Harry Potter DVD: Widescreen vs. Fullframe
Larry G
Potter widescreen version and the fullframe version. As you will see in
that page, important information is actually lost in the widescreen version
as Harry Potter was filmed in Super 35. Some scenes are better in
fullframe, others in widescreen. Here's the page.
http://plum.cream.org/HP/dvd.htm
I much prefer widescreen to fullframe. I accidently bought the fullframe
version as it wasn't marked clearly. But, I can't say that I'm not pleased.
I plan to buy the widescreen version soon, as some information is indeed
missing from the fullframe. Nevertheless, the same is also true for the
widescreen version. Some people were saying that it even appears Columbus
framed some scenes for 4:3 and not for the 2.35:1 version.
Again, I prefer widescreen to fullframe. I try to buy all movies that way
if possible. I would like to know people's opens on Super 35 movies though,
or open matted movies shot 4:3 and then matted for 1.85:1 or 2.35:1? Does
the missing information in *these* specific cases bother you. The only
thing that bothers me about Super 35 is that it is robbing the consumer of
the advantage of *real* widescreen movies actually shot in 2.35:1 or 1.85:1.
There is no comparison that widescreen is much superior in a film like "My
Fair Lady" for example. So much information is missing in the P&S version,
it is disconcerting.
Again, I much prefer widescreen. Just wondering what everyone's comments
are on Super 35/Open Matte in the widescreen arena. I wish they'd actually
film in real 2.35:1, sigh. A friend of mine told me that she thought you
could see more information in the 4:3 P&S version of "Titanic" than on the
widescreen. I thought she was mistaken, but now that I know it was shot in
Super 35, I'm not so sure. I'm not at all unhappy with the widescreen
version, don't get me wrong, just wondering about everyone's thoughts on the
technology.
Larry
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
>Again, I prefer widescreen to fullframe. I try to buy all movies that way
>if possible. I would like to know people's opens on Super 35 movies though,
>or open matted movies shot 4:3 and then matted for 1.85:1 or 2.35:1? Does
>the missing information in *these* specific cases bother you.
Yes. It's not a matter of more or less picture, it's seeing the image
as it was composed.
Aaron B.
--
"There is more than one way to burn a book.
And the world is full of people running about
with lit matches."
-Ray Bradbury
JoeS
>
> Recently, someone put up a webpage that showed the difference between Harry
> Potter widescreen version and the fullframe version. As you will see in
> that page, important information is actually lost in the widescreen version
> as Harry Potter was filmed in Super 35.
Hmmm...where would that "important information" be? I didn't
find one picture that was better in full frame, and all but
a couple are clearly better in widescreen. Which do you
think are better?
> Some people were saying that it even appears Columbus
> framed some scenes for 4:3 and not for the 2.35:1 version.
That would not be the case.
The biggest concern for you should be...Full Frame versions
are, by definition, not "enhanced for widescreen TVs", so
you will not get the improved resolution (and the OAR!) with
the full frame version when you get a widescreen TV (or 4:3
TV that can process an anamorphic DVD).
Joe
Double Doom
"Larry G" <thela...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ade49l$10hv6s$1...@ID-37509.news.dfncis.de...
> Recently, someone put up a webpage that showed the difference between
Harry
> Potter widescreen version and the fullframe version. As you will see in
> that page, important information is actually lost in the widescreen
version
> as Harry Potter was filmed in Super 35.
It's not a case of information lost.
No information is lost on the widescreen version. This was how it was
meant to be seen. However, the 4:3 version has additional viewing area.
This can be a bad thing as items that were not meant to be in shot may now
slip in, and often do.
Microphones, scenery that has not been set up for that height. Wrong pair
of shoes on the actor. One I often see referred to is "a fish called
wanda". In a scene where john cleese is meant to be naked, the widescreen
version gives that impression. The 4:3 version is opened up and you can see
his boxer shorts and as you know he isn't naked it takes the whole joke away
from the scene.
U571 was opened up from 2.35:1 to 16:9 for the UK R2 release. I didn't buy
this and I don't know if that had any errors in it but that is the next
thing to hit the US once widescreen sets become more popular.
David
Richard
and may of the extras are not in the wide format. On my set it takes several
steps to get the raster set and then the full screen formatted parts look
wrong. If you are going to provide a wide format do it right!
Richard.
"Double Doom" <djd....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:102305736...@doris.uk.clara.net...
Larry G
> The dumb thing about this and other wide formatted DVD's is that the intro
> and may of the extras are not in the wide format. On my set it takes
several
> steps to get the raster set and then the full screen formatted parts look
> wrong. If you are going to provide a wide format do it right!
Yeah I know what you're talking about. It was that way on my old PC DVD
player. The new one, the menus are done correctly. Don't know what would
happen on a home player. On the Harry Potter DVD, the extras were in
widescreen (deleted scenes). I thought they were more asthetically pleasing
to the eye, which is why I wished I'd bought the widescreen version as I'd
intended in the first place. Nevertheless, in the case of Potter, I'm not
displeased that I have the fullframe as certain scenes contain more
information this way. For example, Harry's Hogwart's letter. It is up to
each person to decide if this extra top and bottom information is essential
or not, however. I think it's kinda cool to see both versions, just thought
I'd add this situation to the debate. I'm generally in favor of widescreen,
but noticed this situation with the Potter film. I don't have a widescreen
TV, so who knows how I'd react. However, there will always be black bars
somewhere to contend with. In the future, there will be a new pan & scan to
contend with. Chopping bits off the top and bottom. A friend of mine in
The Netherlands, who has seen widescreen this way, says this practice is
quite annoying. And, yes I understand that widescreen allows you to see
either more of the picture, or generally the film the way the director
intended.
Larry
Papa Lazarou
> `
> No information is lost on the widescreen version. This was how it was
> meant to be seen.
This is how its meant to be seen at the cinema and for ppl who want
to see it in widescreen. Information *IS* lost at the top and bottom. How
can
you say otherwise ? Look at the comparisons.. BOTH the widescreen and
full frame are PAN N SCAN. The widescreen pans up and down, the full
pans left and right.
Hey i'm all for watching movies in widescreen, if that's how they
are meant to be seen by the director. In this case it doesn't matter
as BOTH versions are valid. The 1.78:1 version which will most
likely never see the light of day is the REAL version.
Paul Poroshin
> version as it wasn't marked clearly. But, I can't say that I'm not
pleased.
> I plan to buy the widescreen version soon, as some information is indeed
> missing from the fullframe. Nevertheless, the same is also true for the
> widescreen version. Some people were saying that it even appears Columbus
> framed some scenes for 4:3 and not for the 2.35:1 version.
The 1.33 version will not look as good as the 2.35 version on your HD set.
Raider
widescreen version! I thought that would never happen, basically all movies
shot in Super 35 up till now had the special effects in 2.35:1.They had to
be pan&scanned for the fullframe version, losing 43% of the picture. No
wonder critics said Harry Potter was poorly composed for the widescreen
frame. Take a look at the Good, the Bad and the Ugly the next time your team
makes a movie, Chris Columbus! Ah, but I forget that HP is a cash cow for
WB, so they have to please everybody.
JoeS
Care to take another run at that one? Doesn't seem to make
sense the way it's written here.
