All Good Movies Widescreen Only, Stinks!
Jim Busard
TV's are 4:3, VHS new release is 4:3. The "SPECIAL EDITIONS" are
WIDESCREEN ONLY yet the Non Special editions contain both formats. I
hate wasting 1/4 of my 50 inch screen.
Hey movie companies, how about letting the consumer choose which format
we want to view!!!!
Asle Skarpengland
it.
Jim Busard skrev i meldingen <368BEE04...@freeway.net>...
Rare Hero
> Why are all the Top new DVD releases in WIDESCREEN only? 99% of
>TV's are 4:3, VHS new release is 4:3. The "SPECIAL EDITIONS" are
>WIDESCREEN ONLY yet the Non Special editions contain both formats. I
>hate wasting 1/4 of my 50 inch screen.
>Hey movie companies, how about letting the consumer choose which format
>we want to view!!!!
If you aren't interested in viewing films in their entirety, why didn't you
just stick with VHS? Obviously you don't care about the quality of the films
you're watching if you prefer to view them with the sides lopped off.
Greg
==========================================
"Tom Hanks can't act his way out of a nutsack!"
-Eric Cartman
==========================================
OATS DAD
>TV's are 4:3, VHS new release is 4:3. The "SPECIAL EDITIONS" are
>WIDESCREEN ONLY yet the Non Special editions contain both formats. I
>hate wasting 1/4 of my 50 inch screen.
>Hey movie companies, how about letting the consumer choose which format
>we want to view!!!!
Has anyone else noted that the majority of people who complain about
letterboxing are those who should have the LEAST reason to object to it? It's
usually some guy who says he has a HUGE TV. You have a 50" TV and you mind
letterboxing? Yikes! If all you had was a 15" TV, I'd understand better
(though I'd rather watch a letterboxed presentation over P&S on ANY size
screen), but 50"???
Steve & Holly Roberts
We love letterboxing............ 60in TV and great with 5.1 !!
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
Steve & Holly
OATS DAD wrote in message <19981231174422...@ng99.aol.com>...
Evelyn Tremble
Asle Skarpengland wrote:
>
> I know some film collectors prefers to see the whole movie, not only 55% of
> it.
Not really the whole picture. Most of the whole composition,
but at half the size, detail, and sharpness. Letterboxed
movies should include the same "This film has been altered
from it's orignial version" notice that P&S movies do.
Happy to step on the inflated egos of all you "videophiles"
out there.
Reginald Lewis
On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 14:51:41 -0800, Evelyn Tremble wrote
(in message <368BFFFD...@royale.net>):
I don't think you have to be a "videophile" to want to see the entire picture
as the director intended his film be seen. I think those more interested in the
art of a movie want this. Those that don't care about not seeing a significant
part of the picture, perhaps including some subtle aspects of a movie that may
be at the sides of the picture, are happy with P&S. With P&S, you get more
(bigger picture) of less (picture content). Happy to step on the ignorant egos
of all the artless out there. Wait, I just had a great idea. How about a 3:4 or
1:2 TV with super P&S. Gives you a huge picture of the center 20% of the movie.
Interested?
Curtis C. Chen
>Asle Skarpengland wrote:
>> I know some film collectors prefers to see the whole movie, not only 55% of
>> it.
>Not really the whole picture. Most of the whole composition,
>but at half the size, detail, and sharpness. Letterboxed
>movies should include the same "This film has been altered
>from it's orignial version" notice that P&S movies do.
I vigorously oppose your misinformed opinion, but I will defend to the
death your right to express said opinion.
No home video release in any format has the same "size, detail, and
sharpness" as the original theatrical version, which was front-projected
from 35mm film reels onto a fifteen-foot-tall screen. Unless you see the
movie in a theatrical venue, you're accepting *some* degree of compromise
in image and sound quality.
Having said that, I will say that I wholeheartedly advocate full-frame
*and* letterbox versions of the same movie (on a single DVD if possible),
because the most important thing is to have the *choice*.
>Happy to step on the inflated egos of all you "videophiles"
>out there.
See above re: your opinion. :)
CKL
not a wide aardvark
--
C U R T I S C H I H - Y U C H E N
Email: spa...@snout.org ... World Wide Web: http://www.snout.org/
Webmaster + Writer + Gamer + Artist + Videophile + Resident of Known Space
"Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted."
DVD Rules
more than that, but only recently have they become so widely available that
it's all I watch)! It's fantastic!
Richard C.
Not when cut up with much of the picture missing.....
If you want full screen, stick with VHS or watch it on TV!!!!
--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
Jim Busard wrote in message <368BEE04...@freeway.net>...
Richard C.
with a line quadrupler....then the notice would not be really appropriate...
Pan and Scan movies are just plain not "home theatre".........
They are glorified TV....
--
Richard
Evelyn Tremble wrote in message <368BFFFD...@royale.net>...
>
>Not really the whole picture. Most of the whole composition,
>but at half the size, detail, and sharpness. Letterboxed
>movies should include the same "This film has been altered
>from it's orignial version" notice that P&S movies do.
>
Bulk...@webtv.net
seeing it. In the 2:35 you realize how much of the movie you miss.
Charles Tomaras
the entire TV" are the ones having the inflated ego in trying to FIT
everything to how they perceived it should be, and not how it actually
is!<<<
Zapper wins!
ZapperZ <yus...@nospam.please.charlie.iit.edu> wrote in message
news:OCTi2.5$D42.3...@news.ais.net...
>In article <368BFFFD...@royale.net>, Evelyn Tremble
<etre...@royale.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Asle Skarpengland wrote:
>>>
>>> I know some film collectors prefers to see the whole movie, not only 55%
of
>>> it.
>>
>>
>>Not really the whole picture. Most of the whole composition,
>>but at half the size, detail, and sharpness. Letterboxed
>>movies should include the same "This film has been altered
>>from it's orignial version" notice that P&S movies do.
>>
>>Happy to step on the inflated egos of all you "videophiles"
>>out there.
>
>Oy, not THIS again!
>
>I don't know if I qualify as a "videophile", but am I being a videophile if
I
>prefer to view a movie in the aspect ratio that it was ORIGINALLY
presented,
>the way the director of the movie intended it to be viewed, and not chopped
>and scanned by someone else? How does this qualify as having an "inflated"
>ego? I would think that people who complained about the movie "not filling
up
>the entire TV" are the ones having the inflated ego in trying to FIT
>everything to how they perceived it should be, and not how it actually is!
>
>Zz.
Wayne Bundrick
I hate not seeing 1/4 of the picture because people like you want it to
fill the screen.
--
Wayne Bundrick
w a y n e b @ h o m . n e t
"I don't mean to brag, I don't mean to boast,
but we like hot butter on our breakfast toast."
Wayne Bundrick
>TV's are 4:3, VHS new release is 4:3. The "SPECIAL EDITIONS" are
>hate wasting 1/4 of my 50 inch screen.
You have a 50 inch TV? Speaking on behalf of the many of us with 32 inch
and 27 inch televisions, SHUT UP.
ZapperZ
JimReid56
>WIDESCREEN ONLY yet the Non Special editions contain both formats. I
>hate wasting 1/4 of my 50 inch screen.
And I bet you only buy artwork that matches your couch.
Bruce Markowitz
I have no objectoin to WS being on the flip side, but I prefer Full
Screen!
Especially on the smallish laptop screen, which is where a lot of
DVD's go today!
Jim Busard <jb...@freeway.net> wrote:
> Why are all the Top new DVD releases in WIDESCREEN only? 99% of
>TV's are 4:3, VHS new release is 4:3. The "SPECIAL EDITIONS" are
>WIDESCREEN ONLY yet the Non Special editions contain both formats. I
>hate wasting 1/4 of my 50 inch screen.
>Hey movie companies, how about letting the consumer choose which format
>we want to view!!!!
To Reply:
(sco...@worldnet.att.net) or:
tren...@aol.com
Bruce Markowitz
yus...@nospam.please.charlie.iit.edu (ZapperZ) wrote:
>Oy, not THIS again!
>Zz.
To Reply:
(sco...@worldnet.att.net) or:
tren...@aol.com
gos...@bigfoot.com
When I first got into laserdiscs (my roommate had a home theater), I didn't
care much for widescreen on a regular tv. However, I soon began to really
appreciate it, as I learned just why it's done, and how much is lost when I
saw a pan 'n' scan version after watching a widescreen version.
Just curious--have you watched just two or three movies in widescreen, or is
it really that bad? I watch my dvds on a 27" Sony and love it. I would have
to think that on a 50", it would be even more fun. Give widescreen a
shot--maybe check out the car scenes in Tomorrow Never Dies in both formats,
then come back and talk about which version you liked better. My money is on
widescreen.
In article <368BEE04...@freeway.net>,
jb...@freeway.net wrote:
> Why are all the Top new DVD releases in WIDESCREEN only? 99% of
> TV's are 4:3, VHS new release is 4:3. The "SPECIAL EDITIONS" are
> WIDESCREEN ONLY yet the Non Special editions contain both formats. I
> hate wasting 1/4 of my 50 inch screen.
> Hey movie companies, how about letting the consumer choose which format
> we want to view!!!!
>
>
--
______________________________
The Hateful Donut
http://www.sinbad.net/~goshrx
______________________________
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
ROBERT
on a $80 VCR on their KMart TV but instead you complain about
widescreen movies on a 50" TV. Read the other emails from the people
who love to watch those widescreen movies on 19" TV's, those people
are the real movie buffs, I salute you. However I will not give up my
100" screen and my line doubled projector to join you in front of your
19 inchers.
Bob H.
PS I think you would be perfect for DIVX!!!!!!!!!!!
On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 16:35:01 -0500, Jim Busard <jb...@freeway.net>
THedger
>hate wasting 1/4 of my 50 inch screen.
