
>
> 2.35:1 on my 27" analog Philips is just fine (a bigger
> screen would be nice though).
2.35:1 on my 27" is also just fine. And my 83-year-old
mother has no problem with 2.35:1 movies on her 27" TV,
either. Of course, my mother has an advantage in this
area: she's an artist (painter and woodcarver) and easily
grasps the concept of composition. In the past year, since
my sister and I got her a DVD player, and started loaning
her movies from our collections, she hasn't *once* asked
why those black bars are there.
-- jayembee
Jay G
"Grand Inquisitor" <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote...
> There are a few directors, such as James Cameron who did Abyss, who have
> the 4:3 frame in mind when filming, and then matte it only for the
> theatrical presentation.
James Cameron does not have 4:3 in mind while shooting. He shoots
for the 2.35 frame, but keeps the rest of the film frame clear for later
rejiggering for the 4:3 version. Even then, gaffes appear, such as
the telephone booth scene in T2. Cameron is on record that he
prefers the 4:3 versions of his films shot on Super35 for *home viewing*,
by which he means on a 4:3 TV. For theatrical presentation, and
presumably for HDTV, he prefers OAR
> If I were making a film I might do it the same way,
> I like the Academy Ratio.
Some people still do, which is why the occasional film is still shot
in 4:3. However, this would be the OAR of the film, which is
the proper way to watch it.
> Kubrick also does this, which is why you
> can only get some of his movies 4:3, they are open-matted.
Kubrick is apparently on record as saying he prefers the
4:3 open-matte versions of his film, but again this is for
*home viewing* only. He didn't live long enough to
state what his preferred aspect ratio would be for films
shown on HDTV or other WS TVs. Or perhaps he
did, and WB will "find" a memo from him stating as
such as soon as they start releasing HDTV versions
of his films.
-Jay
jayembee
>> Have you seen what Blockbuster charges for used DVDs?
>> About two bucks less than new.
>
> I've rented a few from BB, they're always scratched to hell
> and loaded with fingerprints. The consumer should be able
> to charge them for having to clean the damn disc in order
> to play it without problems. I can't imagine wanting to
> buy one of their used discs.
It's been a while since I've bought any used discs at BB.
But that's only because it's getting harder to find any
in their original packaging (I'm anal that way -- I don't
like buying rebound books from library sales either).
But I've bought a fair number of used DVDs from BB, and only
once I've I had a problem playing them.
>> I found a used place nearby called CD Warehouse that
>> charges *more* than new for used DVDs.
>
> I've not found anywhere good to buy used DVDs.
Once Sight & Sound folded, and Laser Exchange went to on-line
and mail-order-only, the used market's dried up a lot in the
Boston area. There's a chain called Newbury Comics that has
a fairly large used section in each of its stores, but the
prices are all over the map, and it's getting harder and
harder to find anything that I really want.
-- jayembee
Grand Inquisitor
More to the point, he didn't want them letterboxed. Yes, he was aware
of widescreen tvs but 4:3 was and still is the norm for most of the
world. His 70mm movies are letterboxed, but his 35mm movies are usually
open-matted or they can even vary from shot to shot (ala Dr. Strangelove).
Grand Inquisitor
>>Kubrick also does this, which is why you
>>can only get some of his movies 4:3, they are open-matted.
>
>
> Kubrick is apparently on record as saying he prefers the
> 4:3 open-matte versions of his film, but again this is for
> *home viewing* only. He didn't live long enough to
> state what his preferred aspect ratio would be for films
> shown on HDTV or other WS TVs. Or perhaps he
> did, and WB will "find" a memo from him stating as
> such as soon as they start releasing HDTV versions
> of his films.
>
> -Jay
>
>
Check out this interview with Leon Vitali, but especially this part:
"The important thing to know about Stanley, is that he wanted all of his
films shown on video - anything that wasn't a theatrical presentation -
in the original camera ratio that he shot it in. He wanted you to see
the films exactly as he saw them when he looked through the camera lens
and composed them on set. He was no fan of 1.85, because he felt that
you were losing part of the image he composed. Now he knew that, with a
film like The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, that they would have to be
shown in theaters in 1.85 format. But for video, he could present the
full frame as he composed it - that's what he wanted."
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/kubrick/vitaliinterview.html
I think DVDfile.com also had a big ol' interview with Vitali along these
same lines.