Joe
Papa Lazarou
agreed.
Matthew L. Martin
> "Richard" <feir...@empireone.net> wrote in message news:adAK8.19410...
>
>>The dumb thing about this and other wide formatted DVD's is that the intro
>>and may of the extras are not in the wide format. On my set it takes
>>
> several
>
>>steps to get the raster set and then the full screen formatted parts look
>>wrong. If you are going to provide a wide format do it right!
>>
>
> Yeah I know what you're talking about. It was that way on my old PC DVD
> player. The new one, the menus are done correctly. Don't know what would
> happen on a home player. On the Harry Potter DVD, the extras were in
> widescreen (deleted scenes).
But are they enhanced for 16:9 displays? As Richard says, it's a pain to
have to pull out the remote to change display modes. If they are going
to 16:9 enhance the movie, then they should do the same for the menus
and extras. It may save a few dollars to do only one transfer of the
extras and a single menus system, but it is an annoyance.
Matthew
--
"... Mr. (Gregory) LaCava, a producer-director who could be called a
genius except for the fact that Orson Welles has debased the term ...",
H. Allen Smith, "Lost in the Horse Latitudes"
Copy username over me to respond.
Bernie Sykes
to the right than you can on widescreen. The letter. You can see more of the
letter than you can on Widescreen. But being the widescreen advocate that I
am. I absolutely loathe the fact that I would actually consider buying
fullframe along with the widescreen which I already have
"JoeS" <me....@gte.net> wrote in message news:3CFA9CE6...@gte.net...
JoeS
>
> The Flight scene with the seekers next to each other..You can see much more
> to the right than you can on widescreen.
Huh? Are you saying the sample photos at the link are not
representative of the P&S version? The widescreen has more
on both the right and the left, by nature. There couldn't be
anything on the sides of the P&S that isn't on the
widescreen. Take another look.
> The letter. You can see more of the letter than you can on Widescreen.
But...do you think this makes it better or that the extra
part of the letter is "important"? There is nothing of
significance in those areas, and I don't believe it's on the
screen long enough to even read all the words.
> But being the widescreen advocate that I
> am. I absolutely loathe the fact that I would actually consider buying
> fullframe along with the widescreen which I already have
I'm curious why you would consider it?
Joe
Vincent Pereira
> Those idiots actually pan&scanned their own special effects from the
> widescreen version! I thought that would never happen, basically all movies
> shot in Super 35 up till now had the special effects in 2.35:1.
DOGMA didn't. All the digital effects shots in DOGMA were rendered in
full-frame Super-35 and thus are not panned-and-scanned in the full-frame video.
--
VINCENT PEREIRA
http://www.viewaskew.com/vincent/
writer/director/editor: A BETTER PLACE
ABP official website: http://viewaskew.com/A_Better_Place/
A BETTER PLACE trailer: http://viewaskew.com/A_Better_Place/download.html
Doonie
link...@SpammersWillBeExecuted.ptd.net wrote:
>Larry G wrote:
>>Again, I prefer widescreen to fullframe. I try to buy all movies that way
>>if possible. I would like to know people's opens on Super 35 movies though,
>>or open matted movies shot 4:3 and then matted for 1.85:1 or 2.35:1? Does
>>the missing information in *these* specific cases bother you.
>
>Yes. It's not a matter of more or less picture, it's seeing the image
>as it was composed.
>
>Aaron B.
A lot of those 4:3 images look composed with the 4:3 frame in mind.
Super35 must die.
JoeS
Care to explain which ones and why they are obviously (to
you) not simply a by-product?
Joe
Tim
the actors gets their head nearly cut off in the widescreen version.
As a whole Widescreen is definitely better than fullframe but it is not
perfect. They should come out with a Widescreen format that has more vertical
information were we don't loose either the horizontal nor the vertical detail
the director intended us to see.
Richard C.
"Tim" <t...@tim.tim> wrote in message news:3CFE4AF0...@tim.tim...
: Widescreen and fullframe Willy Wonka has the same problems. In one scene one of
: the actors gets their head nearly cut off in the widescreen version.
:
: As a whole Widescreen is definitely better than fullframe but it is not
: perfect. They should come out with a Widescreen format that has more vertical
: information were we don't loose either the horizontal nor the vertical detail
: the director intended us to see.
==========================
Widescreen already presents all the information that the director intended you to see.
JoeS
>
> Widescreen and fullframe Willy Wonka has the same problems. In one scene one of
> the actors gets their head nearly cut off in the widescreen version.
>
> As a whole Widescreen is definitely better than fullframe but it is not
> perfect. They should come out with a Widescreen format that has more vertical
> information were we don't loose either the horizontal nor the vertical detail
> the director intended us to see.
Based on your comments, I suggest further education in the film arts.
Here's a fun one:
http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/film.html#super35
And:
I'm curious about the thoughts behind your final sentence. You are describing
DVDs that are "enhanced for widescreen TVs", but I don't think that's what you
mean.
Joe
Larry G
> Widescreen already presents all the information that the director intended
you to see.
First off let me say I love widescreen. I'm one of the ones that e-mailed
Disney about the release of "Muppet Christmas Carol" and asked for a
widescreen release. And, one fervent in believing that DVDs should always
be widescreen dominant. And very much appreciating the OAR theatrical
release of films.
But, it's really hard to say what the director intended since the advent of
television. Sometimes I think a compromise is involved. Isn't Stanley
Kubrick on record as saying he actually prefered full-frame 1.33:1 to
widescreen? I think he's nuts, but isn't this true?
I think it's possible that sometimes a director will frame scenes knowing in
advance about the upcoming television or home video/DVD release. In the
case of Harry Potter and Willy Wonka in *some* scenes, I think important
information is missing from the widescreen, the same can be said for the
fullframe as well.
I think with the technology available today, there's no reason dual
widescreen/fullframe version of film can't be made, especially considering
they only cost a few cents each to mass produce. Yes I'm aware much more
goes into the making of the product itself.
Just because a few of us acknowledge the benefits of fullframe in *Super 35*
and *Open matte* films where information is missing (as information is
missing on Pan & Scan regularly filmed widescreen) doesn't mean we don't
both appreciate and prefer widescreen over the fullframe. We just
acknowledge there are benefits to both. I'm for seeing the *whole* picture
or having a choice, regardless.
Larry
JoeS
>
> "Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote in message ...
>
> > Widescreen already presents all the information that the director intended
> you to see.
>
> First off let me say I love widescreen. I'm one of the ones that e-mailed
> Disney about the release of "Muppet Christmas Carol" and asked for a
> widescreen release. And, one fervent in believing that DVDs should always
> be widescreen dominant. And very much appreciating the OAR theatrical
> release of films.
>
> But, it's really hard to say what the director intended since the advent of
> television. Sometimes I think a compromise is involved. Isn't Stanley
> Kubrick on record as saying he actually prefered full-frame 1.33:1 to
> widescreen? I think he's nuts, but isn't this true?
One thing accomplished by Kubrick's approach is that there is no Pan&Scan
required to fill a 4:3 screen. "The Devil You Know", so to speak. I wonder
whether these decisions will be overridden once widescreen sets become
ubiquitous.
