Raiders of the Lost Ark
David
4x3 this evening.
Will they have saved money by not having a wide screen print?
Or what will be the reason?
--
Regards,
David
<><
Please reply to News Group.
simtan
> A very spectacular wide screen film at the cinema, but BBC show it
> normal 4x3 this evening.
> Will they have saved money by not having a wide screen print?
> Or what will be the reason?
Wasn't it at least shown as 16x9 last year when then played all three
movies?
Simeon
Ian Clark
> A very spectacular wide screen film at the cinema, but BBC show it normal
> 4x3 this evening.
> Will they have saved money by not having a wide screen print?
> Or what will be the reason?
>
I think they did it to piss me off. I have a 4:3 tv, but I view
widescreen DVB-T in a letterbox. The letterboxed, pillarboxed,
letterboxed start of the film severely eroded my will to live.
Thankfully it expanded after that.
David Lees
news:z7wva.2306$Mu3....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> A very spectacular wide screen film at the cinema, but BBC show it normal
> 4x3 this evening.
> Will they have saved money by not having a wide screen print?
> Or what will be the reason?
The DVD is out later this year (see
http://www.playserver1.com/play247.asp?page=title&r=R2&title=120216) so
presumably 'they' (not sure who) have stopped the BBC from showing the
widescreen version so as not to hurt sales. Didn't 'they' do the same with
E.T when it was last on BBC1? It was shortly before the special edition was
released.
Jamie Gaffney
I'm sure it's more the BBC's bizarre attitude to film aspect
ratios. I've been trying to understand what the heck it is
they're doing without much success.
AFAICS, in BBC-land, films only come in 3 aspect ratios:
4:3, 14:9 and 16:9. There seems to be no logical relationship
between the OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) and the BAR (Broadcast
Aspect Ratio).
A few examples:
Title OAR BAR
-------------------------------------------------
Raiders Of The Lost Ark 2.35:1 4:3
The Taking Of Pelham 123 2.35:1 16:9
Reefer Madness 4:3 16:9
As you can see, no discernible pattern.
There are obvious side-effects. 'The Taking Of Pelham 123'
was not helped at all by cropping - there are 2 points in
the 1st 10 minutes of the film where something significant
happens at the far left of frame, but cannot be seen as 16:9
is just not wide enough to show the whole frame. (I had to
buy the DVD to confirm this as I remembered seeing it
full-width on TCM).
Later on in the subway control room scenes, significant
characters are again missing. In 'Reefer Madness' (made in
pre-widescreen days), feet are missing.
Not of crucial importance to the plot I know, but very
disconcerting ('Widescreen... in 1938? Oh no! I'm *far* too
stoned!).
All I can tell is that the Beeb must be so afraid of the 'no
black bars' crowd that they've decided not to give a damn for
anyone else.
Jay
Mark S
> 4:3, 14:9 and 16:9. There seems to be no logical relationship
> between the OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) and the BAR (Broadcast
> Aspect Ratio).
The BBC do not show films in 14:9 (ITV1 do). They are shown as 16F16A (16:9
FHA on digital and 16:9 deep letterbox on analogue) if the copy of the film
is widescreen, and 12F12 if 4:3.
I know you all like conspiracy theories on the net, but there isn't one
here. When the rights to the movie were negotiated (in this case probably
years ago) the copy of the film will be sent out and it is that same copy
that will be shown until the rights are renegotiated (if indeed they
are...).
In other words, the BBC would have got this copy of the film some years ago.
To get the widescreen version would cost money that, given the number of
times the film has been shown, someone decided was not worth paying.
TC.
sitting right next to it... Simply a question of people not caring and/or
knowing why the widescreen is better. Typical attitude in UK TV these days.
"Mark S" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:b9nrfs$ksqvj$1...@ID-83117.news.dfncis.de...
Jamie Gaffney
> > 4:3, 14:9 and 16:9. There seems to be no logical relationship
> > between the OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) and the BAR (Broadcast
> > Aspect Ratio).