Grand Inquisitor
> You mean the one that has the audio commentary that is NOT
> on the MGM? That's from a little company named Criterion?
> Yeah... so am I! :)
>
You got an OOP Criterion title from a *grocery store*? When? What
store was it? Kroger's?
Rich Clark
"Grand Inquisitor" <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:sJuAb.35975$tu1...@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
> Check out this interview with Leon Vitali, but especially this part:
>
> "The important thing to know about Stanley, is that he wanted all of his
> films shown on video - anything that wasn't a theatrical presentation -
> in the original camera ratio that he shot it in. He wanted you to see
> the films exactly as he saw them when he looked through the camera lens
> and composed them on set. He was no fan of 1.85, because he felt that
> you were losing part of the image he composed. Now he knew that, with a
> film like The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, that they would have to be
> shown in theaters in 1.85 format. But for video, he could present the
> full frame as he composed it - that's what he wanted."
I think it's possible even for someone like this to misunderstand the issue.
or what Kubrick was actually saying, or to interpolate his own opinion or
interpretation with what he thinks he remembers someone as saying.
All you have to do is *watch* "The Shining" to see what aspect ratio it was
composed for. The 1.85:1 composition jumps out of the 1.33:1 frame as if it
were being highlighting with the Photoshop cropping tool.
RichC
Invid Fan
wrote:
> "Grand Inquisitor" <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote...
> > If I were making a film I might do it the same way,
> > I like the Academy Ratio.
>
> Some people still do, which is why the occasional film is still shot
> in 4:3. However, this would be the OAR of the film, which is
> the proper way to watch it.
>
However, it wouldn't be the way it was shown in theaters. Any director
that prefered an OAR of 4:3 would have to create a widescreen version
for theatrical release.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Grand Inquisitor
>>"The important thing to know about Stanley, is that he wanted all of his
>>films shown on video - anything that wasn't a theatrical presentation -
>>in the original camera ratio that he shot it in. He wanted you to see
>>the films exactly as he saw them when he looked through the camera lens
>>and composed them on set. He was no fan of 1.85, because he felt that
>>you were losing part of the image he composed. Now he knew that, with a
>>film like The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, that they would have to be
>>shown in theaters in 1.85 format. But for video, he could present the
>>full frame as he composed it - that's what he wanted."
>
>
> I think it's possible even for someone like this to misunderstand the issue.
> or what Kubrick was actually saying, or to interpolate his own opinion or
> interpretation with what he thinks he remembers someone as saying.
>
> All you have to do is *watch* "The Shining" to see what aspect ratio it was
> composed for. The 1.85:1 composition jumps out of the 1.33:1 frame as if it
> were being highlighting with the Photoshop cropping tool.
>
> RichC
>
>
Well, right now you're applying your own opinion to events, I never felt
that way about The Shining. You're going to go with your opinion over
what Leon Vitali is saying? You know who he is, right? He was
Kubrick's right-hand-man for decades.
Jay G
"Invid Fan" <in...@localnet.com> wrote ...
Jay G <J...@tmbg.org>
> > "Grand Inquisitor" <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote...
>
> > > If I were making a film I might do it the same way,
> > > I like the Academy Ratio.
> >
> > Some people still do, which is why the occasional film is still shot
> > in 4:3. However, this would be the OAR of the film, which is
> > the proper way to watch it.
> >
> However, it wouldn't be the way it was shown in theaters. Any director
> that prefered an OAR of 4:3 would have to create a widescreen version
> for theatrical release.
You must've missed "The Blair Witch Project" in theatres.
I can also think of the film "Running Time," which had a
theatrical release in 4:3.
-Jay
Invid Fan
wrote:
> "Invid Fan" <in...@localnet.com> wrote ...
> Jay G <J...@tmbg.org>
> > > "Grand Inquisitor" <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote...
> >
> > > > If I were making a film I might do it the same way,
> > > > I like the Academy Ratio.
> > >
> > > Some people still do, which is why the occasional film is still shot
> > > in 4:3. However, this would be the OAR of the film, which is
> > > the proper way to watch it.
> > >
> > However, it wouldn't be the way it was shown in theaters. Any director
> > that prefered an OAR of 4:3 would have to create a widescreen version
> > for theatrical release.
>
> You must've missed "The Blair Witch Project" in theatres.