> I think it's possible that sometimes a director will frame scenes knowing in
> advance about the upcoming television or home video/DVD release. In the
> case of Harry Potter and Willy Wonka in *some* scenes, I think important
> information is missing from the widescreen, the same can be said for the
> fullframe as well.
If it isn't in the widescreen, it just wasn't important to the director and/or
DP. Period.
> I think with the technology available today, there's no reason dual
> widescreen/fullframe version of film can't be made, especially considering
> they only cost a few cents each to mass produce.
No, it doesn't cost a few cents to mass produce a DVD. That said, I have no
problem if they market separate releases, so long as they are clearly marked.
> Just because a few of us acknowledge the benefits of fullframe in *Super 35*
> and *Open matte* films where information is missing (as information is
> missing on Pan & Scan regularly filmed widescreen) doesn't mean we don't
> both appreciate and prefer widescreen over the fullframe. We just
> acknowledge there are benefits to both. I'm for seeing the *whole* picture
> or having a choice, regardless.
The first thing to understand is that there is, by definition, no important
picture information in an open matte release that is not in the widescreen
(assuming the widescreen has been processed properly). If you think there is,
you would do yourself a service to figure out how that could possibly be so.
Joe
Richard C.
"JoeS" <me....@gte.net> wrote in message news:3CFFFECB...@gte.net...
:
: One thing accomplished by Kubrick's approach is that there is no Pan&Scan
: required to fill a 4:3 screen. "The Devil You Know", so to speak. I wonder
: whether these decisions will be overridden once widescreen sets become
: ubiquitous.
Eyes Wide Shut does not look right at all on my 16:9 screen.
David Mullen
in
>advance about the upcoming television or home video/DVD release. In the
>case of Harry Potter and Willy Wonka in *some* scenes, I think important
>information is missing from the widescreen, the same can be said for the
>fullframe as well.
If you're going to frame something to be cropped to widescreen, you wouldn't
then occasionally frame something NOT meant to be cropped to widescreen,
would you? That's why you have these cropping frameline marks in the
viewfinder.
The general rule for matted widescreen formats like 1.85 is that if you
frame anything important in the cropped theatrical area, it will obviously
also appear when seen uncropped in a full-frame transfer, so why frame
something important OUTSIDE of the theatrical area but inside the TV area?
If you put it into the theatrical area, it would also be seen in the
full-frame area anyway.
So generally, anything important to the meaning of a scene is framed within
the theatrical projection area if the film is being shot for theatrical
distribution, and the area outside of the theatrical area only seen on
full-frame TV will just contain excess picture information not critical to
the story. Even in the case of Kubrick, who preferred the full-frame
versions of his films on TV, he obviously did not frame them for full-frame
TV presentation -- you'll often note how low the headroom is in every
medium-to-close shot, composed with theatrical matting in mind. He wouldn't
have framed a shot in a way that only worked on TV but looked wrong in the
movie theaters.
Of course, you can find exceptions -- but exceptions do not really prove
anything.
What always bugs me the most is when people see the tops of heads cut off by
the theatrical matting and think this proves that the image was meant to be
seen full-frame, as if it weren't possible for an operator to intentionally
crop the tops of actors heads (which is quite common in 1.85 once you go in
for a tight close-up, since the compositional rule is to keep the chin in
the frame at the expense of the top of the head if necessary, because
audiences find a cropped chin more distracting than a chopped forehead. The
other rule is that the eyes should be 2/3's up from the bottom. Keeping the
top of the head in is lower on the list of guidelines.)
As someone who has operated and photographed about twenty features, I can
tell you that it is unlikely that in the middle of shooting scenes for
"Harry Potter" using the 2.35 framelines in the Super-35 camera's
viewfinder, the director and the DP would stop & say "let's compose the next
set-up for full-frame TV and screw the theatrical version!" If something in
the scene was important to the story, it would get framed into the
theatrical area -- no one would say "oh well, it didn't get into the
theatrical frame, but don't worry, the shot will make sense when it comes
out on home video a year after the theatrical release."
The few exceptions are things like fast action movies, where there is less
control over the framing in a big, multi-camera action set-up, so sometimes
interesting stuff might be going on out to the edges of the frame, past the
theatrical area. But even in those cases, an editor would chose a shot
based on whether it worked for the theatrical cut, if he was cutting a film
intended for theatrical release. He would even go so far to have a shot
optically or digitally reframed to move an important element back into the
theatrical area.
The general rule for shooting matted widescreen movies with an open matte
camera aperture is: COMPOSE FOR THEATRICAL, PROTECT FOR TV. Meaning exactly
what it says - you compose the shot artistically for the matted area,
placing important elements within that frame, and you protect as much as
possible & practical at the time, any extraneous film equipment from getting
into the full-frame area. The problem is when some viewers prefer the look
of the seeing the looser area outside of theatrical, even though that was
not the primary compositional area of the filmmakers. It's even worse with
Super-35, where the amount of cropping to widescreen is so severe that
people who get bugged by it start to find reasons to like the full-frame
transfer, despite the fact that the image was not really composed for that.
David Mullen
jayembee
> What always bugs me the most is when people see the tops
> of heads cut off by the theatrical matting and think this
> proves that the image was meant to be seen full-frame,
> as if it weren't possible for an operator to intentionally
> crop the tops of actors heads [...]
I've seen people bitch about this with scope films as well,
under the erroneous belief that the black bars are mattes.
There was one time when I got into an argument with someone
who pointed out a specific scene in BLADE RUNNER (on the
Criterion LD) in which Deckard's head was "cut off" by the
black bar.
We did a comparison of the scene against a fullscreen tape.
He was shocked to see that Deckard's head was equally "cut
off" on the fullscreen image.
The problem is that when a head is "cut off" by the top of
the TV screen, the viewer's mind is fooled into thinking
there isn't a problem, because it's conditioned not to
think that there's anything above that demark point. But
to the same person, a black bar on the screen is an
"artificial" demark, and therefore the brain is convinced
that there's something behind the bar that it isn't being
allowed to see.
-- jayembee
Tim
Widescreen was 1280 x 800 pixels of data then improved Widescreen would have 1280 x
1024 pixels of data. You still get the same 1280 pixels of horizontal data per line
but you also get an additional 224 pixel lines of vertical information.
In the case of the Fifth Element shots from your link vertical information is clearly
lost in the Widescreen version and horizontal information is lost in the Fullscreen
version. Since you can see the additional vertical data in the full screen version
then it was important enough to the director to be included. So why not come out with
DVDs using all of the "originally filmed frame" frames that include all the stuff the
director wanted filmed?
And to be on the safe side: I do not mind the black bars when watching widescreen
DVDs or TV shows.
JoeS
>
> I know squat about video aspect ratio values but what I am suggesting is if normal
> Widescreen was 1280 x 800 pixels of data then improved Widescreen would have 1280 x
> 1024 pixels of data. You still get the same 1280 pixels of horizontal data per line
> but you also get an additional 224 pixel lines of vertical information.
Here's where I thought you were talking about "anamorphic" or "enhanced for 16:9
TVs" for improved resolution on widescreen (and capable 4:3) TVs. The picture is
"stretched" on the DVD and then compensated for in the TV to correct the aspect
ratio and make a higher-resolution picture.