>
> The BBC do not show films in 14:9 (ITV1 do). They are shown as 16F16A (16:9
> FHA on digital and 16:9 deep letterbox on analogue) if the copy of the film
> is widescreen, and 12F12 if 4:3.
Sorry, I was getting confused with ITV as well. But isn't it still
wrong to alter the aspect ratio from the original?
>
> I know you all like conspiracy theories on the net, but there isn't one
> here.
Hmm... dunno about a conspiracy as such. I think it's more that
they don't care.
> When the rights to the movie were negotiated (in this case probably
> years ago) the copy of the film will be sent out and it is that same copy
> that will be shown until the rights are renegotiated (if indeed they
> are...).
I've seen it happen before. Films which have been shown 4:3
in the old pre-digital days have been shown recently on BBC
Digital in 16:9 (presumably from a new 16:9 transfer).
I can't cite any specific examples from the BBC, but I remember
C4 showing 'Forbidden Planet' in 4:3 a long time ago, and in
16:9 more recently.
This one's another bugbear of mine as it was made in 2.35:1 and
the 16:9 version *still* missed out characters and events
important to the plot.
If you've seen it, the argument between Morpheus and Adams in
Morpheus' office, overheard by Altaira (sp?) is maybe the best
(worst?) example as the rest of the film is affected by her
having overheard the argument unbeknownst to Adams and Morpheus.
Again, this is only visible in the full-width letterbox transfer.
>
> In other words, the BBC would have got this copy of the film some years ago.
> To get the widescreen version would cost money that, given the number of
> times the film has been shown, someone decided was not worth paying.
So we're stuck with pan&scan because to commission a new letterbox
transfer will cost more money? Bummer.
Ironically, it costs less to make a full-width letterbox transfer
(especially from anamorphic or hard-matted film stock) than for any
variety of pan&scan.
This is why I'm a DVD freak now - DVD gets it right 999/1000 IMHO...
Jay
Dave
>> When the rights to the movie were negotiated (in this case probably
>> years ago) the copy of the film will be sent out and it is that same copy
>> that will be shown until the rights are renegotiated (if indeed they
>> are...).
>
>I've seen it happen before. Films which have been shown 4:3 in the old
>pre-digital days have been shown recently on BBC Digital in 16:9
>(presumably from a new 16:9 transfer). I can't cite any specific
>examples from the BBC, but I remember C4 showing 'Forbidden Planet' in
>4:3 a long time ago, and in 16:9 more recently
But are they 'real' 16:9 copies?
I've seen the BBC show a film (True Lies) in 4:3 on analogue and 16:9 on
digital - but the 16:9 was achieved by cropping the top and bottom of
the picture! Thus digital viewers saw less of the picture than analogue
viewers and a fraction of the total picture.
--
Dave
Jeff
<tawseNOSP...@hotmail.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
>Some girlie got it out of the library... probably had the widescreen version
>sitting right next to it... Simply a question of people not caring and/or
>knowing why the widescreen is better. Typical attitude in UK TV these days.
>
The last time the BBC showed Raiders Of The Lost Ark (about 18 months
ago) they showed it in 4:3 on analogue and 16:9 FHA on digital. For
some reason the 16:9 copy was very poor quality, poor colour on the
print, lots of scratches- it lead to one off topic comment on the DVD
newsgroup 'I loved the print they used, did they clean it with
sandpaper before showing it?'. I think it was suggested later by
someone who'd complained to the Beeb that that version was shown by
mistake and had now been marked as not to be shown. That might explain
why it was screened in 4:3 last night, although I'm sure they could
have got a new 16:9 copy by now.
Jeff
Stephen Neal
[snip]
> But are they 'real' 16:9 copies?
>
> I've seen the BBC show a film (True Lies) in 4:3 on analogue and 16:9
> on digital - but the 16:9 was achieved by cropping the top and bottom
> of
> the picture! Thus digital viewers saw less of the picture than
> analogue viewers and a fraction of the total picture.
Yep - this is the cause of much concern by many who are not familiar with
the various ways of shooting widescreen... If widescreen material is shot
anamorphically (or in a widescreen shaped frame on some of the stranger film
formats) then the widescreen frame is captured full-height and full-width on
the film frame. Such films are cropped and zoomed using Pan and Scan for
4:3 transmissions - and sometimes less so for 16:9 if the original frame is
wider (shorter) than this.