Simple solution...get a 16x9 and shut up!
DIVX. Dissatisfaction guaranteed! If a Circuit City rep lies to you about Divx
then go to www.bbb.com and file a formal complaint!!! Remove DieSpamR to
reply!
Starman
Remember that YOU didn't make the movie. The producer/director/studio did.
Mike
In article <368BEE04...@freeway.net>, jb...@freeway.net wrote:
> Why are all the Top new DVD releases in WIDESCREEN only? 99% of
> TV's are 4:3, VHS new release is 4:3. The "SPECIAL EDITIONS" are
> WIDESCREEN ONLY yet the Non Special editions contain both formats. I
> hate wasting 1/4 of my 50 inch screen.
Pamela Hughes
>
> What really stinks is people like you that should be watching movies
> on a $80 VCR on their KMart TV but instead you complain about
> widescreen movies on a 50" TV. Read the other emails from the people
> who love to watch those widescreen movies on 19" TV's, those people
> are the real movie buffs, I salute you. However I will not give up my
> 100" screen and my line doubled projector to join you in front of your
> 19 inchers.
So buy me a widescreen tv. <g> I've only got a 21" and still
prefer wide screen flicks over pan & scan (unless they were made
for tv and originally filmed to fit a standard tv screen)
Evelyn Tremble
>
> Evelyn Tremble <etre...@royale.net> proclaims:
> >Not really the whole picture. Most of the whole composition,
> >but at half the size, detail, and sharpness. Letterboxed
> >movies should include the same "This film has been altered
> >from it's orignial version" notice that P&S movies do.
>
> death your right to express said opinion.
Thanks for coming to my defense. ;-> However I am not
misinformed. The legions of lemmings who mindlessly parrot
"letterboxing is the choice of the discriminating viewer"
are misinformed.
>No home video release in any format has the same "size, detail, and
> sharpness" as the original theatrical version, which was front-projected
> from 35mm film reels onto a fifteen-foot-tall screen.
Pretty much the point I was making when I said leterboxed
videos should also contain the "this film has been modified
from its original version" warning.
> Unless you see the
> movie in a theatrical venue, you're accepting *some* degree of compromise
> in image and sound quality.
Not true at all. Movie theatre presentations vary wildly and
ALWAYS have. Even the American Cinematographer's Manual
states wider formats are "subject to the architectual
limitations of individual theatres." Movie formats like
VistaVision were intended to produce larger negatives for a
variety of aspect ratios for the same movie depending on
what theatres the film would be playing in.
> Having said that, I will say that I wholeheartedly advocate full-frame
> *and* letterbox versions of the same movie (on a single DVD if possible),
> because the most important thing is to have the *choice*.
We agree here.
> >Happy to step on the inflated egos of all you "videophiles"
> >out there.
>
> See above re: your opinion. :)
How dare I go against the grain of conventional "wisdom"! :)
As for the rest of you sheep who responded by repeating the
"I want to see the whole picture the way the director
intended it" idiocy, you are "thinking" two dimensionally.
As I stated, you get more of the original composition but
less depth. When watching P&S you may be missing 40% of the
image, which for *most* of the duration of *most* movies
amounts to little more than not seeing a table lamp in the
corner of a room or some other unimportant space filler. The
drama of the piece is usually not affected much. Have you
really not enjoyed any movies you've seen on TV for the past
40 years? When you watch letterboxing you are seeing roughly
50% less detail for the *entire* duration of the movie! You
may still enjoy the movie even if you can't see the lines on
an actor's face, but please don't kid yourself that you have
a greater appreciation of film.
I am not saying P&S is better than letterboxing, but
pointing out that letterboxing is also a distortion of the
film experience, and it is the pompous jumping on anyone who
prefers P&S by the letterbox-or-nothing morons that really
itches my nads.
If you think you're seeing more of the image because you are
seeing a wider image then you really aren't seeing at all.
But I'm sure you impress all your friends with your wisdom
and expensive equipment.
Rich Clark
<etre...@royale.net> wrote:
[snip]
>As for the rest of you sheep who responded by repeating the
>"I want to see the whole picture the way the director
>intended it" idiocy, you are "thinking" two dimensionally.
>As I stated, you get more of the original composition but
>less depth. When watching P&S you may be missing 40% of the
>image, which for *most* of the duration of *most* movies
>amounts to little more than not seeing a table lamp in the
>corner of a room or some other unimportant space filler. The
>drama of the piece is usually not affected much. Have you
>really not enjoyed any movies you've seen on TV for the past
>40 years? When you watch letterboxing you are seeing roughly
>50% less detail for the *entire* duration of the movie! You
>may still enjoy the movie even if you can't see the lines on
>an actor's face, but please don't kid yourself that you have
>a greater appreciation of film.
This is an excellent point, if a trifle harshly cast. I'm someone who
adopted Laserdisc early on, specifically so I could see films in their
original aspect ratios. Particularly classic films I'd seen and loved
on TV but only panned and scanned. And if I can only keep one version
of "Bridge on the River Kwai" or "West Side Story" or "The Great
Escape," it's the widescreen version I'll keep.
But I had dearly hoped that DVD was going to offer the choice of
aspects on every disc, as we first thought it would. And specifically
for the reason E. Tremble cites here: vertical resolution on a 4:3
screen. Sometimes you want to see the whole bridge; sometimes you just
want the best possible view of Alec Guiness' face.
A TV is not a movie screen. TV's have limits other than their aspect
ratio, and their most important limit is their resolution. There is a
difference between 300 lines and 500 lines, and it's a difference that
can matter when looking at detail and texture and expression -- which
are elements of content just as important to reading a film as
composition is.
>I am not saying P&S is better than letterboxing, but
>pointing out that letterboxing is also a distortion of the
>film experience, and it is the pompous jumping on anyone who
>prefers P&S by the letterbox-or-nothing morons that really
>itches my nads.
A lot of people have spent a lot of years in the 4:3 ghetto without
even knowing there was a bigger world. Now that they've been
liberated, they've become evangelists. It's understandable. P&S is
inextricably associated with VHS, and it's hard to see it without
feeling the walls close in again.
>If you think you're seeing more of the image because you are
>seeing a wider image then you really aren't seeing at all.
>But I'm sure you impress all your friends with your wisdom
>and expensive equipment.
There is education to be done from more than one perspective. Home
video has had a terrible impact on people's ability to properly study
film, because they never see film. Video is not film. Even though
they still go to the cinema to see first-run movies, their eyes were
trained by TV screens and it's a video aesthetic that they bring with
them.
If I were czar, I'd probably require all DVD's to include both the
widescreen and a sensitively, director-supervised panned and scanned
transfer on the same disc. But I would build all the players so that
the widescreen version had to be viewed at least once before the 4:3
version became accessible. I do agree with the newly converted at
least to the extent of wishing to insist that people who watch nothing
but 4:3 probably don't appreciate what they've missed.
RichC
*-------------To Reply via E-Mail-------------*
Remove SPAMTRAP from the return address
*---------------------------------------------*
Evelyn Tremble
Like you, I pined for letterboxing for years. When it
started becoming available I was thrilled, but after a while
began to see its limits, not just in resolution but
aesthetics as well, but that's another rant. :-)
Rich Clark wrote:
>
> This is an excellent point, if a trifle harshly cast.
> [snip]
ZapperZ
this case.
The argument below, and the ones mentioning that the SIZE and "resolution"
even for letterboxed movies are not the same as in the theater are MISSING THE
POINT!
First of all, I do not wish to nit-pic the different movies where you may or
may not miss the "action" or content of the movie if you watch it in
pan-and-scan. The degree of things missed varies with different movies... in
some movies, it can be as crucial as the punch line (Airport - scene with
Lloyd Bridges and the cigar), or as "insignificant" as the "ambiance" (Out of
Africa, Lawrence of Arabia), or as instantaneous as counter-reaction (My Best
Friend's Wedding - scene at Union Station). I can list out many more movies
where if you only watch pan-and-scan, you'll probably miss something, or worse
still, understand the scene differently than if you watched it in the original
aspect ratio.
But as I've pointed out, this is besides the whole point! My reason for
wanting the movie in the aspect ratio it was made, was simply just for THAT!
That was the original SCOPE of the picture. It would be nice to have the same
"resolution" and movie theater size (which, by the way, is not the same in
every movie theater either), but those two are not possible....YET! The next
best thing in respecting the medium is to have it in its original aspect
ratio, whatever that ratio is! I do not see how this is an "elitist" or
"egotistical" request! It is simply not wanting to alter the content of the
movie that was originally shown. As I've stated before, I think people who
want the movie to be chopped and altered are more guilty in this.
On the other hand, if it is possible to have the pan-and-scan version of the
movie, then it certainly won't hurt to have it available. I have no problem
with people who like them that way. I just simply disagree (and passionately
too, I might add) with dismissing having the full aspect ratio of a movie as
being "irrelevant", and that people who want them are being "egotistical".
Zz.
In article <368ca6fc....@news.erols.com>, rdclark...@erols.com
wrote:
Dick T
16:9 screen and she would still complain about the black bars even though
they were relatively small.
Dick T
THedger <the...@aol.comDieSpamR> wrote in message
news:19981231230111...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
>> I
>>hate wasting 1/4 of my 50 inch screen.
>
Jim Lewis
On Fri, 1 Jan 1999 7:38:25 -0800, ZapperZ wrote
(in message <%g4j2.1$Xm4....@news.ais.net>):
> But as I've pointed out, this is besides the whole point! My reason for
> wanting the movie in the aspect ratio it was made, was simply just for
> THAT! That was the original SCOPE of the picture. It would be nice to
> have the same "resolution" and movie theater size (which, by the way, is
> not the same in every movie theater either), but those two are not
> possible....YET! The next best thing in respecting the medium is to have
> it in its original aspect ratio, whatever that ratio is! I do not see how
> this is an "elitist" or "egotistical" request! It is simply not wanting to
> alter the content of the movie that was originally shown. As I've stated
> before, I think people who want the movie to be chopped and altered are
> more guilty in this.