> In the case of the Fifth Element shots from your link vertical information is clearly
> lost in the Widescreen version and horizontal information is lost in the Fullscreen
> version. Since you can see the additional vertical data in the full screen version
> then it was important enough to the director to be included. So why not come out with
> DVDs using all of the "originally filmed frame" frames that include all the stuff the
> director wanted filmed?
But wait, as I thought, you aren't talking about enhanced DVDs. You are talking
about providing "open matte" transfers. What you need to know is that the
'extra' stuff on the top and bottom is deemed 'unimportant' as it was not shown
at theaters. That's the chaff, the excess, the throwaway part.
Since you do not mind the black bars, it only remains for you to realize that
the excess area is, indeed, not important picture area. It is not lost. It is
not of value. It is not something to wish to have on your screen. In addition,
including that picture area would preclude the possiblity of an "enhanced" DVD
as described above.
Joe
David Mullen
>then it was important enough to the director to be included.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is, but in the case of the excess
picture information that appears outside of the theatrical framing, it's not
so much a question of "if it got exposed on the film, it must have been
important to the director" but that the extra picture information is the
BYPRODUCT of a film format that relies on intentional cropping to achieve
its final widescreen results.
If information is important to a theatrical movie, it gets framed in the
theatrical area. If it appears outside of the theatrical area, it must not
have been important almost by definition -- it is simply extraneous picture
information that naturally occurs in any format that uses cropping to
achieve its end product. Though extraneous, it can be USEFUL picture
information in that it allows less panning & scanning to be used in a
full-frame video transfer, but that doesn't it make it important information
to the film itself otherwise it would have been framed into the theatrical
area. That's sort of basic filmmaking, placing what's important inside the
frame! And with formats like standard 1.85 or Super-35, generally if you
get it in the theatrical frame, it will also appear in the taller unmatted
frame -- but the reverse is not true. So there are a lot of good reasons to
put what's important in the theatrical frame.
Directors use the Super-35 format mainly because it is easier to shoot with
than anamorphic lenses; while making an easier full-frame home video version
is also considered a benefit of Super-35 over anamorphic, it is rarely the
primary reason for choosing the format, especially now that widescreen
versions of the movie are available in DVD.
David Mullen
adam g
> I know squat about video aspect ratio values
Then go research and learn something about them before...
> In the case of the Fifth Element shots from your link vertical information
is clearly
> lost in the Widescreen version and horizontal information is lost in the
Fullscreen
> version. Since you can see the additional vertical data in the full
screen version
> then it was important enough to the director to be included.
...saying something as stupid as that. Or at least read the articless
accompanying the pictures.
>So why not come out with
> DVDs using all of the "originally filmed frame" frames that include all
the stuff the
> director wanted filmed?
Read the article. "In any case, the film will be composed for a 2.35:1
aspect ratio..." But you don't know what an aspect ratio is do you?
>
> And to be on the safe side: I do not mind the black bars when watching
widescreen
> DVDs or TV shows.
If I was Joe I'd be thinking about a barrage of flame at the moment. Go
read, then stop spouting bollocks.
A.
Tim
Thanks for the info.
Tim
Tim
No knowing about aspect ratios does not automatically invalidate my point.
I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. If the extra vertical
information in full screen was not important to the director then why is it
there in fullscreen releases anyway? If it was not important then why not matte
it out? If it was important enough for the director to make sure nothing wrong
was going on in that additional vertical area then why are you against seeing
it?
I don't know about you but I want to see as much screen information as possible
when watching a DVD. Even if this means not watching it as it was shown in
theaters.
JoeS
>
> Adam,
>
> No knowing about aspect ratios does not automatically invalidate my point.
>
> I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. If the extra vertical
> information in full screen was not important to the director then why is it
> there in fullscreen releases anyway? If it was not important then why not matte
> it out? If it was important enough for the director to make sure nothing wrong
> was going on in that additional vertical area then why are you against seeing
> it?
The extra picture information is there because the shape of the film frame does
not match the shape of a movie theater screen. Sometimes the unused area is
prevented from being exposed (hard matte on the camera), but not commonly.
The reason it is sometimes not matted out on home video is that there are people
who think that lighting up all the phosphors on their TV screen is some sort of
benefit to the movie. These people are mostly ignorant of the "art" of film and
have little appreciation for the fact that someone spent alot of time thinking
about exactly how they wanted people and objects to be arranged on the movie
screen. Open matte is somewhat better than Pan&Scan while still lighting up the
full screen, but it remains ignorant of the frame compositions.
> I don't know about you but I want to see as much screen information as possible
> when watching a DVD. Even if this means not watching it as it was shown in
> theaters.
Why do you want to see as much screen information as possible when watching a
DVD?
Joe
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
>Adam,
>
>No knowing about aspect ratios does not automatically invalidate my point.
>
>I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. If the extra vertical
>information in full screen was not important to the director then why is it
>there in fullscreen releases anyway?
Because fullscreen releases are generally not an attempt to present the
movie according to the director's intents.
>If it was not important then why not
> matte
>it out?
In a proper exhibition of the film, it most certainly should be.
> If it was important enough for the director to make sure nothing wrong
>was going on in that additional vertical area then why are you against seeing
>it?
Just because the area was protected does not mean it was "important".
More than likely, the film was under a contractual obligation to be
released in FS VHS, and for that transfer, the director wanted it to
look as good as it could within the limitations of an arbitrary and
undesired 4:3 version.
>I don't know about you
Apparenty not.
>but I want to see as much screen information as possible
>when watching a DVD. Even if this means not watching it as it was shown in
>theaters.
Well, then I guess you should just keep in mind that you've made "more
information" a priority over the movie itself.
Aaron B.
--
"There is more than one way to burn a book.
And the world is full of people running about
with lit matches."
-Ray Bradbury
Sammy
> In the case of the Fifth Element shots from your link vertical
> information is clearly lost in the Widescreen version and horizontal
> information is lost in the Fullscreen version. Since you can see the
> additional vertical data in the full screen version then it was
> important enough to the director to be included.
So very wrong. So very very very incorrect. You know not what you talk
about. But you are doing a splendid job of embarrassing yourself and
showing your ignorance. You made a massively incorrect assumption in
your last sentence. Some day you may learn, tim.tim. But I'm not hopeful.
Tim
director is specifically saying that the unused area is not important. But when the
director does not hard matte on the camera then he or she thinks the area might have
some importance even though in the end it might not be shown in the theater.
There are several levels of "art" in film. (not intended to start a flame but probably
will anyway) There is what gets shown in the theater and then there is what the
director actually intended. The director must spend time after filming to frame for a
theater release so it will look good on the theater screen. This does not necessarily
mean that the theater print is what the director really wanted to show. If theater
prints were always what the directors intended then there would be no "director's cut"
releases.
You could say what I am interested is the ultimate director's cut where all of the
detail the director was interested in is shown. This ties in with my interest in
seeing as more info on the screen when watching DVD. DVD can provide the detail that
is not shown in the theater.
JoeS
>
> I have no problem when the unused area is hard matted on the camera because the
> director is specifically saying that the unused area is not important. But when the
> director does not hard matte on the camera then he or she thinks the area might have
> some importance even though in the end it might not be shown in the theater.