No, I just don't think the creators had any artistic preference, and
that windowboxing the movie was a gimmic :)
Jay G
"Grand Inquisitor" <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:sJuAb.35975$tu1...@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
> >>Kubrick also does this, which is why you
> >>can only get some of his movies 4:3, they are open-matted.
> >
> >
> > Kubrick is apparently on record as saying he prefers the
> > 4:3 open-matte versions of his film, but again this is for
> > *home viewing* only. He didn't live long enough to
> > state what his preferred aspect ratio would be for films
> > shown on HDTV or other WS TVs. Or perhaps he
> > did, and WB will "find" a memo from him stating as
> > such as soon as they start releasing HDTV versions
> > of his films.
>
>
> you were losing part of the image he composed. Now he knew that, with a
> film like The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, that they would have to be
> shown in theaters in 1.85 format. But for video, he could present the
> full frame as he composed it - that's what he wanted."
>
> http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/kubrick/vitaliinterview.html
>
> I think DVDfile.com also had a big ol' interview with Vitali along these
> same lines.
http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report/production_a_z/kubrick/remasteringkubrick.html
"This was also very important to Stanley. He was very conscious
of the fact that you lose I think 27% of your picture when it is matted
to 1.85:1. He hated it, he didn't find it satisfactory. He liked
height."
The problem is, that Vitali is on step removed from Kubrick. That
is, he's a very reliable source on Kubrick and his intentions, and
the best person alive who knows what Kubrick wanted his films
to look like, but he's not Kubrick himself.
For example, on the issue of anamorphically enhancing a 1.66:1
image, Vitali says:
"And originally (when video transfers were done) there was no
windowboxing or anamorphic, so it would have been speculation
on my part if I had done that, anamorphically encoded the 1.66:1
titles. "
Vitali doesn't know what Kubrick's position would've been on
anamorphic 1.66:1, so he played it safe and didn't do it. Likewise,
he probably doesn't know what Kubrick's position was on HDTV,
if Kubrick even had one. Of course, Vitali had no problem
remastering the audio for Kubrick's films in 5.1 audio, because
he says Kubrick liked stereo. Last time I checked, 5.1 audio
is a bit more than "stereo."
However, from the "he liked height" comment, it seems that Kubrick
preferred taller ratios, and was just releasing films theatrically in a
wider ratio because of industry demands. Of course, Kubrick
isn't alone in creating new aspect ratios for video. Criterion had
released several titles in a "director's preferred" ratio that was
different than the OAR, because the director liked the new ratio
better.
What's important for a film is to see it as close to the way the
director wants you to see it. For 98% of the time, that's
OAR. So for 98% of the time, when a film is shown open-matte
instead of OAR, it's against the director's intentions.
-Jay
Jay G
"Invid Fan" <in...@localnet.com> wrote ...
> Jay G <J...@tmbg.org> wrote:
> > "Invid Fan" <in...@localnet.com> wrote ...
> > > that prefered an OAR of 4:3 would have to create a widescreen version
> > > for theatrical release.
> >
> > You must've missed "The Blair Witch Project" in theatres.
>
> No, I just don't think the creators had any artistic preference, and
> that windowboxing the movie was a gimmic :)
Still, it disproves your point. *Any* director does not *have*
to create a WS version, there are exceptions.
Also, I failed to notice this on my previous post, but you
seem to be confused on what OAR means. It does *not*
mean "director's preferred ratio," rather it means "Original
Aspect Ratio." That is, the aspect ratio the film was
*originally* shown in. Kubrick may have preferred 4:3
for Eyes Wide Shut, but it's OAR is, and always will be,
1.85:1.
-Jay
Brian "Demolition Man" Little
Stand still laddie. Oh, and which one is Pink?"
> 4:3 open-matte versions of his film, but again this is for
> *home viewing* only. He didn't live long enough to
> state what his preferred aspect ratio would be for films
> shown on HDTV or other WS TVs. Or perhaps he
> did, and WB will "find" a memo from him stating as
> such as soon as they start releasing HDTV versions
> of his films.
Strange since I just saw an ad for "Barry Lyndon" on
HDNet Movies not that long ago - in full HDTV
1.78:1 glory.
Brian "Demolition Man" Little
<zo...@columbus.rr.com>! Stand still laddie. Oh, and which one is Pink?"
>> You mean the one that has the audio commentary that is NOT
>> on the MGM? That's from a little company named Criterion?