I completely agree with you. But clearly content is of no concern to Ms. Evelyn
Tremble. She has decided to speak for the director who decided how his movie
should be framed and what should be seen on the sides of the movie. She has
also decided for us that if we see the entire frame of the movie we will not
really have any greater appreciation of the movie. She sounds like a theater
arts major who just finished her first semester and now has the knowledge and
arrogance to globally trash the director's intent. Woody Allen is a film maker
who has been very meticulous and intentional in how his movies were composed
and framed. If I recall correctly, it was his film "Manhattan" that he would
only allow to be shown on TV if the original ratio was preserved. But obviously
Woody Allen's artistic intent is irrelevant according to Ms. Tremble.
Of all of Ms. Tremble's statements, this is my favorite:
"If you think you're seeing more of the image because you are seeing a wider
image then you really aren't seeing at all. But I'm sure you impress all your
friends with your wisdom and expensive equipment."
This statement leaves me kind of speechless. It's so absurd, I really can't
figure out how to respond. But the last sentence does seem to ring of sour
grapes and jealousy.
She also says:
"I am not saying P&S is better than letterboxing, but pointing out that
letterboxing is also a distortion of the film experience, and it is the pompous
jumping on anyone who prefers P&S by the letterbox-or-nothing morons that
really itches my nads."
I'm still trying to figure out how letterboxing is a distortion of the film
experience. If she's referring to the top and bottom black bars, well they
don't bother me at all, and on my "expensive" 16:9 set, a 1.85 ratio 16x9
enhanced movie has no top and bottom bars, so where's the "distortion of the
film experience?" I have no problem with people wanting to fill their 4:3
screen with a P&S movie. That's their choice. But Ms. Tremble's rational for
trashing the concept of letterbox escapes me. Lastly, her statement, "itches my
nads", piques my interest. Is it really Ms. Tremble?
Van den Branden
strongly about original aspect ratio versions are newly converted is
self centered and pompous. Many of us. if not most were not converted
by DVD. We've been achingly awaiting the regular release of letterbox
versions. I can recall an early TV program of Sneak Previews back when
Siskel and Ebert were still on the show where they devoted the entire
program to pointing out the advantages of letterboxing movies by first
showing the P&S version and then showing the letterboxed version. That
was probably 10 years ago. Newly converted? The problem was that video
tape didn't carry the resolution to pull it off but DVD gets us that
much closer. The "facts" that Rich points out about reolution may be a
compelling argument mathematically, but in practice, when looking at the
two versions side by side, I don't see it.
ZapperZ wrote:
> I hate to keep the entire message in the followup, but I think I have
> to in
> this case.
>
> snip
> >A lot of people have spent a lot of years in the 4:3 ghetto without
> >even knowing there was a bigger world. Now that they've been
> >liberated, they've become evangelists.
snip
Darren Garrison
<nospam...@hom.net> wrote:
>Jim Busard wrote in message <368BEE04...@freeway.net>...
>> Why are all the Top new DVD releases in WIDESCREEN only? 99% of
>>TV's are 4:3, VHS new release is 4:3. The "SPECIAL EDITIONS" are
>>WIDESCREEN ONLY yet the Non Special editions contain both formats. I
>>hate wasting 1/4 of my 50 inch screen.
>
>
>You have a 50 inch TV? Speaking on behalf of the many of us with 32 inch
>and 27 inch televisions, SHUT UP.
I always (well, always when it is available) watch widescreen on my 27
inch TV, and would not want it any other way. But I do still buy pan
and scan (and VHS) of a movie if I like the movie and it is the only
format available.
Michael Lynch
news:368CD0E0...@earthlink.net...
>program to pointing out the advantages of letterboxing movies by first
>showing the P&S version and then showing the letterboxed version. That
>was probably 10 years ago. Newly converted? The problem was that video
>tape didn't carry the resolution to pull it off but DVD gets us that
>much closer. The "facts" that Rich points out about reolution may be a
So this is, apparently, an admission that spatial resolution is an important
factor on whether widescreen is acceptable, correct? So that leaves the
question of whether or not DVD has enough (increased resolution) to make
widescreen viable. This is certainly a subjective question, and I don't see
why certain widescreen fans don't see it as such. I personally want every
bit of video bandwidth in my equipment to be utilized--and displayed (don't
start with service modes, many movies are not enhanced anyway). To _me_
seeing as much detail, as was in the original film, is more important than
the aspect ratio. This is my opinion, and I'm certainly entitled to it. That
doesn't mean I don't think BOTH versions should be on every DVD. That's what
we should be fighting for. If we argue, "...and if it only has one format,
it should be X," then we are, essentially, saying that having both formats
is not necessary. This is, IMO, a big mistake, since every release (in only
one format) will anger an entire market segment. As more and more "average"
people (whatever that means) get into DVD, the number of people against
widescreen will grow (you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise). We
should all insist on BOTH formats, nothing less.
-Mike Lynch
=====================================
mly...@ctaz.com
Visit my Digital Camera Page:
http://www.ctaz.com/~mlynch
=====================================
Charles Tomaras
American Cinematographer's Manual? Did you find a chapter about the legions
of DP's who are sickened by the reality of thier films being desecrated for
television and vidiot release? Do you know about the huge compromises made
on the movie set for actor blocking, lighting and sound to accommodate
vidiots like yourself? It's a shame the bean counters in Hollywood cater to
people like you against the best advice of their artistic powers that be.
The tradeoffs between loss of resolution and loss of composition are not
apples and oranges. It's art vs. velvet paintings.
Hey, how's that velvet tiger painting in your living room look?
Charles Tomaras
tom...@tomaras.com
Seattle, WA USA
Evelyn Tremble <etre...@royale.net> wrote in message
news:368CA431...@royale.net...
>As for the rest of you sheep who responded by repeating the
>"I want to see the whole picture the way the director
>intended it" idiocy, you are "thinking" two dimensionally.
>As I stated, you get more of the original composition but
>less depth. When watching P&S you may be missing 40% of the
>image, which for *most* of the duration of *most* movies
>amounts to little more than not seeing a table lamp in the
>corner of a room or some other unimportant space filler. The
>drama of the piece is usually not affected much. Have you
>really not enjoyed any movies you've seen on TV for the past
>40 years? When you watch letterboxing you are seeing roughly
>50% less detail for the *entire* duration of the movie! You
>may still enjoy the movie even if you can't see the lines on
>an actor's face, but please don't kid yourself that you have
>a greater appreciation of film.
>
>
>I am not saying P&S is better than letterboxing, but
>pointing out that letterboxing is also a distortion of the
>film experience, and it is the pompous jumping on anyone who
>prefers P&S by the letterbox-or-nothing morons that really
>itches my nads.
>
>
Evelyn Tremble
>
> Evelyn still wouldn't shut up because a 2.35:1 movie still doesn't fill up a
> 16:9 screen and she would still complain about the black bars even though
> they were relatively small.
> Dick T
Actually, many 2.35:1 and wider movies are transfered to
video in a 2:1 ratio, so you are still missing part of the
original picture. Live and learn.
King Kong
wife and kids prefer P&S. even if we are sitting 10 feet away from a 60"
front projector. I also think it would allow for DVD to become mainstream
more quickly. So even cocky videophiles would be happy. DVD needs all the
help it can get.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards
Evelyn Tremble
> arrogance to globally trash the director's intent. Woody Allen is a film maker
> who has been very meticulous and intentional in how his movies were composed
> and framed. If I recall correctly, it was his film "Manhattan" that he would
> only allow to be shown on TV if the original ratio was preserved. But obviously
> Woody Allen's artistic intent is irrelevant according to Ms. Tremble.
You really fell into this one. LOL Manhattan was shot in
Panavision, a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. It was transfered to
video however in a 2:1 aspect ratio, as are most scope
films. One notable scene where this matters is when Michael
Murphy makes a telephone call from a street phone booth. The
scene plays entirely in Gordon Willis' typical
"figure-in-a-landscape" mastershot. Cinematographer Willis
is fond of pulling the camera way back from the action
making the actor relatively small in the shot, and
ironically, thereby, drawing more attention to him. He has
done this in many of his films, regardless of who directed
them. Anyway, in this particular shot, a street in NY is
seen in profile, from sidewalk to sidewalk. You hear Michael
Murphy talking but you don't see him at first. After a while
you look around the frame. Bang, there he is in the phone
booth in the corner of the screen. On the 2:1 letterboxed
video, he is out of frame. LOL Heaven forbid they should
"pan" or "scan" over to that side of the screen so this shot
makes some sense.
Stanley Kubrick shot The Shining and Full Metal Jacket soft
matt for a 1.66:1 aspect ratio and released them on home
video full frame, preferring his full frame compositions for
the video. However for years I have heard and read
videophiles complain that The Shining has not been released
in letterboxed form. Kubrick also released Dr. Strangelove
full frame, in alternating aspect ratios because some of the
film was shot with a hard matt and some was not. This has
opened up the top of the frame where boom mics can be seen
in a couple if shots. But Kubrick still prefers this
non-masked presentation, which has confounded the
videophile.
I am reminded of the guy who bought the letterboxed
laserdisc of Alfred Hitchcock's North by Notrthwest only to
claim he was ripped off because the top and bottom of the
picture were missing compared to his VHS. He thought
VistaVision, the film's shooting format was an ultra
widescreen format, when in reality it in not very wide at
all, the negative however is larger, thus making "scope"
prints possible by blowing up the middle of the frame to
widescreen aspect ratios wthout loosing much detail. Much
the same theory behind Super 35mm today.