HOWEVER - some films are shot for widescreen in "open matte". This is where
the frame is still composed for widescreen - but the actual exposed film
area is taller than the widescreen frame (often 4:3 ish) In cinemas this
area above and below the frame composed is blocked off by blades above and
below the film frame that "matte" the film to fit the correct height screen
(hopefully). When transferred for 4:3 TV purposes it is not unusual to
allow the matted area to be shown - making it seem like the image has been
cropped when the correct framing is shown on widescreen. However the
director may not have intended you to see these areas (and occasionally they
contain bits you shouldn't see - like mic booms, hands of crew members,
unfinished bits of set etc.)
Just because you can see more picture area doesn't mean you are seeing the
film the director intended you to!
(There are exceptions to this rule - some directors try to compose for both
formats at once - or favour the full height version - James Cameron?)
Steve
Aztech
news:slrnbbvd...@laptop.nowster.org.uk...
> In article <dgv25Vun...@dv-8.demon.co.uk>,
> Dave wrote:
>
> > I've seen the BBC show a film (True Lies) in 4:3 on analogue and 16:9 on
> > digital - but the 16:9 was achieved by cropping the top and bottom of
> > the picture! Thus digital viewers saw less of the picture than analogue
> > viewers and a fraction of the total picture.
>
> masked when shown. When shown on TV, the full frame is sometimes shown,
> rather than masking, then panning and scanning.
You'd think an anamorphic lens would be no more expensive to manufacturer than a
standard one, especially if everyone is using them but clearly someone has
stitched up the market.
Az.
Ian Clark
Depends how wide you want to go. You can make a simple anamorphic lens
like a normal lens with a wedge but at the risk of chromatic abberation.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020717154654/http://home.c2i.net/ahustvedt/arnemorph/
Proper anamorphic lenses tend to use crossed cylindrical lens singlets
with different focal lengths.
http://www.vit.iit.nrc.ca/blais/ima_biris/anamorph1.jpg
High quality cylindrical lenses are more expensive than spherical-type
lenses because grinding and polishing is more complicated.
Rob Jones
"Stephen Neal" <stephe...@NOSPAM.as-directed.com> wrote in message
news:b9ojo3$eng$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
I remember Kubrick being quite well known for preferring to shoot open
matte, with a safe area for 1.85:1 (as opposed to the other way round!). I
remember seeing a few complaints on the internet at the time "Eyes Wide
Shut" was released on DVD, wondering why the DVD was only released as a 4:3
pan/scan release as opposed to 16:9 FHA.
As you point out, when exhibited in the cinema, the frame would be cropped
to 1.85:1. At least if the projectionist had incorrectly laced the projector
you wouldn't get the boom mikes creeping into shot.
James Cameron I think prefers to shoot on Super 35. This format utilises
part of the 35mm frame usually occupied by the optical sound track. As such
it is unsuitable as an exhibition format. Instead a 4:3 cut out can be taken
from the frame for TV, and a scope/widescreen cutout taken for cinema. This
does mean an optical printing stage for the cinema release - the maximum
resolution isn't quite as high as you'd find on an anamorphic 35mm negative
(although this depends very much on the film stock used). See the T2 DVD for
a short documentary on how they did the transfer on this occasion - you can
see that the two resulting shots can look quite different from each other.
Rob
Mark S
> I've seen the BBC show a film (True Lies) in 4:3 on analogue and 16:9 on
> digital - but the 16:9 was achieved by cropping the top and bottom of
> the picture! Thus digital viewers saw less of the picture than analogue
> viewers and a fraction of the total picture.
There is now only one transmission area for BBC ONE. Therefore it is not
now possible (under normal circumstances) to show 16:9 version on digital
and pan-and-scan on analogue. As as result if it's a widescreen version of
the film it will be shown as 16:9 FHA on digital and deep letterbox on
analogue.
As to the 2.35:1 issue... well some people are never happy.
