Non-anamorphic widescreen...what is it?
LL
I recently bought the "Stanley Kubrick Collection" on DVD. I think the
picture and sound-quality is glorious, but a friend of mine said it would be
even better if Warner had released the set in non-anamorphic widescreen
versions. What does he mean? Is he right?
Hey, I paid 200 hard-earned dollars on this set, I wanna know the truth! :-)
L,L
David Mullen
The widescreen versions WERE released in non-anamorphic widescreen, except
"2001". And the last three films weren't released in widescreen at all on
DVD (TS, FMJ, EWS.) But the new transfers are much better than the old
ones.
Anamorphic transfers are 16:9 (1.78 : 1), with letterboxing used to modify
that aspect ratio further. It allows you to use more of the standard def
pixel area (which is the same for 16:9 and 4:3) for picture information
instead of losing some of it to black bars in the signal. The few
letterboxed transfers (ACO and BL) are below 1.78 : 1, so they would need
side borders on a 16:9 transfer to achieve the approx. 1.50-1.66 or so
aspect ratio they seem to be letterboxed at.
You see, whether or not the transfer is 4:3 or 16:9, in NTSC (for example),
it's still a 720 x 480 pixel recording -- it's just that the 16:9 recording
uses non-square pixels, so the image looks squeezed on a 4:3 monitor unless
converted somehow to appear as a 1.78 letterbox instead. Hence why 16:9 is
called "anamorphic". (HDTV is 16:9 without needing to use non-square
pixels, so it is not anamorphic -- however, if you downconverted a 16:9 HD
recording to 16:9 NTSC, it would appear squeezed again when viewed on a 4:3
monitor. DVD players have the ability to unsqueeze 16:9 recordings to
appear as letterboxed instead.)
Well, if your widescreen movie is less wide than 1.78 : 1 (16:9), the
difference in pixels used for a 4:3 signal with a 1.66 letterbox top &
bottom versus a 16:9 signal with side borders to achieve 1.66 is a toss-up.
People with 16:9 widescreen TV sets, of course, would prefer the anamorphic
transfer, but people with 4:3 monitors would not see much difference in
quality. With "2001", however, since it is wider than 1.78 : 1, a 16:9
transfer makes a lot more sense.
Of course, it would have been possible to just crop the image of ACO and BL
down from 1.66 : 1 to 1.78 : 1 and thus fill a 16:9 recording with picture,
but Kubrick didn't want them to appear that widescreen (even though 1.78 is
still less wide than 1.85.)
As for why TS, FMJ, and EWS were transferred widescreen at all, let alone
using 16:9 anamorphic, we've debated that before here. Kubrick didn't want
them to be released in widescreen for home video.
David Mullen
Mike Jackson
Mullen at dav...@earthlink.net 11/15/2001 11:04 AM went on about :
> You see, whether or not the transfer is 4:3 or 16:9, in NTSC (for example),
> it's still a 720 x 480 pixel recording --
Not to nitpick, but isn't that 720 x 486? That's what the Accom I work with
demands and it's such a pain when I forget to nudge something I've done in
640 x 480...
-----------------
Mike Jackson
Mental Pictures Photography & Graphic Design
http://guide.net/~mental/
(228) 696-2702 Phone/ Fax
(228) 918-4596 Cellular
LL
Sorry, but I cant seem to understand all that technical talk... I tried, but
I failed... :-)
David, do YOU think the DVD-transfers are definitive? Could they be done
better? Like i said before, I personally think the picture quality is great
and find it hard to believe they actually could be even better.
Corey3rd
better? Like i said before, I personally think the picture quality is great
and find it hard to believe they actually could be even better. >>
don't worry. They will come out with the next big thing in a couple years.
They already have the new pixel version for Crouching Tiger and other Sony
releases.
Remember that no company works under the assumption that you will only be a
one-time customer...maybe the funeral business
David Mullen
>better? Like i said before, I personally think the picture quality is great
>and find it hard to believe they actually could be even better.
The new, redone ones look great to me. The lack of a theatrical widescreen
version issue for TS, FMJ, and EWS is another matter but I'm OK with the
full-frame versions.
David Mullen
cK
> I recently bought the "Stanley Kubrick Collection" on DVD. I think the
> picture and sound-quality is glorious, but a friend of mine said it would be even better if Warner had released the set in non-anamorphic widescreen versions. What does he mean? Is he right?
> Hey, I paid 200 hard-earned dollars on this set, I wanna know the truth! :
So far i've been following this thread and i've yet to see it answered
correctly. Baiscally anamorphic widescreen refers to the format that
the film was originally shot in. There are two basic formats of 35mm
camera that hollywood uses. There is 16:9 and anamorphic 2:35:1. The
numbers are the ratios in which the frames are sized at. By
comparrison a TV set is 4:3. When you see a DVD released in widescreen
what is really happening is that you are seeing on your TV the full
size of the original negative.