So as you can see, you are right, I have no appreciation of
a director's intent. ;->
> Of all of Ms. Tremble's statements, this is my favorite:
Golly. You have a favorite. I am flattered.
> She also says:
>
> "I am not saying P&S is better than letterboxing, but pointing out that
> letterboxing is also a distortion of the film experience, and it is the pompous
> jumping on anyone who prefers P&S by the letterbox-or-nothing morons that
> really itches my nads."
>
> I'm still trying to figure out how letterboxing is a distortion of the film
> experience.
Keep figuring but hey, don't take my side. You will forever
be arguing with people such as yourself who have heard
letterboxing is superior. If you want to impress most people
and come across as a knowlegable technophile with great
taste, stick to the
"letterboxing-or-you-are-an-ignorant-Joe-six-pack" chant.
Chicks dig a guy who sounds like he knows what he's talking
about.
> But Ms. Tremble's rational for
> trashing the concept of letterbox escapes me. Lastly, her statement, "itches my
> nads", piques my interest. Is it really Ms. Tremble?
I'm sure some movie buff out there will recognize the name
Evelyn Tremble and understand that it does indeed belong to
a man. Bond. James Bond. Surprise. Things are not always as
them seem.
Evelyn Tremble
Charles Tomaras wrote:
>
> Hey, how's that velvet tiger painting in your living room look?
That velvet tiger is a Troma Production and it looks great
right next to my Charles Tomaras Productions "dogs playing
poker" reprint.
Norman Wilner
>Dick T wrote:
>>
>> Evelyn still wouldn't shut up because a 2.35:1 movie still doesn't
>> fill up a 16:9 screen and she would still complain about the black
>> bars even though they were relatively small.
>
>video in a 2:1 ratio, so you are still missing part of the
>original picture. Live and learn.
That's not true. Where such transfers exist, it's usually because the filmmaker
shot in Super 35 and specifically chose that aspect ratio for video (John
Badham's "Bird on a Wire", Steven Soderbergh's "King of the Hill"), or because
the studio chose to master the video version from a 70mm release print, which
has an aspect ratio of 2.1:1. In these cases, the director and cinematographer's
intentions are still respected.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
roscoe
can not suck-- its still bigger than a 45" pan & scan it's only a figment
of their imaginations because they can see the blanks on the top & bottom.
I recently saw a Toshiba widescreen at Best Buy, thought it was neat until
I measured it. It was the same picture area as my 55", only my screen has
the two black bars on it, and the case is taller.
King Kong <King...@godzilla.com> wrote in article
<mobj2.74$kY2.2...@NewsRead.Toronto.iSTAR.net>...
Norman Wilner
The transfer of "Manhattan" to which you are referring is the 1980 video
transfer, right? The one with the gray bars? That's been out of circulation for
a decade. The film was remastered and re-released on videocassette and
laserdisc, properly letterboxed at 2.35:1 with _black_ bars at the top and
bottom of the frame, in 1988.
>Stanley Kubrick shot The Shining and Full Metal Jacket soft
>matt for a 1.66:1 aspect ratio and released them on home
>video full frame, preferring his full frame compositions for
>the video. However for years I have heard and read
>videophiles complain that The Shining has not been released
>in letterboxed form. Kubrick also released Dr. Strangelove
>full frame, in alternating aspect ratios because some of the
>film was shot with a hard matt and some was not. This has
>opened up the top of the frame where boom mics can be seen
>in a couple if shots. But Kubrick still prefers this
>non-masked presentation, which has confounded the
>videophile.
And were "The Shining" matted to its theatrical aspect ratio, we wouldn't see
some of the things we weren't supposed to see, like the helicopter shadow in the
credit sequence or the occasional boom shadow at the top of the frame in the
Overlook. Kubrick may prefer open-matte presentations of his films, but it's
obvious he hadn't told his cinematographer to maintain a strict safe area during
the shoot.
>I am reminded of the guy who bought the letterboxed
>laserdisc of Alfred Hitchcock's North by Notrthwest only to
>claim he was ripped off because the top and bottom of the
>picture were missing compared to his VHS. He thought
>VistaVision, the film's shooting format was an ultra
>widescreen format, when in reality it in not very wide at
>all, the negative however is larger, thus making "scope"
>prints possible by blowing up the middle of the frame to
>widescreen aspect ratios wthout loosing much detail. Much
>the same theory behind Super 35mm today.
That guy was misinformed, too. VistaVision has a minimum aspect ratio of 1.66:1;
even though the widescreen laserdisc was matted to 1.75:1 as a compromise
between the film's European and North American aspect ratios, he was still
getting more information on the sides of the frame in the laserdisc version,
since the film had been slightly cropped for the full-frame transfer.
>So as you can see, you are right, I have no appreciation of
>a director's intent. ;->
Well ...
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Evelyn Tremble
Norman Wilner wrote:
>
> Evelyn Tremble wrote in message <368D3D50...@royale.net>...
> >Actually, many 2.35:1 and wider movies are transfered to
> >video in a 2:1 ratio, so you are still missing part of the
> >original picture. Live and learn.
>
> That's not true. Where such transfers exist, it's usually because the filmmaker
> shot in Super 35 and specifically chose that aspect ratio for video (John
> Badham's "Bird on a Wire", Steven Soderbergh's "King of the Hill"), or because
> the studio chose to master the video version from a 70mm release print, which
> has an aspect ratio of 2.1:1. In these cases, the director and cinematographer's
> intentions are still respected.
>
> Norm Wilner
> Starweek Magazine
No, sorry. To begin with that cinematic masterstroke "Bird
on a Wire" was not shot in Super-35 but a unique format.
Refer to the issue of American Cinematographer magazine
covering the film. Secondly, the technology for 70mm
transfers is a relatively recent phenomenon. For decades
only 35mm was transferred to video and the transfers of 35mm
and 70mm are usually 2:1. When Ben Hur was first put on
video fully letterboxed people complained because the
resulting image looked like a Band-Aid on screen, it was
just too small. Subsequent releases, while still
letterboxed, were still cropped. It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad
World is another example of a film too wide for full
letterboxing. But it isn't just these ultra wide films which
are not fully letterboxed. Woody Allen's Manhattan is an
example as is Kubrick's 2001 in either 35 or 70mm versions.
You do bring up an interesting issue about 70mm transfers
and release prints though. How can you claim the director
and cinematographer's intentions are still respected when a
70mm print is made from a 35mm movie, which requires the
image to be blown up and the top and bottom of the frame to
be cropped off? If there is to be one and one only aspect
ratio than no compromise should be considered acceptable,
especially 10 to 15%. Of course in reality compromises are a
fact of life with movie presentation and directors and
cinematographers whether they like to do it or not would be
fools to not "protect" their compositions, that is make sure
the important stuff will be seen no matter the various
formats the film will be subjected to down the line. At some
point they have to let go, from not being able to control an
individual theater's projection standards to not being able
to invade every viewer's home to properly adjust the color
and contrast levels of the TV set. John Badhman's attitude
about never composing for TV sounds admirable, but the
reality is most people will see movies in that medium and to
neglect the presentation in that medium is foolish.
Evelyn Tremble
Norman Wilner wrote:
>
> The transfer of "Manhattan" to which you are referring is the 1980 video
> transfer, right? The one with the gray bars? That's been out of circulation for
> a decade. The film was remastered and re-released on videocassette and
> laserdisc, properly letterboxed at 2.35:1 with _black_ bars at the top and
> bottom of the frame, in 1988.
Praise the Lord!
> And were "The Shining" matted to its theatrical aspect ratio, we wouldn't see
> some of the things we weren't supposed to see, like the helicopter shadow in the
> credit sequence or the occasional boom shadow at the top of the frame in the
> Overlook. Kubrick may prefer open-matte presentations of his films, but it's
> obvious he hadn't told his cinematographer to maintain a strict safe area during
> the shoot.
Or Kubrick could have chosen to start that shot a half a
second later and avoided the shadow altogether. He didn't.
> >So as you can see, you are right, I have no appreciation of
> >a director's intent. ;->
>
> Well ...
>
> Norm Wilner
> Starweek Magazine
Well, well, well...
Charles Tomaras
Evelyn Tremble <etre...@royale.net> wrote in message
news:368D3D50...@royale.net...
>Dick T wrote:
>>
>> Evelyn still wouldn't shut up because a 2.35:1 movie still doesn't fill
up a
>> 16:9 screen and she would still complain about the black bars even though
>> they were relatively small.
>> Dick T
Charles Tomaras
else? :)
Evelyn Tremble <etre...@royale.net> wrote in message
news:368D45FE...@royale.net...
Richard C.
Widescreen Review maintains a HUGE list of Widescreen movies with theatrical
aspect and released aspect....they are MOSTLY the same....
They measure the picture electronically...they do not take the packages word
for it...
--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
Evelyn Tremble wrote in message <368D3D50...@royale.net>...
Jim Lewis
On Fri, 1 Jan 1999 15:42:48 -0800, Evelyn Tremble wrote
(in message <368D5D78...@royale.net>):
>
> Norman Wilner wrote:
>>
>> The transfer of "Manhattan" to which you are referring is the 1980 video
>> transfer, right? The one with the gray bars? That's been out of
>> circulation for a decade. The film was remastered and re-released on
>> videocassette and laserdisc, properly letterboxed at 2.35:1 with _black_
>> bars at the top and bottom of the frame, in 1988.
>
> Praise the Lord!
>
Norman has given information to refute your claim, Evelyn. Your response is a
completely meaningless and antagonistic "Praise the Lord". Is this designed to
establish or eliminate your credibility? The latter I would suppose. How high
to you have to reach to touch your ego?
King Kong
the Star Wars Trilogy on laserdisc wich was Pan & Scan and on a screen this
huge being up close and personal to Darth Vader was fun just watching
they're faces.... Pan & Scan when well done can be quite nice.