When you pop popcorn, are the "old maids" intended, and should you eat them?
Your firm perspective is based on a basic faulty premise.
Good luck with that.
Joe
Tim
tasty.
True my perspective could be based on a faulty premise. I should not have implied that
all directors think the area might have some importance when they don't hard matte. I
should have said "some directors might think the area might have some importance". That
way both of us would be correct.
And I would like to thank you for not getting into the disparaging comments as the other
posters have.
Tim
Matthew L. Martin
> I do eat the "old maids" along eating with sunflower and peanut shells. They can be quite
> tasty.
>
> True my perspective could be based on a faulty premise. I should not have implied that
> all directors think the area might have some importance when they don't hard matte. I
> should have said "some directors might think the area might have some importance". That
> way both of us would be correct.
The "importance" of the aras under the soft matte is to make the
conversion to 4:3 less painful. That does not mean that it is important
to the story being told. If it were, it would be on screen in the
theatrical release. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Matthew
Tim
as important as horizontal information is but can't be shown in the theater due to theatrical
limitations? Please note I am not saying ALL lost vertical information is important. What I am
saying is that SOME vertical information is important but is lost due to theatrical
limitations. What is wrong with wanting so see that lost vertical information?
JoeS
>
> And the reverse: Why is it so hard for you to grasp that some vertical information can be just
> as important as horizontal information is but can't be shown in the theater due to theatrical
> limitations?
>
> Please note I am not saying ALL lost vertical information is important. What I am
> saying is that SOME vertical information is important but is lost due to theatrical
> limitations. What is wrong with wanting so see that lost vertical information?
What is your rationale for presuming that something that is not shown in the
theater is important to the movie?
Perhaps you could give some examples of important information that was left out
at the theater but is finally revealed in a home video version of the movie.
I suggest you re-read David Mullen's post above as he is a professional
cinematographer and is trying to let you know how films are made.
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Mullen,+M.+David
Joe
Larry G
> What is your rationale for presuming that something that is not shown in
the
> theater is important to the movie?
>
> Perhaps you could give some examples of important information that was
left out
> at the theater but is finally revealed in a home video version of the
movie.
>
> I suggest you re-read David Mullen's post above as he is a professional
> cinematographer and is trying to let you know how films are made.
> http://us.imdb.com/Name?Mullen,+M.+David
Why are you being so patronizing to people who wish to see lost vertical
information? I *prefer* widescreen myself, but having the option of seeing
the missing vertical information is also interesting. I'll use one example
of a director's vision for 4:3. Back in the 70s, the TV show "Battlestar
Galactica" was released in theaters. It was *designed* for television. The
director's vision was a 4:3 release television pilot for ABC in the U.S..
When the film was released on DVD years later, it was released in the
cropped "widescreen" version that was seen in theaters, even though the film
was designed and framed as a *television* pilot. Thus, in this rare case,
it was the TV version that was the director's original version.
This is not a matter of "not being able to understand widescreen" or not
"understanding art". It is not a matter of not understanding that a
widescreen movie isn't missing a lot of information, but gaining some in the
process, or that the widescreen, is in most cases, the director's original
vision.
It is simply, for me at least, and the reason I brought up this thread,
wanting a choice to see the missing information from *certain* widescreen
version formats (i.e., Super 35), and acknowledging that some directors,
aware of television and home video, may *intend* for viewers to see this
additional information at some point. I just think it is interesting to
have this option.
I understand the almost religious fervor in favor of widescreen, especially
in old movies such as "My Fair Lady" where the pan and scan version is so
chopped up, it is hardly watchable and the widescreen version is like having
eyesight for the very first time, hehe. I understand this completely, and
try to buy all my DVDs in widescreen as possible. I would be very upset if
they weren't offered this way.
My beef is that there is missing vertical information from Super 35 and open
matte movies. Sometimes surprisingly important information. Cropped movies
as widescreen is something that even sites like Widescreen Advocacy have not
so nice things to say about.
My point is that the technology exists to release a movie on a single disc,
or disc set, so I just don't like having to buy a movie *twice* to see this
additional information.
My question to the widescreen people that are patronizing others that they
because they are curious to see missing vertical information that they don't
understand "art", is will you feel the same way when *most* classic TV shows
will be cropped on 16:9 sets? This is happening already in Europe, and my
friend who has seen this complains about missing foreheads, etc. Many
classic 4:3 programs are also "flattened out" so that people appear shorter
and fatter to fit the viewing area. There is a CGI method of widening the
viewing area artificially and creating virtual sets. I remember a
demonstration of this on a news program some years back, but this will be
rare.
Just making the point that in some cases, interesting information is lost in
widescreen. It isn't always that you are seeing more of the picture. At
times, it is a tradeoff and some viewing area is indeed lost.
I do prefer widescreen, and understand completely its benefits and the
reasons why directors and movie goers prefer it. I was making the point in
my initial post that, there is missing information however, and it would
have been nice to have had both versions on the disc, or disc set.
I understand the almost religious fervor behind widescreen though. Most
customers don't understand the *benefits* of widescreen, and if the consumer
isn't vigilant, we won't have this option, and I believe this is wrong.
Nevertheless, I don't think consumer choice should be taken away from
certain consumers, or the others. There are additional factors, such as the
eyesight among viewers (fullscreen has high resolution in its area), not
everyone have a home theater (Dolby 2.0 sounds much better on my moderate
stereo system, not 5.1, because I don't have a home theater), etc. I just
wish these features were also made available to the consumer, and today's
technology, there's no reason it shouldn't be.
Larry
JoeS
>
> "JoeS" <me....@gte.net> wrote in message ...
> > What is your rationale for presuming that something that is not shown in the
> > theater is important to the movie?
> >
> > Perhaps you could give some examples of important information that was left out
> > at the theater but is finally revealed in a home video version of the movie.
> >
> > I suggest you re-read David Mullen's post above as he is a professional
> > cinematographer and is trying to let you know how films are made.
> > http://us.imdb.com/Name?Mullen,+M.+David
>
> Why are you being so patronizing to people who wish to see lost vertical
> information?
Patronizing? Tim has a fundamental misunderstanding that a professional
cinematographer, among others, has attempted to explain. Tim apparently remains
convinced that his presumption is accurate and that the pro is mistaken.
I'm asking that if he has convincing evidence to contradict David, then please
present it.
> I *prefer* widescreen myself, but having the option of seeing
> the missing vertical information is also interesting.
Not at the cost of losing disk space or anamorphic enhancement. If they want to
make separate releases, that is fine with me. Simple as that.
> I'll use one example
> of a director's vision for 4:3. Back in the 70s, the TV show "Battlestar
> Galactica" was released in theaters. It was *designed* for television. The
> director's vision was a 4:3 release television pilot for ABC in the U.S..
> When the film was released on DVD years later, it was released in the
> cropped "widescreen" version that was seen in theaters, even though the film
> was designed and framed as a *television* pilot. Thus, in this rare case,
> it was the TV version that was the director's original version.
It is irrelevant to the topic to discuss any movies that are incorrectly framed.