Basically the difference between standard widescreen and anamorphic
widescreen is the size of the 35mm frame. Anamorphic uses special
lenses which stretch and matte the frame and allow more to fit into a
skinnier frame on the film. basically anamorphic is a skinner
rectangle format that standard widescreen.
How does this relate to kubrick? Well he enjoyed movies pre
widescreen.Older films like Citizen Kane were filmed in standard 35mm,
pre widescreen cameras. This is why widescreen versions are seldom
found and if they are it is just a marketing ploy....not real.
In most 35mm motion picture camera's there are frame guides inside the
viewfinder. One for the anamorphic or standard widescreen , whichever
the camera is set up for and another cropped down version for TV
framming. <The majority of all TV shows are shot on 35mm film.> anyhow
Kubrick framed his shots using the TV 4:3 frame guides in the camera
viewfinders because he preffered that rectangle. That is why he had
some of his films released on video on non letterboxed 4:3.
in regards to croping the image down to widescreen...there is no real
reason to do this. You'll totally destroy the Cinematographer's
framing! the only time this is employed is when people shoot video and
want a letterboxed look. They shoot the film looser and then crop it
down in post production. This creates a lot of problems and is another
thread.
David Mullen
>correctly. Baiscally anamorphic widescreen refers to the format that
>the film was originally shot in. There are two basic formats of 35mm
>camera that hollywood uses. There is 16:9 and anamorphic 2:35:1. The
>numbers are the ratios in which the frames are sized at. By
>comparrison a TV set is 4:3.
You've confused a number of concepts, especially the difference between
anamorphic lens photography and anamorphic 16:9 video recording.
There are two basic 35mm PROJECTION formats commonly used today: "matted"
widescreen, where a projection mask crops the top & bottom of the frame to a
widescreen shape, anywhere from 1.66 : 1 to 1.85 : 1 (with 1.85 being the
most common); and "anamorphic" or "scope", where a anamorphic projector lens
unsqueezes a compressed image on the print to become a wider shape, usually
2.35 : 1 (although it's supposed to be 2.394 : 1 these days...)
There are two basic standard-def video recording formats: 4:3 and 16:9
"anamorphic" (called anamorphic in this case because it uses non-square
pixels in order to fit a 16:9 image onto the 4:3 pixel area -- so when
displayed on a 4:3 monitor, the 16:9 recording looks squeezed unless
converted by some device to appear as a letterboxed image on the 4:3
monitor -- which is what DVD players do in order to display 16:9 transfers
on a 4:3 monitor.)
Both 4:3 (1.33 : 1) and 16:9 (1.78 : 1) recordings can be full-frame or
letterboxed to another shape. So you can make a 1.85 or 2.35 letterboxed
version in either type of recording format.
The 35mm 4-perf frame is, at unmasked Full Aperture, 1.33 : 1. This was
used in the Silent Era. Then when sound-on-film came along, the left edge
was taken up by an optical track, the center of the lens was shifted to
compensate, and the top & bottom was slightly masked in order to make up for
the loss of picture on the left edge, or else the image would now be too
tall & square (early sound-on-film was about 1.20 : 1). The new aperture
was called Academy, and is 1.37 : 1, although a smaller rectangle overall
than the Full Aperture 1.33 : 1.
When anamorphic photography came along, introduced as Cinemascope in 1953,
studios sought a way of making their 1.37 Academy movies look widescreen as
well, starting the practice of matting the top & bottom of the image on the
print to look wider. Amounts of cropping varied from 1.66 : 1 to as much as
1.85 : 1. Of course, the films were (and are) COMPOSED with this cropping
in mind. But often the negative is "open matte" -- meaning not shot with a
matte or mask, and is hence still roughly 1.37 : 1.
>When you see a DVD released in widescreen
>what is really happening is that you are seeing on your TV the full
>size of the original negative.
When you see a 1.85 movie on DVD that is "enhanced for widescreen" -- i.e.
is a 16:9 recording -- this means that only a 16:9 (1.78 : 1) area of the
taller "open matte" negative was transferred to video, and this might
further be letterboxed (matted) down from 1.78 : 1 to 1.85 : 1 (very thin
amounts of letterboxing.) Now if this recording is converted to display
properly on a 4:3 monitor, you end up seeing the letterboxing from
converting 16:9 anamorphic to 1.78 letterbox PLUS the extra letterboxing to
achieve 1.85 -- the end is that the image looks just like you had made a 4:3
recording letterboxed to 1.85. But the advantage to a 16:9 recording was
that more of the 1.85 image takes up the recording while less is wasted
recording black bars.