David Mullen
>on a Wire" was not shot in Super-35 but a unique format.
>Refer to the issue of American Cinematographer magazine
>covering the film.
I have (often). The A.C. issue (June 1990) describes the film being shot in
Super35 instead of anamorphic to get a 2.35 theatrical release. Bob Primes
describes the entire Super35 process (lens centered over full aperture
instead of the Academy Aperture, etc.) without more clearly calling it such
except at one point:
Quote: "In order to make room for this "super-35mm" format similar to that
of 2.35..."
Bob Primes is just very bad at describing the Super35 process, which was
still less common at that time (and the final anamorphic release prints
looked pretty bad despite his claims. John Badham went back to shooting in
anamorphic after that.) People were also still throwing out the label
"Super Techniscope" as well at that time; "Super-35" became a more common
term a little later.
I'm a cinematographer and can tell you that current there are only three
methods used to end up with a 2.35 anamorphic 35mm release print: (1) shoot
in Super35 with spherical lenses and blow-up to anamorphic later; (2) shoot
with anamorphic lenses to begin with; or (3) shoot in 65mm and make
reduction prints to anamorphic (rarely done anymore.)
I can also tell you that COMPOSITION within an aspect ratio is a key element
of film directing, as well as a key component of the art of cinematography.
To eliminate it and to suggest that bandwidth or filling a TV screen takes
priority over screen composition is to fail to recognize film as an art
form. I will admit that there is some degree of compromise possible (and
even designed into the filmmaking process) - a 1.85 film shown in 1.66 is
not necessarily going to make much of a difference to the framing - so I can
cut people some slack when they don't see why 1.85 letterboxing is an
improvement over full-frame (I don't AGREE but I understand). But how can
ANYONE stand to watch a 2.35 anamorphic film panned & scanned, with only
half the film's image being viewable is beyond me!
David Mullen
Van den Branden
later post of mine directly to my mailbox and not to the group.
P & E
DV
Rich Clark wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jan 1999 08:43:01 -0500, Van den Branden
> <dj...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >I would like to add that I think RichC's assumption that people who
> feel
> >strongly about original aspect ratio versions are newly converted is
> >self centered and pompous.
>
> I think putting your words into my mouth is self-centered and pompous.
>
> "A lot of people" is not "all people" or even "most people."
>
> Since you choose not to carefully read what I wrote, and call me names
>
> based on your misreading (it's your right), I choose to ignore you
> completely from now on (it's mine).
Evelyn Tremble
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> Evelyn Tremble (etre...@royale.net) wrote:
>
> : Actually, many 2.35:1 and wider movies are transfered to
> : video in a 2:1 ratio, so you are still missing part of the
> : original picture. Live and learn.
>
> And then there's the overscan on the TV.
Yes, Good point. Nice to see another learned person who can
think for themselves posting here. :-)
Evelyn Tremble
My praise the Lord was a sincere cry of happiness that the
film has, at least according to Norman, finally been
released in better shape. And it only took 8 years,
according to Norman. Of course my ego and I would prefer to
confirm this on our own.
As for my credibility, Norman seems to confirm my assertion
that the original version was indeed flawed and was
remastered. So there.
Evelyn Tremble
David Mullen wrote:
> I can also tell you that COMPOSITION within an aspect ratio is a key element
> of film directing, as well as a key component of the art of cinematography.
> To eliminate it and to suggest that bandwidth or filling a TV screen takes
> priority over screen composition is to fail to recognize film as an art
> form.
Oh please.
Iljitsch van Beijnum
: Has anyone else noted that the majority of people who complain about
: letterboxing are those who should have the LEAST reason to object to it?
How about this one:
For a 1.85:1 movie to fit on a 1.33:1 TV screen it has to be shrunk by
28%. That means 28% less detail in both horizontal and vertical
directions. Ok, I can live with that.
But now some director decides to film his latest project in 2.35:1
Panavision. That means scaling down by no less than 43%. So the face of an
actor that would be 100 by 100 pixels in pan&scan, would now be only 57 by
57 pixels, that's less than a third!
Letterboxing is an enormous waste of bandwidth. True, you get to see
everything the director intended you to see, but you can no longer make it
out because it's so small. Don't forget that 2.35:1 moviescreens are
really large, so no zooming in on details like on material made for TV.
We all know these webpages where they show us actors that are panned and
scanned of the screen so the scene doesn't make sense anymore. But how
many scenes actually need the full width of of the screen? I saw a part of
2001 (letterboxed) last night, and nothing was going on near the edges of
the screen at any time. Could have been P&S without any trouble. That way
I could have enjoyed the details a lot better.
Now, I'm not saying letterboxing is evil, but it's not without problems of
it's own. I think letterboxing or open matte is fine for 1.85:1, but
displaying a 2.35:1 movie on a 1.33:1 screen is just not possible without
*some* compromise. For DVD that could be letterboxing it on anamorphic
16x9 (that means a 25% reduction on a 16x9 TV) but for TV or VHS which
already have less detail than DVD and would need 43% reduction for
widescreen I think pan&scan is the way to go.
Iljitsch van Beijnum
: But as I've pointed out, this is besides the whole point! My reason for
: wanting the movie in the aspect ratio it was made, was simply just for THAT!
: That was the original SCOPE of the picture. It would be nice to have the same
: "resolution" and movie theater size (which, by the way, is not the same in
: every movie theater either), but those two are not possible....YET! The next
: best thing in respecting the medium is to have it in its original aspect
: ratio, whatever that ratio is! I do not see how this is an "elitist" or
: "egotistical" request!
But it is one that is devoid of reality.
Have you ever wondered just why the borders surrounding the movie screen
are black? And why they move outward (well sometimes the top and bottom
edges move inward for cinemascope aspect ratios, so you get to see less in
stead of more - but that's not the point right now) for 2.35:1 films?
This is why: because the edge of the frame becomes blurry because of the
way film is created and projected. So they have to cut off the edges. And
believe you me, this is not an exact science. The part that gets cut off
at all four sides varies wildly between theaters.
So the director may think up a perfect composition, but that has only a
passing relation to the way the picture gets to be projected on the screen
later on.
Iljitsch van Beijnum
Rich Clark
Rich Clark
(ZapperZ) wrote:
>I hate to keep the entire message in the followup, but I think I have to in
>this case.
>
>The argument below, and the ones mentioning that the SIZE and "resolution"
>even for letterboxed movies are not the same as in the theater are MISSING THE
>POINT!
Umm, I believe I'm simply saying there are other points than yours.
[snip]
>As I've stated before, I think people who
>want the movie to be chopped and altered are more guilty in this.
First, please relax. Nobody's propsing that the original aspect ratio
be destroyed and eliminated forever.
All I'm saying (and I speak only for myself) is that after I've
watched the film in its intended aspect. I would like the option of
re-watching the film with increased detail and resolution. Directors
concern themselves with more than composition, and I'd like to be able
to study and appreciate those other aspects as well, at least to the
extent that the medium of home video allows.
>
>On the other hand, if it is possible to have the pan-and-scan version of the
>movie, then it certainly won't hurt to have it available. I have no problem
>with people who like them that way. I just simply disagree (and passionately
>too, I might add) with dismissing having the full aspect ratio of a movie as
>being "irrelevant", and that people who want them are being "egotistical".
I agree with that. Perhaps someone who feels that way is reacting to
the zeal with which the "widescreen only" crusaders belittle and scorn
those of us who wish to retain the fullscreen option.
Paul Gunther
>
> Why are all the Top new DVD releases in WIDESCREEN only? 99% of
> TV's are 4:3, VHS new release is 4:3. The "SPECIAL EDITIONS" are
> WIDESCREEN ONLY yet the Non Special editions contain both formats.
What's special about P&S? If I want that, I'll but the VHS. If I want
something special and that's gonna last, I'll buy the widescreen VHS.
Paul Gunther
>
> Why are all the Top new DVD releases in WIDESCREEN only? 99% of
> TV's are 4:3, VHS new release is 4:3. The "SPECIAL EDITIONS" are
> hate wasting 1/4 of my 50 inch screen.
> Hey movie companies, how about letting the consumer choose which format
> we want to view!!!!
Oops. I meant widescreen DVD.
Rich Clark
<dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I can also tell you that COMPOSITION within an aspect ratio is a key element
>of film directing, as well as a key component of the art of cinematography.
Are you asserting that it's the *only* important element? That no
matter how many times I view a film, I should never bother to look at
other elements of a director's style or a performer's art?
>To eliminate it and to suggest that bandwidth or filling a TV screen takes
>priority over screen composition is to fail to recognize film as an art
>form.
Why is are you so absolute about this? Why do you equate the
availability of an option to the elimination of another? I, for one,
have never even hinted that widescreen transfers should be eliminated.
Only that, given the other limitations of NTSC video, there are merits
to fullscreen transfers in that they give allow a better view of other
key elements of film directing which are more difficult to see in the
reduced resolution of letterboxing. If you as a cinematographer spend
a day setting up a shot of a field of prairie grass rolling like ocean
waves in the wind, only to find that the effect is rendered invisible
in the letterboxed transfer of your film, wouldn't you be glad that
the viewer could switch to a higher-resolution framing that would
allow the effect to actually be seen?
>I will admit that there is some degree of compromise possible (and
>even designed into the filmmaking process) - a 1.85 film shown in 1.66 is
>not necessarily going to make much of a difference to the framing - so I can
>cut people some slack when they don't see why 1.85 letterboxing is an
>improvement over full-frame (I don't AGREE but I understand). But how can
>ANYONE stand to watch a 2.35 anamorphic film panned & scanned, with only
>half the film's image being viewable is beyond me!
Even in a movie like "West Side Story" -- a film that's absolutely
destroyed by cropping -- there are scenes I'd like to go back and
watch in full screen, just so I could study the actors' faces.