> This is not a matter of "not being able to understand widescreen" or not
> "understanding art". It is not a matter of not understanding that a
> widescreen movie isn't missing a lot of information, but gaining some in the
> process, or that the widescreen, is in most cases, the director's original
> vision.
Tim is insisting that important information is missing from the widescreen, so
it is a matter of that. He apparently believes that whatever was exposed on the
film frame is somehow "important". This is a misconception and is the only
reason I made my post. I asked for him to demonstrate his position, and to
re-read the information provided by a professional cinematographer.
> It is simply, for me at least, and the reason I brought up this thread,
> wanting a choice to see the missing information from *certain* widescreen
> version formats (i.e., Super 35), and acknowledging that some directors,
> aware of television and home video, may *intend* for viewers to see this
> additional information at some point. I just think it is interesting to
> have this option.
No director in his right mind would consciously decide to *intend* "for viewers
to see this additional information at some point" but exclude it from the
theater. I'd love to hear how you arrived at this notion. How about some
examples and how you know that the director intended you to see it "at some
point".
> My beef is that there is missing vertical information from Super 35 and open
> matte movies. Sometimes surprisingly important information.
How about some examples of where the director and DP decided to hide this
important information from the theater and save it for home video exclusive.
Please include how you came to the conclusion that it was meant for you to see
at home only while it was being hidden from the theatrical audience.
> My point is that the technology exists to release a movie on a single disc,
> or disc set, so I just don't like having to buy a movie *twice* to see this
> additional information.
Simply amazing. Nowhere to go from here. Consider yourself patronized.
Joe
David Mullen
the
>director is specifically saying that the unused area is not important. But
when the
>director does not hard matte on the camera then he or she thinks the area
might have
>some importance even though in the end it might not be shown in the
theater.
Yes, it has some value in making the pan & scan version LESS awful -- but
that usefulness does not mean that this makes the pan & scan version
preferable to the theatrically framed version. It's extra information is
not important TO THE STORY -- if it were, it would be in the theatrical
version. If anything, the extra information is simply neutral, meaningless
except that it minimizes the amount of cropping that would happen on the
sides when shooting in a true widescreen format.
But you're making an impossible leap in logic to think that therefore the
excess information outside the theatrical area as some greater importance.
>There are several levels of "art" in film. (not intended to start a flame
but probably
>will anyway) There is what gets shown in the theater and then there is
what the
>director actually intended. The director must spend time after filming to
frame for a
>theater release so it will look good on the theater screen.
You frame for the theatrical release WHEN you are shooting the movie, not in
post-production. You only fix occasional problems in post if possible to
improve the framing, like during an action scene when something
uncontrollable happens (for example, James Cameron was able to use the full
Super-35 frame in order to fix some 2.35 headroom problems during the bouncy
Steadicam shots on the tilting deck of the Titanic during a crowd panic
scene.) The majority of shots in a theatrical movie were framed that way on
the set by the cameraman and director when the scene was shot.
>This does not necessarily mean that the theater print is what the director
really wanted to show.
It does compositionally. You're referring to editorial decisions. No
director makes a "director's framed version" verses the theatrical framed
version.
>If theater prints were always what the directors intended then there would
be no "director's cut" releases.
The majority of which are released on DVD in the theatrical widescreen
framing. That should tell you something. You're confusing director's
"cuts" with director's "compositions." When a director is unhappy with the
way a theatrical version was cut by the studio, it's not because the studio
recomposed the images but because of the way they recut the scenes.
>You could say what I am interested is the ultimate director's cut where all
of the
>detail the director was interested in is shown.
You're not even listening, are you? Look, as a cameraman, I've shot over 20
feature films so I have some insight as to how movies are made and you're
very offbase here when it comes to this extra information outside of the
theatrical version having value to the director. Most (not all) directors
view the pan & scan version of their widescreen movies as necessary evils,
and will shoot in an unmatted format just to make the pan & scan version
less lousy -- that doesn't mean that they PREFER it. A director doesn't
expend effort of the set on off-camera areas. The picture information
exposed outside of the theatrical frame is a natural BYPRODUCT of using a
format that uses cropping to achieve its widescreen results. A director
might keep that excess area free of junk like microphones or or flags or
dolly tracks -- but you can't make the leap that this means that this area
therefore has artistic value or significance just because it doesn't have a
microphone in it! It's just meaningless extra space that comes in handy
when making a pan & scan version because it allows you to crop less of the
valuable SIDES of the important theatrical area. In order to fit a valuable
rectangle into a meaningless square, the director has to live with the fact
that he needs extra space above and below if he doesn't want to chop the
sides.
Everything exposed on the negative is not valuable to the story or the
artistry of the film. Did you know that most non-Super-35 cameras also
expose a little bit of picture information on the left edge, where the
soundtrack stripe goes? Most of the time that area is clear of junk too.
Would you also want to see THAT area as well even it meant that the image on
TV was no longer centered but shifted over to the right just to incorporate
it? Afterall, you seem to have a hungering to see every damn thing exposed
on the camera negative because as long as it's not a microphone or flag or
dolly track, you're convinced it has directorial value.
David Mullen
David Mullen
>Galactica theatrical release) your response is reduced to saying it's
>irrelevant. You just don't take correction well, do you?
Exceptions don't prove the rule. It's wrong to show something in a manner
in which it was not framed. People who love the art of composition are (or
should be) just as upset to see a classic 1.37 Academy movie cropped to
widescreen as a theatrical widescreen movie unmatted to 4:3. The point
isn't "widescreen at all costs" but to see the movie as it was composed to
be seen. If it were composed to be seen on a 4:3 TV, then THAT'S how it
should be shown. If it were composed to be cropped to widescreen, then
THAT'S how it should be shown.
So the "Battlestar Galactica" example only reinforces the importance of
preserving the correct composition throughout a variety of presentation
formats and technologies.
David Mullen
JoeS
>
> Auto-response generated for <3D078515...@gte.net>:
>
> >Larry G wrote:
> >>
> >> "JoeS" <me....@gte.net> wrote in message ...
> >> > What is your rationale for presuming that something that is not shown in the
> >> > theater is important to the movie?
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps you could give some examples of important information that was left out
> >> > at the theater but is finally revealed in a home video version of the movie.
> >> >
> >> > I suggest you re-read David Mullen's post above as he is a professional
> >> > cinematographer and is trying to let you know how films are made.
> >> > http://us.imdb.com/Name?Mullen,+M.+David
> >>
> >> Why are you being so patronizing to people who wish to see lost vertical
> >> information?
> >
> >Patronizing?
>
> yours would have come up in therapy.
>
> And when he pointed out a good counter-example (the Battlestar
> Galactica theatrical release) your response is reduced to saying it's
> irrelevant. You just don't take correction well, do you?
You seem to have a distinct inability to comprehend a chain of thought and
reason.
But thanks for caring.
Joe
JoeS
>
> Auto-response generated for <3D07A4EC...@gte.net>:
> argument in which you have no retort, then claim someone didn't
> understand you and run away.
You've apparently missed the point if you can't see that the BG example is not
illustrative of that point.
If a movie was made for 4:3, then 4:3 is how is should be shown. I agree that a
4:3 release of a movie that was made for 4:3 probably shows important
information when compared with an inappropriately matted version. There is no
surprise in this, and no relevance to the point.