>> Yeah... so am I! :)
>>
>
> You got an OOP Criterion title from a *grocery store*? When? What
> store was it? Kroger's?
A local mom and pop one that has a shelf of used DVD with an
occasional new one in there. I've seen some Canada import stuff in
there too like the Canada issue of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" and
"Harry Potter And The Sorcerers (Philosphers) Stone." Too bad the
latter they only got the P&S in, I wouldn't of minded buying it just to
see how many differences there are.
Doonie
>All you have to do is *watch* "The Shining" to see what aspect ratio it was
>composed for. The 1.85:1 composition jumps out of the 1.33:1 frame as if it
>were being highlighting with the Photoshop cropping tool.
I agree - It's really obvious and easy to see in The Shining that it
was composed for 1.85:1. The 1.33:1 DVD has way too much room above
and below. It looks silly with the mattes gone. The composition is
totally ruined.
Invid Fan
wrote:
> "Invid Fan" <in...@localnet.com> wrote ...
> > Jay G <J...@tmbg.org> wrote:
> > > "Invid Fan" <in...@localnet.com> wrote ...
> > > > However, it wouldn't be the way it was shown in theaters. Any director
> > > > that prefered an OAR of 4:3 would have to create a widescreen version
> > > > for theatrical release.
> > >
> > > You must've missed "The Blair Witch Project" in theatres.
> >
> > No, I just don't think the creators had any artistic preference, and
> > that windowboxing the movie was a gimmic :)
>
> Still, it disproves your point. *Any* director does not *have*
> to create a WS version, there are exceptions.
>
I bow to your wisdom.
> Also, I failed to notice this on my previous post, but you
> seem to be confused on what OAR means. It does *not*
> mean "director's preferred ratio," rather it means "Original
> Aspect Ratio." That is, the aspect ratio the film was
> *originally* shown in. Kubrick may have preferred 4:3
> for Eyes Wide Shut, but it's OAR is, and always will be,
> 1.85:1.
>
So, the Ben Stiller comedy that is being shown on Comedy Central before
it's released in theaters has an OAR of 4:3, and thus shouldn't be
released on dvd widescreen?
Rich Clark
> Rich Clark wrote:
> > I think it's possible even for someone like this to misunderstand the
issue.
> > or what Kubrick was actually saying, or to interpolate his own opinion
or
> > interpretation with what he thinks he remembers someone as saying.
> >
> > All you have to do is *watch* "The Shining" to see what aspect ratio it
was
> > composed for. The 1.85:1 composition jumps out of the 1.33:1 frame as if
it
> > were being highlighting with the Photoshop cropping tool.
> Well, right now you're applying your own opinion to events, I never felt
> that way about The Shining. You're going to go with your opinion over
> what Leon Vitali is saying? You know who he is, right? He was
> Kubrick's right-hand-man for decades.
Which doesn't mean that he was inside Kubrick's head, or that either one of
them would come to understand (or care about) what home theater would
become.
And I think he was talking through his hat when he said that Kubrick
willingly composed for 1.33 knowing that if he did so the top and bottom of
the frame would *always* be cut off when the film was shown in a theater. I
don't believe it. To assert that Kubrick was intentionally miscomposing the
image that theatergoers would see in order to make it possible for it to
look right on a TV years later is ludicrous. (Don't forget that in Kubrick's
heyday it took a lot longer for films to make it to TV than it does now.)
I do believe that Kubrick preferred unmatted presentations on video when the
state of the art was VHS tape on a 25" TV. And I think that's what Vitali
was talking about, too.
People say things that get repeated because they prove someone else's point.
That Vitali quote is one of them. The Cameron thing about preferring the 4:3
version of "The Abyss" is another. But you know, Cameron later backpedaled
on that one, and even Vitali seemed to soften his position in another
interview (DVD Talk): "From The Shining and Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide
Shut, Stanley had marks on the camera lens so he could see where the 1.85
lines. He composed his shots for 1.66, which is the full screen, but he
wouldn't be hurt by going to 1.85 if he had to do it."
Which is a long way from saying categorically that "The Shining" was
composed for 1.33:1, now, isn't it?
RichC
Jay G
"Invid Fan" <in...@localnet.com> wrote...