I had hoped that DVD would offer this option routinely, and I'm
disappointed that it doesn't.
Norman Wilner
>> >video in a 2:1 ratio, so you are still missing part of the
>> >original picture. Live and learn.
>>
>> the filmmaker shot in Super 35 and specifically chose that aspect
>> ratio for video (John Badham's "Bird on a Wire", Steven Soderbergh's
>> "King of the Hill"), or because the studio chose to master the video
>> version from a 70mm release print, which has an aspect ratio of 2.1:1.
>> In these cases, the director and cinematographer's intentions are still
>> respected.
>
>on a Wire" was not shot in Super-35 but a unique format.
>Refer to the issue of American Cinematographer magazine
>covering the film.
Super 35 was a relatively unique format in 1990. But that's what was used.
>Secondly, the technology for 70mm transfers is a relatively recent
>phenomenon. For decades only 35mm was transferred to video and
>the transfers of 35mm and 70mm are usually 2:1.
No, they're not. Some early transfers -- and I'm talking about that compromised
version of "Manhattan", and some early widescreen editions of a few films
released on laserdisc in the late 1980s -- were improperly framed, but as
transfer technology has improved, aspect ratios have been more properly
reproduced. Improper framing hasn't really been an issue since the early days of
the Criterion collection.
>When Ben Hur was first put on video fully letterboxed people complained
>because the resulting image looked like a Band-Aid on screen, it was
>just too small. Subsequent releases, while still letterboxed, were still
cropped.
You've got it backward. MGM first released an improperly framed transfer; the
subsequent laserdisc SE was properly letterboxed at about 2.65:1.
>It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World is another example of a film too wide
>for full letterboxing.
True, MGM's widescreen VHS version was panned and scanned within a 2.1:1 frame,
but the laserdisc boxed set that followed a year later presented the film in its
entire Ultra Panavision aspect ratio.
>But it isn't just these ultra wide films which are not fully letterboxed.
>Woody Allen's Manhattan is an example as is Kubrick's 2001 in either
>35 or 70mm versions.
Again: Old versions improperly framed, new transfers properly letterboxed. The
examples you're using are no longer available on the market. And since Stanley
Kubrick approved the 2.1:1 transfer for Criterion's edition of "2001", how can
you argue that it doesn't present the movie properly?
>You do bring up an interesting issue about 70mm transfers
>and release prints though. How can you claim the director
>and cinematographer's intentions are still respected when a
>70mm print is made from a 35mm movie, which requires the
>image to be blown up and the top and bottom of the frame to
>be cropped off?
Not all 70mm prints are created in this fashion -- if the film was originally
shot on 65mm, it would have an aspect ratio of 2.1:1, and the 35mm prints would
be matted _down_ to 2.35:1. And at any rate, the 70mm print is created with the
participation of the director and cinematographer, unless they were hired hands
to begin with; it's not as though some blind monkey is smacking these things
together without any sort of quality control.
>If there is to be one and one only aspect ratio than no compromise
>should be considered acceptable, especially 10 to 15%. Of course in
>reality compromises are a fact of life with movie presentation and
>directors and cinematographers whether they like to do it or not would
>be fools to not "protect" their compositions, that is make sure
>the important stuff will be seen no matter the various
>formats the film will be subjected to down the line. At some
>point they have to let go, from not being able to control an
>individual theater's projection standards to not being able
>to invade every viewer's home to properly adjust the color
>and contrast levels of the TV set. John Badhman's attitude
>about never composing for TV sounds admirable, but the
>reality is most people will see movies in that medium and to
>neglect the presentation in that medium is foolish.
I certainly agree that theater conditions vary from screen to screen, and not
all presentations will reflect the filmmakers' intentions. But this discussion
is about home video, and since video transfers _are_ consistent as far as aspect
ratios and sound formats are concerned, as the tapes and discs available to
consumers all come from a single, controlled source, I can argue with some
confidence that a special or definitive edition of a movie on a videotape,
laserdisc or DVD can be the movie the filmmakers want you to see.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Norman Wilner
>
>Jim Lewis wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 1999 15:42:48 -0800, Evelyn Tremble wrote
>> (in message <368D5D78...@royale.net>):
>> >
>> > Norman Wilner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The transfer of "Manhattan" to which you are referring is the
>> >> 1980 video transfer, right? The one with the gray bars? That's
>> >> been out of circulation for a decade. The film was remastered
>> >> and re-released on videocassette and laserdisc, properly
>> >> of the frame, in 1988.
>> >
>> > Praise the Lord!
>>
>> Norman has given information to refute your claim, Evelyn. Your
>> response is a completely meaningless and antagonistic "Praise the
>> Lord". Is this designed to establish or eliminate your credibility? The
>> latter I would suppose. How high to you have to reach to touch your
>>ego?
>
>My praise the Lord was a sincere cry of happiness that the
>film has, at least according to Norman, finally been
>released in better shape. And it only took 8 years,
>according to Norman. Of course my ego and I would prefer to
>confirm this on our own.
>
>As for my credibility, Norman seems to confirm my assertion
>that the original version was indeed flawed and was
>remastered. So there.
Well, yeah ... but the point is, you've been arguing about something that hasn't
been an issue for ten years. It does lead one to wonder whether the rest of your
information is as outdated.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
David Mullen
element
>>of film directing, as well as a key component of the art of
cinematography.
>
>Are you asserting that it's the *only* important element? That no
>matter how many times I view a film, I should never bother to look at
>other elements of a director's style or a performer's art?
No, it's not the only important element. But you are suggesting that
letterboxing a movie eliminates the ability to appreciate those "other"
elements, which I don't agree with.
>>To eliminate it and to suggest that bandwidth or filling a TV screen takes
>>priority over screen composition is to fail to recognize film as an art
>>form.
>
>Why is are you so absolute about this?
I'm not - I've said that not letterboxing a 1.85 feature that was shot
open-matted is tolerable, even if not preferable for me, because the
compositions are only weakened, not destroyed as with pan & scan versions of
2.35 anamorphic features. And I think that an argument can be made for
accepting the full-frame transfers of James Cameron's Super35 features
BECAUSE he puts so much time in re-framing the movie for full-frame, so one
can't really say that only the widescreen version represents his intent.
But for 2.35 anamorphic features, panning & scanning radically alters not
only the framing, but other elements of the directing. Spielberg once said
that a pan & scan version of one of his anamorphic features feels like
someone else directed the movie, because of the new pans and edits that
didn't exist in the original theatrical version.
>Only that, given the other limitations of NTSC video, there are merits
>to fullscreen transfers in that they give allow a better view of other
>key elements of film directing which are more difficult to see in the
>reduced resolution of letterboxing. If you as a cinematographer spend
>a day setting up a shot of a field of prairie grass rolling like ocean
>waves in the wind, only to find that the effect is rendered invisible
>in the letterboxed transfer of your film, wouldn't you be glad that
>the viewer could switch to a higher-resolution framing that would
>allow the effect to actually be seen?
For one thing, I feel that a lot of pan & scan versions of 'scope films do
NOT look sharper - they just look "enlarged", sort of zoomed-in looking.
Also, subtleties like small blades of grass moving in a field are things
that I feel don't survive well on home video (especially NTSC) anyway - if I
took the trouble to shoot a movie in 2.35 anamorphic, it would be primarily
for how that plays on the big movie theater screen. Anamorphic photography
makes no sense for something mainly to be enjoyed on home video.
But a bigger issue for me is that I don't feel that filmmaking is a
democratic art. I don't want the viewer to have "options" just as I don't
believe in interactive cinema where the audience gets to choose the ending
of the film. The director's job is to make choices on the set and in the
editing room; it's not meant to be a fair or democratic process but an
artistic process. That's why I feel that a film should have a single aspect
ratio when being shown in any medium.
BUT... As long as I get to watch a film properly letterboxed, I don't
necessarily have a problem if the DVD also has an additional pan & scan
version. But I would hope that such a version would eventually be phased
out as people become more used to widescreen images. And if you like to
check out the pan & scan versions of 'scope movies to look at certain
details in art direction or something, as an academic exercise, that's
understandable. I've certainly watched many scenes in slow-motion, which
certainly is case of no longer "watching" the movie correctly, but instead
studying elements of its construction.
David Mullen
Jason Brian Chapa
It would be ideal if all DVDs came with both formats. And many do,
especially those that fit on one layer. They end up with one version
on one side, and one version on the other side. Unfortunately, most
special edition discs are RSDL, and don't have room for another
version. Once DVD-18 is perfected and costly, then we should see more
double-layered double-sided SEs with both versions. It would be nice
if some studio would try the pan&scan on the fly feature. I'm sure
many p&s people wouldn't mind. It couldn't look much worse than the
headache-inducing robotic pans in some films, Money Train and
Multiplicity for example.
Jason Brian Chapa
**remove NOSPAM from address to reply**
--------------------------------------
Fight DIVX! Support Open DVD!
Fight pan&scan! Support widescreen!
Rich Clark
<dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
>But you are suggesting that
>letterboxing a movie eliminates the ability to appreciate those "other"
>elements, which I don't agree with.
"Eliminates?" No. "Makes more difficult, or sometimes nearly
impossible?" Yes.
>
>>>To eliminate it and to suggest that bandwidth or filling a TV screen takes
>>>priority over screen composition is to fail to recognize film as an art
>>>form.
>>
>>Why is are you so absolute about this?
>
>I'm not - I've said that not letterboxing a 1.85 feature that was shot
>open-matted is tolerable, even if not preferable for me, because the
>compositions are only weakened, not destroyed as with pan & scan versions of
>2.35 anamorphic features. And I think that an argument can be made for
>accepting the full-frame transfers of James Cameron's Super35 features
>BECAUSE he puts so much time in re-framing the movie for full-frame, so one
>can't really say that only the widescreen version represents his intent.