The point of the discussion regards films that were created for theatrical
release and then released as open matte on home video, and whether the home
video version reveals important information not available to viewers in the
theater.
Get it? See how BG is not on-topic?
> It's not getting any more impressive each time I see it. Quite the contrary.
Quite disappointing, seeing as my goal is to impress a moron who thinks an
"autoresponder" theme is clever!
Joe
Matthew L. Martin
> And the reverse: Why is it so hard for you to grasp that some vertical information can be just
> as important as horizontal information is but can't be shown in the theater due to theatrical
> limitations?
What information. Cite a single movie in which information vital to the
plot is off screen in the theatrical release, but visible on open matte.
Just one.
What is more often the case is that something that is off screen in the
theater, but visible in open matte ruins a plot point or kills a joke. I
can name three:
"Death Race 2000" Theatrically nude women in the massage scene are
wearing panties in the open matte.
"Pee Wee's big Adventure" The bicycle chain joke is ruined.
"A Fish Called Wanda" we get to see that John Cleese isn't naked when
the renting family comes in.
> Please note I am not saying ALL lost vertical information is important.
That was perfectly clear. Even if it weren't, I knew it anyway.
> What I am
> saying is that SOME vertical information is important but is lost due to theatrical
> limitations. What is wrong with wanting so see that lost vertical information?
>
As I said, name one movie and one scene in which critical information is
lost in the theatrical aspect ratio but is available in the open matte
version.
Matthew
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
>I have no problem when the unused area is hard matted on the camera because the
>director is specifically saying that the unused area is not important. But
> when the
>director does not hard matte on the camera then he or she thinks the area might
> have
>some importance even though in the end it might not be shown in the theater.
That is not usually true. Soft matting is a cinematic process just like
any other. The film is exposed, but it meant to be "thrown away". At
no point did the director, dp, or any other filmmaker mention that the
full 1.33:1 frame has value. The excess was exposed simply because it
was the most efficient means to an end.
It is because of this that such cases where the director wishes the film
to be shown unmatted are so significant. We make a big deal of them
because they are the exception to the rule.
In addition, many filmmakers block off the "unused" portion of the frame
on their own monitors. The film is still soft matte, but it's clear
that the area in question is of no concern to anyone.
>There are several levels of "art" in film. (not intended to start a flame but
> probably
>will anyway) There is what gets shown in the theater and then there is what
> the
>director actually intended.
I don't disagree, but want to point out that the two are usually very
close or identical.
>The director must spend time after filming to
> frame for a
>theater release so it will look good on the theater screen. This does not
> necessarily
>mean that the theater print is what the director really wanted to show. If
> theater
>prints were always what the directors intended then there would be no
> "director's cut"
>releases.
But, how many films require a directors cut? Very very few. Again,
this is because those are the notable exceptions. Of the "director's
cuts" out there, how many have a different aspect ratio than the
theatrical print?
>You could say what I am interested is the ultimate director's cut where all of
> the
>detail the director was interested in is shown. This ties in with my interest
> in
>seeing as more info on the screen when watching DVD. DVD can provide the
> detail that
>is not shown in the theater.
Uh, no way. DVD's resolution is way below that of the theatrical print,
so no matter what ratio you watch it in, you'll see less detail. The
difference in detail between a widescreen and fullscreen transfer, in
comparison to the theatrical print, is between 0-1%. Yes, that's a
zero. In many cases, there is NO advantage in terms of detail in
having a FS transfer.
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
>And the reverse: Why is it so hard for you to grasp that some vertical
> information can be just
>as important as horizontal information is but can't be shown in the theater due
> to theatrical
>limitations?
Because this is simply *NOT* the case in the cast majority of film
releases. People have been filming in soft matte for decades now, it's
NOT a new concept. Filmmakers are well aware of how to compose a movie
to put all the desired information into the OAR frame, and at the same
time, to keep the undesired information OUT.
The cases where this is untrue are notable because they occur so
infrequently.
>Please note I am not saying ALL lost vertical information is
> important. What I am
>saying is that SOME vertical information is important but is lost due to
> theatrical
>limitations. What is wrong with wanting so see that lost vertical information?
There is nothing wrong with wanting to see it. There IS something wrong
with claiming that it you believe it was intended by the filmmakers when
you do not have any reason to do so beyond "There's more, so this must
be better".
Tim
David Mullen wrote:
<snip>
>
> But you're making an impossible leap in logic to think that therefore the
> excess information outside the theatrical area as some greater importance.
I have never said that the excess information outside the theatrical area is of
greater importance. It can be of some importance but is it not more important
then the stuff in the theatrical area. This is fine when it is shown in the
theater. But when I get a DVD I like to see that information. In the various
screen shots in the previously links the excess information made those scenes
look better from my stand point.
> >There are several levels of "art" in film. (not intended to start a flame
> but probably
> >will anyway) There is what gets shown in the theater and then there is
> what the
> >director actually intended. The director must spend time after filming to
> frame for a
> >theater release so it will look good on the theater screen.
>
> You frame for the theatrical release WHEN you are shooting the movie, not in
> post-production. You only fix occasional problems in post if possible to
> improve the framing, like during an action scene when something
> uncontrollable happens (for example, James Cameron was able to use the full
<snip> <snip>
> it? Afterall, you seem to have a hungering to see every damn thing exposed
> on the camera negative because as long as it's not a microphone or flag or
> dolly track, you're convinced it has directorial value.
>
> David Mullen
Since you are the professional I'll have to accept most of what you have said
above on face value.
When the director knows he has to shoot with P&S release in mind and makes the
effort to make the excess vertical information consistent with the rest of the
information what is wrong with wanting to see that excess information?
Now let me introduce something. If deleted scenes were left out of theatrical
release because they were deemed not important to the plot, why are they
included on some DVDs either in "uncut" versions or as an extra bonus? If these
deleted scenes were deemed important enough to be put on the DVD why is the
excess vertical information not worth being included on the DVD even though both
were deemed not important to the plot of the movie.
As a professional may be you can answer this: In terms of number of scan lines
what is the resolution for widescreen / theater prints? And why can't it be
increased?
Tim
Sammy
> I have never said that the excess information outside the theatrical
> area is of greater importance. It can be of some importance but is
> it not more important then the stuff in the theatrical area. This is
> fine when it is shown in the theater. But when I get a DVD I like to
> see that information. In the various screen shots in the previously
> links the excess information made those scenes look better from my
> stand point.
You have criticized those who were harsh with you. With your subsequent
posts you have clearly demonstrated that they weren't harsh enough. If
you don't like widescreen, then go become a fucking director and make
your own movies the way you want them to look. You are ignorant of the
art of the movie and deserve to be called a full screen pan and scanner.
Tim
What I am trying to get across is that I want WideScreen with more vertical
information. Since that vertical information is provided in P&S why not
included it with a WideScreen format that has the capacity for more vertical
information.
Matthew L. Martin
> Have you bothered to read the previous posts? I am against pan and scan.
> What I am trying to get across is that I want WideScreen with more vertical
> information.
Then you are in favor of Pan & Scan. Just admit it.