> Jay G <J...@tmbg.org> wrote:
> > Also, I failed to notice this on my previous post, but you
> > seem to be confused on what OAR means. It does *not*
> > mean "director's preferred ratio," rather it means "Original
> > Aspect Ratio." That is, the aspect ratio the film was
> > *originally* shown in. Kubrick may have preferred 4:3
> > for Eyes Wide Shut, but it's OAR is, and always will be,
> > 1.85:1.
> >
> So, the Ben Stiller comedy that is being shown on Comedy Central before
> it's released in theaters has an OAR of 4:3, and thus shouldn't be
> released on dvd widescreen?
"The Hebrew Hammer" is not a Ben Stiller comedy. And to
be perfectly technical, yes, the OAR would be 4:3 if it's
shown on TV that way first, just like the OAR for Steven
Spielberg's "Duel" is 4:3 even though it was shown theatrically
in WS.
Of course, just because it's OAR, doesn't mean it's the best
way to view it. The best way to watch a film is in the AR the
director prefers. OAR is just a guideline, but a very good one,
because 98% of the time OAR *is* the director's preferred AR.
-Jay
Richard C.
: "Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote in
: news:3fd0d012$0$7517$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com:
:
: > I say BRAVO for Disney for having the balls to only release the real
: > version of the movie!
:
: Wonder how many sales they (the retailer, I mean) lost because of it. I
: would guess quite a few if they had to make special note on their sign that
: it was WS only.
:
===================
I bet they lose VERY few.
Anyone know the sales figures or ranking?
Richard C.
"Peter" <pdf...@ca.inter.net> wrote in message
news:bqt1ge$j33$3...@news.eusc.inter.net...
:
:
: Richard C. wrote:
: > "Shinner" <fake...@fakeserver.com> wrote in message
: > news:3fd0a61b$0$78545$45be...@newscene.com...
: > : Stopped in BB yesterday since I was working near one (isn't one close to
: > : where I live)....
: > :
: > : Someone, I imagine a BB employee, put a note on the sign advertising the
: > : Pirates of the Carribbean DVD for $15.99. Written at the top of the price
: > : tag was "widescreen only".
: > :
: > : How do you take that? Why would it be neccessary?
: > :
: > : Is there any need for the note, or would you think that alot of people came
: > : in looking for a P&S version and BB employees are sick of having to answer
: > : the question?
: > :
: > ===========================
: > I think that is the answer.
: >
: > I say BRAVO for Disney for having the balls to only release the real version of
the
: > movie!
: >
:
: However, Jeers to Disney, for having tons of commercials and trailers
: before their movies. EVEN IF you can skip them, I don't like 'em. Leave
: them as a menu option.
:
================
I agree 100%.
I love trailers. I watch all of them that are in separate menus on DVDs.
I NEVER watch the ones forced on you before the movie.
They actually lose.
===============
Richard C.
:
: but 4:3 was and still is the norm for most of the world.
====================
WRONG!
JWB
news:3fd33d1b$0$136$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> I love trailers. I watch all of them that are in separate menus on DVDs.
> I NEVER watch the ones forced on you before the movie.
>
> They actually lose.
>
You know, i never thought about this before, but I do the same thing. If
it's *before* the film, I always skip it. If it's a menu option (an extra!),
I always watch it.
I wonder how many other people do the same?
JWB
Rich Clark
>
> "Grand Inquisitor" <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:5DuAb.35957$tu1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
> :
> : but 4:3 was and still is the norm for most of the world.
He was talking about TV. If you just counted the number of TV's in use the
world over, he's undoubtedly correct, and this was certainly true in the
80's when Kubrick was actually making these decisions.
Nevertheless, see other parts of this thread. I'm not convinced that either
Kubrick or Vitali were making informed decisions.
RichC
Richard C.
=====================
"Rich Clark" <rdclar...@TRAPcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:tM6dnWqsVcX...@comcast.com...
:
: "Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
:
:
Rich Clark
> are you aware that nothing you quoted was written by me?
You're right, I over-snipped. I meant to include the part where you said
>WRONG!
RichC
everyman
> I hate anybody who can afford an HDTV but is too stupid to use it. What
> a waste of technology.
>
Happens all the time. See all those rich people driving around town in
their Ferraris?
everyman
> Next on the alt.video.dvd never-ending gripe list:
>
> People who refuse to watch subtitled movies.
>
> "I don't go to the movies to read."