>How does this relate to kubrick? Well he enjoyed movies pre
>widescreen.Older films like Citizen Kane were filmed in standard 35mm,
>pre widescreen cameras. This is why widescreen versions are seldom
>found and if they are it is just a marketing ploy....not real.
He insisted that "2001", "Clockwork Orange", "Barry Lyndon" and parts of
"Dr. Strangelove" all be letterboxed to be slightly widescreen on video, so
you can't say that they are "seldom found."
>In most 35mm motion picture camera's there are frame guides inside the
>viewfinder. One for the anamorphic or standard widescreen , whichever
>the camera is set up for and another cropped down version for TV
>framming.
When shooting with anamorphic lenses, there are no TV framelines in the
camera since you would have to make a "pan & scan" transfer anyway, hence
you wouldn't extract the TV frame from a fixed area in the anamorphic frame.
And when shooting 35mm for eventual 1.85 projection, the 4:3 TV version is
actually LESS cropped down than the theatrical version if the negative is
open-matted.
<The majority of all TV shows are shot on 35mm film.> anyhow
>Kubrick framed his shots using the TV 4:3 frame guides in the camera
>viewfinders because he preffered that rectangle.
People who have worked on "The Shining" have claimed that Kubrick framed for
the theatrical projection version, which would be cropped to 1.85 : 1 in
most theaters. He just preferred to leave the image unmatted for the TV
version; he didn't specifically COMPOSE for the TV version. For one thing,
it's obvious that he composed with projector matting in mind -- look at any
medium close-up (head & shoulder shots) in "The Shining" or "Full Metal
Jacket" and observe all the extra dead space above the head -- movies
actually composed for 4:3 TV or 1.37 Academy use different framing
techniques.
>in regards to croping the image down to widescreen...there is no real
>reason to do this. You'll totally destroy the Cinematographer's
>framing!
Most widescreen theatrical formats, except 2.35 anamorphic, involved
deliberate cropping at some point to achieve the final widescreen results --
if you didn't crop the image to widescreen, you WOULDN'T be preserving the
cinematographer's framing. In Kubrick's case, while it's clear that his
"flat" (spherical lens) movies were composed for their theatrical release,
which means taking into account the cropping using a projector mask to
anywhere from 1.66 to 1.85, he simply preferred to leave then unmatted for
their 4:3 TV version -- that doesn't mean that he composed these movies for
TV. In the case of the slightly matted transfers of "Clockwork Orange" and
"Barry Lyndon", there is some evidence that the transfers are unmatted and
what you are seeing are actual camera mattes in place.
Anyway, it would not "destroy" the framing of "The Shining", "Full Metal
Jacket", or "Eyes Wide Shut" to matte them to widescreen since that's how
they were shown theatrically, unless you really think that Kubrick shot the
films so that they would look "wrong" and misframed when they were initially
released in theatrical widescreen and only look "correct" when later shown
on full-frame 4:3 TV. It's just that he saw TV as a second chance to get
that classic, more square look that he liked in old 1.37 : 1 Academy movies.
But that doesn't mean that he composed them for that format. He framed them
for their matted theatrical release and PROTECTED the rest of the image for
an unmatted TV version -- in a sense, planning for two different
presentation formats at the same time.
David Mullen
Joe_Anybody
claimed that there 'would be no point' in releasing the WS films in 16:9 as
'there would be no appreciable qualitative improvement in the picture'
ie:Lolita,BL,ACO,
"Not True!" screamed many Home Theater Technophiles and Telecine-types with
a better grasp on this than I..
.
then there was the debate, re: Give us SKs 'preferred' OAR on one side of
the disc, and a 16:9 WS version on the other-of ALL the fims in the DVD box,
incl.TS, FMJ, EWS...save 2001, and DS...
Some took issue with the films being upgraded to 5.1, as this was 'not what
SK intended', as per the AOR debate..
and there was the other issue, where WB once told in an interview that they
would 'look into' an uncensored EWS for the then upcoming SKBox, v2....
and of course, the rest is history...
finally, after WB did such a good job to make pristine the SK films they
own, why Columbia did not do the same with the DS DVD is a mystery...
Josh
mono mixes with the new 5.1 mixes, so the viewer could choose which one to
listen to. Somehow they think it's not sacriledge to include dubbed versions,
but god forbid they include the original mono recordings in addition to the new
5.1 mixes? A lot of DVDs include both the original soundtrack and the new
enhanced one, particularly if it's a collector's edition or a prestigious film.