You fail to mention that the *reason* he does this is because he
abhors the loss of vertical resolution (and thus visual detail) that
letterboxing forces upon the image.
>
>But for 2.35 anamorphic features, panning & scanning radically alters not
>only the framing, but other elements of the directing. Spielberg once said
>that a pan & scan version of one of his anamorphic features feels like
>someone else directed the movie, because of the new pans and edits that
>didn't exist in the original theatrical version.
Yes, yes, yes, I'm not arguing about this.
>
>>Only that, given the other limitations of NTSC video, there are merits
>>to fullscreen transfers in that they give allow a better view of other
>>key elements of film directing which are more difficult to see in the
>>reduced resolution of letterboxing. If you as a cinematographer spend
>>a day setting up a shot of a field of prairie grass rolling like ocean
>>waves in the wind, only to find that the effect is rendered invisible
>>in the letterboxed transfer of your film, wouldn't you be glad that
>>the viewer could switch to a higher-resolution framing that would
>>allow the effect to actually be seen?
>
>For one thing, I feel that a lot of pan & scan versions of 'scope films do
>NOT look sharper - they just look "enlarged", sort of zoomed-in looking.
And a lot of them do.
>Also, subtleties like small blades of grass moving in a field are things
>that I feel don't survive well on home video (especially NTSC) anyway - if I
>took the trouble to shoot a movie in 2.35 anamorphic, it would be primarily
>for how that plays on the big movie theater screen. Anamorphic photography
>makes no sense for something mainly to be enjoyed on home video.
So the best way to serve the director's intent would be to never
release the film on home video at all, right? Don't laugh; this was a
vicious debate in the early days of home video, much like this one.
>
>But a bigger issue for me is that I don't feel that filmmaking is a
>democratic art. I don't want the viewer to have "options" just as I don't
>believe in interactive cinema where the audience gets to choose the ending
>of the film. The director's job is to make choices on the set and in the
>editing room; it's not meant to be a fair or democratic process but an
>artistic process. That's why I feel that a film should have a single aspect
>ratio when being shown in any medium.
Ahh. Your opinion is very clear, and I respect it. I don't share it,
mind you, but I do respect it.
And indeed, if I didn't believe (as does Cameron) that home video is a
fundamentally different medium from theatrical cinema, one which
effects an essential transformation upon material that's transferred
to it, I might agree. (I've also seen Cameron take both sides of this
debate, and so I don't think he's a Gospel source here, just an
indication that there's a debatable point.)
I agree with you that filmmaking isn't "democratic." But I think that
filmmakers need to realize (as many do) that to release a film into
the home video pipeline is to lose some degree of control over it.
Television *will* edit for content and insert commercials. Home
viewers *will* watch their favorite parts over and over and ignore the
parts that bore them. And for a long time yet to come, the vast
majority of home viewers will see nothing but fullscreen version of
films, either on tape or on TV. They can either plan for that (by
shooting open-matte and supervising their own fullscreen transfers) or
just turn their backs on the video versions as being beyond
redemption.
Either way, they recognize that what's released into the home market
is no longer a film. It's a video.
>BUT... As long as I get to watch a film properly letterboxed, I don't
>necessarily have a problem if the DVD also has an additional pan & scan
>version. But I would hope that such a version would eventually be phased
>out as people become more used to widescreen images. And if you like to
>check out the pan & scan versions of 'scope movies to look at certain
>details in art direction or something, as an academic exercise, that's
>understandable. I've certainly watched many scenes in slow-motion, which
>certainly is case of no longer "watching" the movie correctly, but instead
>studying elements of its construction.
Well, see, then we agree after all.
There can be a variety of reasons why a viewer might want to look at a
fullscreen transfer. Some of them might be "bad" reasons from our,
uhm, enlightened perspectives, and some might be "good" reasons (as
long as they're *our* reasons). But there's no review board to pass
judgement and grant us the magic key.
You try your best to educate and enlighten. Then you have to let go
and let people make their own choices. Trying to force the choice you
believe in by eliminating all the others will backfire.
Richard C.
The subject (truncated) says it all....
"All Good Movies Widescreen Only.........."
True.......
--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
Norman Wilner wrote in message <368dc...@nemo.idirect.com>...
Remy
Darren Garrison wrote in message
<3696e32c...@news.greenville.infi.net>...
>On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 21:38:43 -0500, "Wayne Bundrick"
><nospam...@hom.net> wrote:
>
>>Jim Busard wrote in message <368BEE04...@freeway.net>...
>>> Why are all the Top new DVD releases in WIDESCREEN only? 99% of
>>>TV's are 4:3, VHS new release is 4:3. The "SPECIAL EDITIONS" are
>>>WIDESCREEN ONLY yet the Non Special editions contain both formats. I
>>>hate wasting 1/4 of my 50 inch screen.
>>
>>
>>You have a 50 inch TV? Speaking on behalf of the many of us with 32 inch
>>and 27 inch televisions, SHUT UP.
>
>I always (well, always when it is available) watch widescreen on my 27
>inch TV, and would not want it any other way. But I do still buy pan
>and scan (and VHS) of a movie if I like the movie and it is the only
>format available.
And that's the problem, P&S should *never* be the only version available. I
have no problem offering it as an option, but I would consider it secondary
to releasing the movie in it's original aspect ratio.
--
Jeremy Mathewson "Remy"
jer...@ici.net
"Never underestimate the power of the Schwartz!"
-Yogurt, the Wise
Remy
the "flip side", as long as I get my widescreen version too. But if there's
only room for one version, it should be anamorphic widescreen.
--
Jeremy Mathewson "Remy"
jer...@ici.net
"Never underestimate the power of the Schwartz!"
-Yogurt, the Wise
Bruce Markowitz wrote in message <76hbi0$d...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>I agree!
>I have no objectoin to WS being on the flip side, but I prefer Full
>Screen!
>Especially on the smallish laptop screen, which is where a lot of
>DVD's go today!
>
>Jim Busard <jb...@freeway.net> wrote:
>
>> Why are all the Top new DVD releases in WIDESCREEN only? 99% of
>>TV's are 4:3, VHS new release is 4:3. The "SPECIAL EDITIONS" are
>>WIDESCREEN ONLY yet the Non Special editions contain both formats. I
>>hate wasting 1/4 of my 50 inch screen.
>>Hey movie companies, how about letting the consumer choose which format
>>we want to view!!!!
>
>
>
>To Reply:
> (sco...@worldnet.att.net) or:
>tren...@aol.com
>
Remy
>
>Evelyn Tremble wrote in message <368BFFFD...@royale.net>...
>>
>>Not really the whole picture. Most of the whole composition,
>>but at half the size, detail, and sharpness. Letterboxed
>>movies should include the same "This film has been altered
>>from it's orignial version" notice that P&S movies do.
>>
>>Happy to step on the inflated egos of all you "videophiles"
>>out there.
>
>
If you want to get technical about it, *any* movie viewed at home has been
"altered from it's original version", in that it is no longer on a film
strip being projected onto a 40' screen. But at least the composition and
artistic content is intact in a widescreen version. As far as the size of
the picture, it's all relative to the size of your TV. On a bigger TV, the
smaller sized image in a letterboxed movie is still a fairly decent size.
Remy
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote in message <76jnqd$f4o$1...@news2.xs4all.nl>...
Fine for you, but many of us want to see the entire picture regardless of
whether you think anything important is going on around the sides. I have no
problem with choices, but in a case where there's only room for *one*
version of the movie on the disc, I have to say that the widescreen version
should be the one that makes it. I should have just as much right to be able
to see movies the way *I* want (widescreen) as you do. And if you really
want a P&S version of the movie, you can always just rent it on VHS or wait
and tape it off cable. The point is that for many serious collectors, DVD is
the only way we can get some of our favorite films in widescreen format, as
many of them were never released that way on VHS. I suppose that studios
could always begin releasing two separate versions of the DVD for movies
that are two long to fit both on one disc. And once DVD-18 becomes more
feasible, the whole debate should be a moot point anyway (unless a
particular movie is more than, say, 4 1/2 hours long).
Rich Clark
[snip]
>The point is that for many serious collectors, DVD is
>the only way we can get some of our favorite films in widescreen format, as
>many of them were never released that way on VHS.
[snip]
Where were you guys all those years we were trying to push Laserdisc?
I mean, really, for many serious collectors, Laserdisc was the way we
were able to acquire our favorite films in widescreen format since the
80's.
All of this sudden widescreen-worship is kind of amusing. You could
have had it all along. Laserdisc players cost no more than DVD
players, and Laserdisc rentals were once quite common.
I think DVD is great, and I was ready to move on to it, but let's not
forget that DVD exists at least in part because Laserdisc laid the
groundwork. It established the market for widescreen home video. It
demonstrated that people will pay for quality. It was the platform
where Dolby Digital was introduced and perfected.
And you'll find this widescreen vs P&S debate going back to the
beginnings of Usenet in a.v.l.
So how about a little respect for your elders, you young
whippersnappers! <g>
RichC [re-inserting teeth, donning bifocals, going off in search of
cane]
Remy
Rich Clark wrote in message <368fa733....@news.erols.com>...
>On Sat, 2 Jan 1999 23:07:30 -0500, "Remy" <jer...@ici.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>The point is that for many serious collectors, DVD is
>>the only way we can get some of our favorite films in widescreen format,
as
>>many of them were never released that way on VHS.
>
>[snip]
>
>Where were you guys all those years we were trying to push Laserdisc?
>I mean, really, for many serious collectors, Laserdisc was the way we
>were able to acquire our favorite films in widescreen format since the
>80's.
>
Laserdisc was not an option for many of us. The movies were far too
expensive for someone with a small income to afford. Besides, LD had several
other drawbacks; the discs were large and unweildy, you had to flip the disc
halfway through, and sometimes had to change discs altogether during a
movie.