>
There's more: people who don't go to movies with no happy endings. "I
don't go to the movies to get depressed"
Grand Inquisitor
I've seen a Ferrari maybe once or twice. I don't live in California
man. Plenty of Cadillacs, MBs, BMW, Lincolns, etc, but rarely do I see
something like a Bentley or a Ferrari. Anyway, I'd love to able to
afford my own HDTV (soon, hopefully), but for now I'll have to be
content with my 27" analog. :-(
Ray
I don't *always* watch them if they're a separate menu item, but I sometimes
do. If it's before the movie, I alway skip it. I guess I've been lucky so
far not to get any I couldn't skip -- although this newsgroup did warn me
away from Animal House, which I was thinking about getting.
The thing is, if I've selected "Play Movie," it's because I'm ready to watch
the damn movie. I'm not in a receptive frame of mind for something else,
especially if it's something that's there for no other reason than to pull
more money out of my wallet after I've already spent money.
Invid Fan
> Cernovog wrote:
>
> > Next on the alt.video.dvd never-ending gripe list:
> >
> > People who refuse to watch subtitled movies.
> >
> > "I don't go to the movies to read."
> >
>
removes her one level too much from the actors. As much as I enjoy
subtitled movies, there IS quite a bit lost as the viewer has to split
his time between watching the film and reading the dialog, while at the
same time trying to match the tone of the actors speach to the dialog.
In anime I tend to prefer the comedies dubbed, as subtitles often give
away the punchline before the visuals are there (due in part to
differences in how Japanese and English are structured). Plus, much of
the humor is in HOW a line is delivered, and sarcasm often doesn't
survive a subtitled translation.
Eric R.
> I'm not convinced that either
> Kubrick or Vitali were making informed decisions.
[sarcasm on]Yeah, it's not like Kubrick was world-renowned for
studying every technical decision he ever made in his films in
obsessive detail.[sarcasm off] ;-)
known
Eric R.
> Or perhaps he
> did, and WB will "find" a memo from him stating as
> such as soon as they start releasing HDTV versions
> of his films.
They can always get his "good friend" Spielberg to swear that Kubrick
told him this on his deathbed.
-Eric
Eric R.
> composed for. The 1.85:1 composition jumps out of the 1.33:1 frame as if it
> were being highlighting with the Photoshop cropping tool.
The only clear example I see of that is the infamous helicopter shot.
And even that was shot by a second unit crew, NOT by Kubrick.
-Eric
Eric R.
> or that either one of
> them would come to understand (or care about) what home theater would
> become.
You should read up on Kubrick. The man was not only interested in it,
he was OBSSESSED by it. Believe me, if Kubrick wanted his films shown
1:33:1, it was for a reason--not because he was uninformed. There was,
in fact, very little in the film world that Kubrick wasn't
well-informed about--right up until his death.
Many an annoyed director can attest to being called at 2 a.m. by a
curious Kubrick over some technical fillmaking detail he was studying.
Does that sound like the kind of guy who was uninformed about aspect
ratios on home video for 20 years?
-Eric
Eric R.
> It does *not*
> mean "director's preferred ratio," rather it means "Original
> Aspect Ratio."
Yeah, but I bet when you try to sell your friends on the format you
use the "that's the way the director wants you to see it" argument,
don't you? So I guess that makes you a bit of a hypocrite, doesn't it?
Face it, you're not a film buff, you're a fucking videophile. You
scream bloody murder when someone opens up the matte for a video
release, but you're perfectly happy when a film gets matted against
the director's wishes or "windowboxed" and its mono soundtrack
"enhanced" to 5.1 so it can look good on your widescreen TV and sound
good on your 5.1 sound system.
You don't care about the film or the director--you care about your
home theater system.
-Eric
Smaug69
> Jay G wrote:
> >>Kubrick also does this, which is why you
> >>can only get some of his movies 4:3, they are open-matted.
> >
> >
> > 4:3 open-matte versions of his film, but again this is for
> > *home viewing* only. He didn't live long enough to
> > state what his preferred aspect ratio would be for films
> > did, and WB will "find" a memo from him stating as
> > such as soon as they start releasing HDTV versions
> > of his films.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Check out this interview with Leon Vitali, but especially this part:
Where's the interview with Kubrick? 'Cause he's the only one I would
actually listen to regarding his stance on the subject.