So instead of getting a French dubbed version on one of the DVDs, we can have
the English 5.1 and the English Mono. That would have been the way to go.
Josh
VertigoLand http://members.aol.com/VertigoMan
2001: my space odyssey http://www.ifansci.com/2001
Tape Trading: http://members.aol.com/vertigoman/tapes.html
Mickey Ward
to own, a HD widescreen TV.
"LL" <h...@spray.se> wrote in message
news:4bXI7.5817$R43.9...@newsb.telia.net...
JeffD
David -- just curious; what is the determining factor(s) as to whether a
film is shot hard-matted in camera, or not? From what I've read over
the years, it seems that most films are shot "open" and matted later
to 1.85 (or whatever) upon projection. For the most part, is it also
true that hard matting was more common years ago than it is now?
Thanks.
Best,
Jeff D
David Mullen
>film is shot hard-matted in camera, or not? From what I've read over
>the years, it seems that most films are shot "open" and matted later
>to 1.85 (or whatever) upon projection. For the most part, is it also
>true that hard matting was more common years ago than it is now?
>Thanks.
Hard-matting the 1.37 Academy negative in-camera to something widescreen was
more common before the advent of home video in the early 1980's, even though
it was discouraged even earlier by American studios because of TV sales and
the panning & scanning issue. It certainly seems to have been more commonly
employed on European and Asian films from what I've gather.
Even now, when in-camera mattes are used, it is usually only to 1.66, even
for 1.85 composed movies -- a 1.85 is a little too limiting since it shows
up even in some 1.85 projection if there is the slightest misframing by the
projectionist, plus it would definitely show up in any 1.66 or 1.75
projected version in some European theaters.
Allen Daviau is one of the few U.S. cinematographers who gets away with
hard-matting all of his features to 1.66 : 1.
However, hard-matted shots have become quite common for any digital efx
output to film, since it is cheaper & faster not to work on areas of the
frame unseen in the theatrical version. So many full-frame 4:3 transfers of
1.85 movies have open-matted non-efx shots and hard-matted efx shots that
have to be panned & scanned. The same is true for many Super-35 films
composed for a 2.35 anamorphic release; in fact, the panning & scanning of
the efx shots is even more severe, since many of these are output with hard
mattes ranging from 2 : 1 to 2.35 : 1.
You would think that hard-matting would come back into vogue now that
widescreen DVD releases are common, but one advantage to shooting open-matte
is also the ability to reframe the shot in post if needed. It's that "shoot
a roomy negative and recompose in post" mentality that started with Super-35
shooters like James Cameron. Well, it goes back a little earlier to the use
of VistaVision for efx shooting, since the VistaVision full aperture is 1.50
: 1, allowing some reframing in post for movies destined for a 2.35 output.
ILM was able to use the excess area above and below 2.35 on the VistaVision
frame to add fake camera bounce and shake to the stop-motion miniature mine
car chase in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom."
David Mullen
JeffD
>
> >David -- just curious; what is the determining factor(s) as to whether a
> >film is shot hard-matted in camera, or not? From what I've read over
> >the years, it seems that most films are shot "open" and matted later
> >to 1.85 (or whatever) upon projection. For the most part, is it also
> >true that hard matting was more common years ago than it is now?
> >Thanks.
>
> Hard-matting the 1.37 Academy negative in-camera to something widescreen was
> more common before the advent of home video in the early 1980's, even though
> it was discouraged even earlier by American studios because of TV sales and
> the panning & scanning issue. It certainly seems to have been more commonly
> employed on European and Asian films from what I've gather.
>
> Even now, when in-camera mattes are used, it is usually only to 1.66, even
> for 1.85 composed movies -- a 1.85 is a little too limiting since it shows
> up even in some 1.85 projection if there is the slightest misframing by the
> projectionist, plus it would definitely show up in any 1.66 or 1.75
> projected version in some European theaters.
>
Thanks David.
Jeff D.
> David Mullen
Thomas Briggs
So far i've been following this thread and i've yet to see it answered
correctly. Baiscally anamorphic widescreen refers to the format that
the film was originally shot in. There are two basic formats of 35mm
camera that hollywood uses. There is 16:9 and anamorphic 2:35:1. The
numbers are the ratios in which the frames are sized at. By
comparrison a TV set is 4:3. When you see a DVD released in widescreen
what is really happening is that you are seeing on your TV the full
size of the original negative.
What a difference 70mm makes, just look at the detail at the edges of the frame compared to the usual 35mm anamorphic.
I'd have to dig up my American Cinematographer's handbook to see if 70mm unsqueezed was Super or Ultra Panavision.
-- "Never confuse motion with action"