>All of this sudden widescreen-worship is kind of amusing. You could
>have had it all along. Laserdisc players cost no more than DVD
>players, and Laserdisc rentals were once quite common.
>
Unless I'm *very* misinformed, it took many years for LD players to come
down to the price range that DVD players were introduced at. Besides, the
price of the players was never really the issue, the price of the software
*was*. Perhaps LD rentals were common where you live, but in my area
(Southeastern New England) LDs were not particularly common. I'm sure they
were around, but not exactly easy to find, as opposed to DVD which is
beggining to pop up all over the place.
>I think DVD is great, and I was ready to move on to it, but let's not
>forget that DVD exists at least in part because Laserdisc laid the
>groundwork. It established the market for widescreen home video. It
>demonstrated that people will pay for quality. It was the platform
>where Dolby Digital was introduced and perfected.
>
>And you'll find this widescreen vs P&S debate going back to the
>beginnings of Usenet in a.v.l.
>
>So how about a little respect for your elders, you young
>whippersnappers! <g>
>
I never mentioned any disrespect for Laserdisc, as I'm sure it *did* pave
the way for future optical storage formats. That had nothing to do with my
argument. I'm just sick of hearing people whine about letterboxing
(especially seeing how it's always the guy with the *huge* projection TV who
seems to make the most noise complaining. I can see your point if you have a
13" TV, but someone with a 60" bigscreen has no room to complain). I really
don't care if there is a P&S version released or not, it makes no difference
to me *so long* as there's always a widescreen version available as well.
Darren Garrison
wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Jan 1999 23:07:30 -0500, "Remy" <jer...@ici.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>The point is that for many serious collectors, DVD is
>>the only way we can get some of our favorite films in widescreen format, as
>>many of them were never released that way on VHS.
>
>[snip]
>
>Where were you guys all those years we were trying to push Laserdisc?
>I mean, really, for many serious collectors, Laserdisc was the way we
>were able to acquire our favorite films in widescreen format since the
>80's.
During the 1980's, I was in Middle and High school. But even if I
were not, I would NOT have been interested in paying high prices for
large, clunky disks that require the movie to be spread across several
disks. I prefer DVD over VHS, but VHS over LD.
Alen Koebel
for "letterbox" and "anamorphic" versions of a movie on the same DVD in their
so-called reviews? The reviewers are perhaps unaware that the letterbox image
is just a downconverted version of the anamorphic image (which would imply an
astounding lack of knowledge on their part) and/or are unaware that the display
device they are using is not accurately set up. Either way, they are reporting
inaccurate information. Considering all the other inaccurate information WR has
published over the years (in which I include almost everything written by R.
Michael Hayes), I would not rely on them too much.
PS. Just in case it isn't obvious, a letterbox image - in this context meaning
a downconverted widescreen image on a 4:3 display - can't have an aspect ratio
that is different from the anamorphic image it is derived from viewed on a
16:9 display. That is because the downconversion process reduces the vertical
size of the image, in scan lines, by 3/4, compensating exactly for the
difference in aspect ratio between a 16:9 display and a 4:3 display. If
different aspect ratios for the widescreen image _are_ measured, it means the
display is not properly calibrated.)
Richard C. wrote:
>
> This is just not true...
> Widescreen Review maintains a HUGE list of Widescreen movies with theatrical
> aspect and released aspect....they are MOSTLY the same....
> They measure the picture electronically...they do not take the packages word
> for it...
>
> --
> Richard
> Post-Age Collectibles
> http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
> Evelyn Tremble wrote in message <368D3D50...@royale.net>...
> >Dick T wrote:
> >>
> >> Evelyn still wouldn't shut up because a 2.35:1 movie still doesn't fill
> up a
> >> 16:9 screen and she would still complain about the black bars even though
> >> they were relatively small.
> >> Dick T
> >
> >
> >Actually, many 2.35:1 and wider movies are transfered to
> >video in a 2:1 ratio, so you are still missing part of the
> >original picture. Live and learn.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alen Koebel Video and Display Engineering Electrohome Ltd
ako...@electro.com www.electrohome.com (519) 744-7111
Iljitsch van Beijnum
: Fine for you, but many of us want to see the entire picture regardless of
: whether you think anything important is going on around the sides.
That is fine for *you* but I don't feel like straining my eyes trying to
figure out the expression on an actor's face while 43% of the picture is
taken up by black lines and most of the rest by uninteresting scenery.
: I have no problem with choices,
I do, when other people are trying to make them for me.
: but in a case where there's only room for *one*
: version of the movie on the disc, I have to say that the widescreen version
: should be the one that makes it.
Only if it's 16:9 anamorphic. But that doesn't get rid of the problem,
because so many movies are shot in 2.35:1.
Richard C.
CUT OUT of the picture!
--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote in message <76t4hr$dmd$1...@news2.xs4all.nl>...
Jesse Skeen
: Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote in message <76t4hr$dmd$1...@news2.xs4all.nl>...
: >That is fine for *you* but I don't feel like straining my eyes trying to
: >figure out the expression on an actor's face while 43% of the picture is
: >taken up by black lines and most of the rest by uninteresting scenery.
Wow, what an eye for visuals! Why don't you become a director so you can
make movies without all that uninteresting scenery, and shoot them in 4x3
so they can fill TV screens all the time. You may have a problem getting
them shown in theaters the right way though....
ben....@raleigh.hcl.com
> And that's the problem, P&S should *never* be the only version available. I
> have no problem offering it as an option, but I would consider it secondary
> to releasing the movie in it's original aspect ratio.
According to the FAQ. Widescreen in not nessisarily the original aspect
ratio. From what I understand, the original film is often shot in the aspect
ratio more suited for 4:3 and cropped at the top and bottom for the wider
screens in the movie theater. That is not nessisarily the case for all
movies. But, according to the DVD FAQ, that is the case for most of them.
Some movies, however, are shot for widescreen. Those are the movies that use
the anamorphic process and widescreen process. Thus, it seems to me that
quite a few of the widescreen releases are just cropped at the top and bottom
like they were for the movie. Therefore, alot of widescreen titles are
actually showing less than the original source. I would much rather have the
whole picture.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
David Mullen
use
>the anamorphic process and widescreen process. Thus, it seems to me that
>quite a few of the widescreen releases are just cropped at the top and
bottom
>like they were for the movie. Therefore, alot of widescreen titles are
>actually showing less than the original source. I would much rather have
the
>whole picture.
Your mainly talking about the 1.85 aspect ratio, which is achieved
theatrically by the projector cropping the 35mm frame. The film itself is
usually shot open-matted or full-frame (although sometimes a hard matte is
used masking the negative to the theatrical ratio) - BUT here's the part
you're forgetting: the film was COMPOSED by the filmmakers for the
theatrical ratio. For them, that's the "whole" picture - everything of
importance is there. What's outside the theatrical ratio is not
dramatically important because if it WERE it would have been included IN the
theatrical ratio. So the full-frame image just contains dead air more or
less - and occasionally contains unwanted objects like mics or dolly tracks.
I was watching the old unletterboxed laserdisc of "Bound For Glory" and in
several interior scenes, you can see the lighting unit hanging at the top of
the frame (a softbox with black curtain material draped around it.)
So there really isn't much value in getting the "whole picture" beyond it
being more square in shape than the theatrical image and having extraneous
picture information that what wasn't intended to be seen. On the other
hand, it's usually not a tragedy to be watching a full-frame transfer of a
1.85 film - the average person would just feel that I am nit-picking. (But
a pan & scan transfer of a 2.35 anamorphic film IS a travesty in my
opinion.)
David Mullen
Steve Martin
>According to the FAQ. Widescreen in not nessisarily the original aspect
>ratio. From what I understand, the original film is often shot in the aspect
>ratio more suited for 4:3 and cropped at the top and bottom for the wider
>screens in the movie theater. That is not nessisarily the case for all
>movies. But, according to the DVD FAQ, that is the case for most of them.
There is a difference between what is shot/exposed on the film and what
the director and cinematographer compose for. I guarantee you that most
of them are composing the image for how it will look in movie theater
first, and 4:3 video second (if at all). Of course, for films created
before home video became popular, there is little question.
Of course there are no absolutes, there are surely film creators out there
that only care about one or the other or try to accomodate both.
Dragun32
besides him, you lose the spatial relationship of the movie. I find it
terrible to watch an open matte movie. I always find myself finding where the
original cinematography was.
Remove 'KILLSPAM' to reply.
Newspaper Headline: "Kids make nutritious snacks."
y2...@cci2.com
many movies are P&S only and they don't fill your screen!
Iljitsch van Beijnum
: So there really isn't much value in getting the "whole picture" beyond it
: being more square in shape than the theatrical image and having extraneous
: picture information that what wasn't intended to be seen. On the other
: hand, it's usually not a tragedy to be watching a full-frame transfer of a
: 1.85 film - the average person would just feel that I am nit-picking.
Well a lot of people just hate the black bars. It shouldn't be hard to
generate a suitable matte inside a DVD player or a TV though. Maybe it can
even be done with one of the subtitle tracks.
And for people that have a 16x9 set there is no difference at all: you can
just zoom in and the extra parts won't show.
Charles Tomaras
when they zoom as opposed to using the "full" mode on an anamorphic disc.
ZOOMING SUCKS!
Charles Tomaras
tom...@tomaras.com
Seattle, WA USA
Iljitsch van Beijnum <ilji...@xs2.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:777i87$cnj$2...@news2.xs4all.nl...
Iljitsch van Beijnum
: NOT TRUE: The people with 16x9 sets loose about 1/3rd of thier resolution
: when they zoom as opposed to using the "full" mode on an anamorphic disc.
That was not the point.