> "The important thing to know about Stanley, is that he wanted all of his
> films shown on video - anything that wasn't a theatrical presentation -
> in the original camera ratio that he shot it in. He wanted you to see
> the films exactly as he saw them when he looked through the camera lens
> and composed them on set. He was no fan of 1.85, because he felt that
> you were losing part of the image he composed. Now he knew that, with a
> film like The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, that they would have to be
> shown in theaters in 1.85 format. But for video, he could present the
> full frame as he composed it - that's what he wanted."
What a load of horseshit.
First of all, Kubrick never used terms like full-frame. He used terms
like Academy ratio.
Second, Kubrick did not compose any of his films in the 4:3 ratio.
It's quite obvious when you view The Shining(as, of course, it is with
2001).
The ratio of his films in their theatrical release is the way they
were intended to be seen.
Smaug69
Rich Clark
"Eric R." <elr...@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
news:7b67c5bc.0312...@posting.google.com...
Which doesn't really address the question of why such an obsessed individual
would compose a film for 1.33 knowing that that it would be seen in
theaters, and judged by his intended audience, projected at 1.85.
My suggestion is that he was indeed exactly as obsessive as you suggest,
that he did know exactly what he was doing, and that he chose to make his
films look their best when shown in theaters. No filmmaker worth his art is
going to compose a film where where 22% of the visible picture in every shot
is unnecessary unless he knows it will be matted when it's viewed. Which is
exactly how Kubrick worked.
When broadcast TV and home video became factors, he looked at the technology
available at the time and decided his films looked best on TV with the
mattes opened up. And I agree. If I had to watch The Shining broadcast on
ABC in 4:3 on a 19" TV, I'd prefer the open-matte version as well.
Nothing in any of the literature really directly addresses the question of
how he'd frame a film like The Shining for a home theater release today.
Which is why there's a discussion, which is why it's a matter of
interpretation, and which is why your sarcasm misses the mark.
RichC
Rich Clark
It's all about rectangles. Look at the static shots in the hotel interiors.
Look at all that empty ceiling and expanse of floor in the full-frame
version. Now matte it to 1.85 or even 1.66 (which is what Vitali claims was
Kubrick's preferred ratio, *not* 1.33) and see how much better the
compositions look.
RichC
Rich Clark
>
> > or that either one of
> > them would come to understand (or care about) what home theater would
> > become.
>
> You should read up on Kubrick. The man was not only interested in it,
> he was OBSSESSED by it. Believe me, if Kubrick wanted his films shown
> 1:33:1, it was for a reason
If he did, and if the reason is still valid. Neither condition is as evident
as you seem to believe.
He wanted video releases in the 80's done with the mattes opened up. There's
no direct evidence of how he'd want to frame an anamorphic widescreen DVD if
the question was asked. And there's quite a bit of evidence that Kubrick's
"preferred ratio" was 1.66, not 1.33.
--not because he was uninformed. There was,
> in fact, very little in the film world that Kubrick wasn't
> well-informed about--right up until his death.
As you well know, this can be true without inferring anything about
knowledge of video technology.
RichC
Grand Inquisitor
> "Eric R." <elr...@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
> news:7b67c5bc.0312...@posting.google.com...
>
>>"Rich Clark" <rdclar...@TRAPcomcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>I'm not convinced that either
>>>Kubrick or Vitali were making informed decisions.
>>
>>[sarcasm on]Yeah, it's not like Kubrick was world-renowned for
>>studying every technical decision he ever made in his films in
>>obsessive detail.[sarcasm off] ;-)
>
>
> Which doesn't really address the question of why such an obsessed individual
> would compose a film for 1.33 knowing that that it would be seen in
> theaters, and judged by his intended audience, projected at 1.85.
>
It's pan and scan in reverse. I can tell you that if I were to make a
movie I'd do it the same way. I'd film for 4:3 and let it be cropped in
the theater, knowing it would be shown correctly on the DVD.
> My suggestion is that he was indeed exactly as obsessive as you suggest,
> that he did know exactly what he was doing, and that he chose to make his
> films look their best when shown in theaters. No filmmaker worth his art is
> going to compose a film where where 22% of the visible picture in every shot
> is unnecessary unless he knows it will be matted when it's viewed. Which is
> exactly how Kubrick worked.
>
Kubrick also saw that home theater was how his movies would be seen by
most people. Probably only a handful of all the people who have seen
The Shining saw it in the theater, and he foresaw that.