Aztech
Of course if they sent out 2.35:1 letterbox on digital they could probably get
away with it, but if that also had to be carried on analogue it would cause all
sorts of problems, shame.
Az.
Laurence Taylor
news.re...@dv-8.demon.co.uk "Dave" wrote:
D> I've seen the BBC show a film (True Lies) in 4:3 on analogue and 16:9 on
D> digital - but the 16:9 was achieved by cropping the top and bottom of
D> the picture! Thus digital viewers saw less of the picture than analogue
D> viewers and a fraction of the total picture.
This seems standard practice these days. Especially if a programme has
both 4:3 and 16:9 material, for example something about film clips or
other TV programmes. Instead of showing us what we're supposed to see,
they zoom in and chop.
rgds
LAurence
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Moral Indignation is jealousy with a halo" (H G Wells)
===================================================================
->> This message produced entirely in DOS <<-
Mark S
"Laurence Taylor" <laur...@iapetus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:20030512.19...@iapetus.demon.co.uk...
> On Monday, in article <dgv25Vun...@dv-8.demon.co.uk>
> news.re...@dv-8.demon.co.uk "Dave" wrote:
>
> D> I've seen the BBC show a film (True Lies) in 4:3 on analogue and 16:9
on
> D> digital - but the 16:9 was achieved by cropping the top and bottom of
> D> the picture! Thus digital viewers saw less of the picture than
analogue
> D> viewers and a fraction of the total picture.
>
> This seems standard practice these days. Especially if a programme has
> both 4:3 and 16:9 material, for example something about film clips or
> other TV programmes. Instead of showing us what we're supposed to see,
> they zoom in and chop.
Thought you'd all love to hear that the only call about Radiers of the Lost
Ark in the BBC Duty Log was to thank the BBC for showing the film in 4:3,
not widescreen.
;o)
Mark.
Jeff
Right, we'll soon sort that :-)
Jeff
Jamie Gaffney
<snip>
>
> Thought you'd all love to hear that the only call about Radiers of the Lost
> Ark in the BBC Duty Log was to thank the BBC for showing the film in 4:3,
> not widescreen.
>
> ;o)
>
> Mark.
Only one? ;-)
Guess the pan&scan lobby is shrinking then...
But there's an easy solution to all this: go back in time to the early
50s and stop the development of widescreen so that all films will be
made in 4:3. Problem solved.
Jay
Mat Overton
Lost
> > Ark in the BBC Duty Log was to thank the BBC for showing the film in
4:3,
> > not widescreen.
> >
> > ;o)
> >
> > Mark.
>
> Only one? ;-)
>
> Guess the pan&scan lobby is shrinking then...
>
> But there's an easy solution to all this: go back in time to the early
> 50s and stop the development of widescreen so that all films will be
> made in 4:3. Problem solved.
>
they hadn't bothered to get a widescreen version as the contract was up and
they were just exhausting their broadcasting rights on the film.
Did the BBC receive many complaints when it began showing 16L12 films on
Beeb One?
Mark S
> Have the BBC's rights to Indianna Jones come to an end? I have thought
that
> they hadn't bothered to get a widescreen version as the contract was up
and
> they were just exhausting their broadcasting rights on the film.
>
> Did the BBC receive many complaints when it began showing 16L12 films on
> Beeb One?
No, there are regularly a few complaints about things being broadcast in
widescreen, but there aren't that many and I don't remember noticing any
increase in complaints after 16L12 films became the norm on BBC ONE.
Bob Howes
>
>
> No, there are regularly a few complaints about things being broadcast in
> widescreen, but there aren't that many and I don't remember noticing any
> increase in complaints after 16L12 films became the norm on BBC ONE.
>
>
Based on the content of this thread, should it have been titled "Raiders of
the Lost ARC"?
Bob
Steve Roberts
Gaffney) wrote:
>But there's an easy solution to all this: go back in time to the early
>50s and stop the development of widescreen so that all films will be
>made in 4:3. Problem solved.
I think that will only work for screenings of 'Back to the Future'.
Steve
The Doctor Who Restoration Team Website
http://www.restoration-team.co.uk