Grand Inquisitor
> It's all about rectangles. Look at the static shots in the hotel interiors.
> Look at all that empty ceiling and expanse of floor in the full-frame
> version. Now matte it to 1.85 or even 1.66 (which is what Vitali claims was
> Kubrick's preferred ratio, *not* 1.33) and see how much better the
> compositions look.
>
> RichC
>
>
Have you seen Paths of Glory, or any other Kubrick movie intended for an
Academy Ratio theatrical presentation?
Eric R.
> The ratio of his films in their theatrical release is the way they
> were intended to be seen.
Yeah well, you better tell him that. Because he not only preferred,
but INSISTED that they only be released 4:3 for home video. Or maybe
you know how the films should be presented better than the director
himself?
-Eric
Invid Fan
<nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Grand Inquisitor wrote on [Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:31:33 GMT]:
> > Rich Clark wrote:
> >
> >> "Eric R." <elr...@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:7b67c5bc.0312...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >>>"Rich Clark" <rdclar...@TRAPcomcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I'm not convinced that either
> >>>>Kubrick or Vitali were making informed decisions.
> >>>
> >>>[sarcasm on]Yeah, it's not like Kubrick was world-renowned for
> >>>studying every technical decision he ever made in his films in
> >>>obsessive detail.[sarcasm off] ;-)
> >>
> >>
> >> Which doesn't really address the question of why such an obsessed
> >> individual
> >> would compose a film for 1.33 knowing that that it would be seen in
> >> theaters, and judged by his intended audience, projected at 1.85.
> >>
> >
> > It's pan and scan in reverse. I can tell you that if I were to make a
> > movie I'd do it the same way. I'd film for 4:3 and let it be cropped in
> > the theater, knowing it would be shown correctly on the DVD.
>
> So you'd left the people that pay for a movie ticket be screwed out of
> the whole image?
Why not? Those who buy it on video get the whole thing.
Invid Fan
<nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Invid Fan wrote on [Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:49:36 -0500]:
> > In article <slrnbt9la5...@jbell.dns2go.com>, Justin
> > <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Grand Inquisitor wrote on [Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:31:33 GMT]:
> >> > Rich Clark wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Eric R." <elr...@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
> >> >> news:7b67c5bc.0312...@posting.google.com...
> >> >>
> >> >>>"Rich Clark" <rdclar...@TRAPcomcast.net> wrote in message
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>I'm not convinced that either
> >> >>>>Kubrick or Vitali were making informed decisions.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>[sarcasm on]Yeah, it's not like Kubrick was world-renowned for
> >> >>>studying every technical decision he ever made in his films in
> >> >>>obsessive detail.[sarcasm off] ;-)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Which doesn't really address the question of why such an obsessed
> >> >> individual
> >> >> would compose a film for 1.33 knowing that that it would be seen in
> >> >> theaters, and judged by his intended audience, projected at 1.85.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > It's pan and scan in reverse. I can tell you that if I were to make a
> >> > movie I'd do it the same way. I'd film for 4:3 and let it be cropped in
> >> > the theater, knowing it would be shown correctly on the DVD.
> >>
> >> So you'd left the people that pay for a movie ticket be screwed out of
> >> the whole image?
> >
> > Why not? Those who buy it on video get the whole thing.
>
> why not just release it direct to video then?
Why not release movies in theaters with all the extra footage and a
directors comentary?
Jay G
"Grand Inquisitor" <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote
>
> It's pan and scan in reverse. I can tell you that if I were to make a
> movie I'd do it the same way. I'd film for 4:3 and let it be cropped in
> the theater, knowing it would be shown correctly on the DVD.
Why? Why not instead film for WS and then insist on the film
being shown in the proper AR on the DVD? That's what seems
to have happened with Pirates of the Caribbean. Filming in
4:3 so your film looks best on home video is self-defeating
since:
A) That means it won't look it's best in theatres, which is still
what largely determines success (financial and critical).
B) You're screwing yourself over when the switch to WS TVs
occur, and it's already happening.
Already 4:3 features are being cropped for WS. Ninja Scroll
was recently released in a cropped WS version, along with it's
original 4:3 image. Anchor Bay also recently issued a WS
DVD of Evil Dead, despite the film existing in a "director's
approved" ratio of open-matte 4:3 for over a decade.
-Jay