> Since that vertical information is provided in P&S why not
> included it with a WideScreen format that has the capacity for more vertical
> information.
If the director wanted more vertical information to be viewed
theatrically, he would have used a different aspect ratio.
Matthew
JoeS
>
> Have you bothered to read the previous posts? I am against pan and scan.
> What I am trying to get across is that I want WideScreen with more vertical
> information. Since that vertical information is provided in P&S why not
> included it with a WideScreen format that has the capacity for more vertical
> information.
Are you against widescreen TVs and against anamorphic enhancement for a better
picture?
Joe
JoeS
>
> Have you bothered to read the previous posts? I am against pan and scan.
> What I am trying to get across is that I want WideScreen with more vertical
> information. Since that vertical information is provided in P&S why not
> included it with a WideScreen format that has the capacity for more vertical
> information.
Don't you comprehend that "a WideScreen format that has the capacity for more
vertical information" is NOT widescreen?
Joe
Thas Wack
really is little argument here with little point and little value. It's like
arguing with Max again. Tim etc's responses are just too dumb to be true.
Tim and his cohort are just contradicting themselves too much. And thanks
David Mullen for that fascinating post. It's very rare in this group you get
a good professional opinion on a topic.
A.
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
In article <3D07F3B9...@tim.tim>, Tim <t...@tim.tim> wrote:
>> But you're making an impossible leap in logic to think that therefore the
>> excess information outside the theatrical area as some greater importance.
>
>I have never said that the excess information outside the theatrical area is of
>greater importance. It can be of some importance but is it not more important
>then the stuff in the theatrical area.
This point of yours is duly noted.
> This is fine when it is shown in the
>theater. But when I get a DVD I like to see that information.
There's a big difference between liking something, and having it be a
part of the movie. Like it all you want, but realize that the frame was
not composed with that information in mind. Whatever is in the
soft-matte portion is seen as being disposable.
> In the various
>screen shots in the previously links the excess information made those scenes
>look better from my stand point.
From your standpoint... but, you didn't make the movie. If I speed up
an LP, and claim that the Beatles sound better "from my stand point", do
I have any reason to believe that was what the artists intended?
If I turn down the color on a movie to make it black and white, and
think it looks better "from my stand point", do I have any reason to
believe it was what the artist intended?
No, I do not. Rubber Soul was not composed to be listened to at double
speed, Batman was not composed to be watched in Black & White, and most
soft matte movies were not composed to be seen with the scrap portins
re-attached.
>When the director knows he has to shoot with P&S release in mind and makes the
>effort to make the excess vertical information consistent with the rest of the
>information what is wrong with wanting to see that excess information?
There is nothing wrong with wanting to see anything. What is wrong is
claiming it has theatrical value when you have no reason to, beyond "it
looks good to me".
I'd like to see the skydiving footage from Star Trek: Generations, but
I'm not going to claim it has any value to the movie just because I'd
like to see it.
>Now let me introduce something. If deleted scenes were left out of theatrical
>release because they were deemed not important to the plot, why are they
>included on some DVDs either in "uncut" versions or as an extra bonus?
"Uncut" versions of a movie have scenes which were specifically
intended by the filmmakers re-inserted into the film. The soft-matted
portion of a movie is not specifically intended to be inserted in the
movie-- on the contrary, it's expected to be taken out.
> If
> these
>deleted scenes were deemed important enough to be put on the DVD why is the
>excess vertical information not worth being included on the DVD even though
> both
>were deemed not important to the plot of the movie.
The deleted scenes are not integrated into the movie, are they? Not
often. That's for exactly the same reason that soft matted protions are
not re-inserted... they're not actually part of the movie anymore.
Again, you can *want* to see anything you'd like, but don't claim that
it's a valid part of the movie just because *you* think it's neat.
Tim
Just so we are on the same track Widescreen provides the full horizontal view that
P&S does not provide. Right?
So then if a new format comes out that provides the EXACT SAME HORIZONTAL VIEW AS
TRADITIONAL WIDESCREEN and can show additional vertical information you say can
not be considered widescreen at all? If that is all then we are quibbling over
semantics. I'll just call the new format WidescreenEx or WidgyBone or something
else if you want. Would that make you happy?
So we are now at:
You would not watch a DVD in a new format if it provides the EXACT SAME HORIZONTAL
VIEW AS WIDESCREEN and has a larger vertical view because it is not traditional
widescreen. And I would. Right? Then you can watch your traditional widescreen
while I watch the new WidgyBone format that provides the exact same horizontal
view as traditional widescreen and has a larger vertical view and we would both be
happy.
And in response to your previous post. I do own a widescreen TV and I only watch
widescreen DVDs.
Thas Wack
> Joe,
>
> Just so we are on the same track Widescreen provides the full horizontal
view that
> P&S does not provide. Right?
>
> So then if a new format comes out that provides the EXACT SAME HORIZONTAL
VIEW AS
> TRADITIONAL WIDESCREEN
Okay so we have traditional 16:9 widescreen.
>and can show additional vertical information you say can
> not be considered widescreen at all?
Let's put extra viewing space at the top and bottom of that ratio, how much
would you like to add. Let's say enough to display an area at a ratio of
mmm, 4:3?
>If that is all then we are quibbling over
> semantics.
No, you are quibbling over just plain bullshit - so, let's invent some!
>I'll just call the new format WidescreenEx or WidgyBone or something
> else if you want. Would that make you happy?
> So we are now at:
> You would not watch a DVD in a new format if it provides the EXACT SAME
HORIZONTAL
> VIEW AS WIDESCREEN and has a larger vertical view because it is not
traditional
> widescreen. And I would. Right? Then you can watch your traditional
widescreen
> while I watch the new WidgyBone format that provides the exact same
horizontal
> view as traditional widescreen and has a larger vertical view and we would
both be
> happy.
You are talking utter bollocks, how can you even continue to post this
drivel, you are talking about the television, it's been around for decades.
> And in response to your previous post. I do own a widescreen TV and I
only watch
> widescreen DVDs.
Then you are an utter twat who should sell this equipment and buy a standard
TV and video player.
Please respond to this email if you are stupid Tim.
Thas Wack
> Please respond to this email if you are stupid Tim.
>
>
aware this is a post not an email, it was a slip of the tongue/keyboard.
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
>Joe,
>
>Just so we are on the same track Widescreen provides the full horizontal view
> that
>P&S does not provide. Right?
Yah.
>So then if a new format comes out that provides the EXACT SAME HORIZONTAL VIEW
> AS
>TRADITIONAL WIDESCREEN and can show additional vertical information you say can
>not be considered widescreen at all?
Because such a thing is a contradiction in terms. The whole point
behind widescreen is to acheive OAR. Remove that, and it no longer
matters if you have more information or less, it's just not OAR, and
thus defeats the purpose of WS.
> If that is all then we are quibbling over
>semantics. I'll just call the new format WidescreenEx or WidgyBone or
> something
>else if you want. Would that make you happy?
This is not a matter of semantics. You don't seem to understand that
the purpose behind WS is to provide the correct ratio, not to give as
much information as possible. Understand that, and you'll notice that
you won't be in conflict with as many people.
>So we are now at:
>You would not watch a DVD in a new format if it provides the EXACT SAME
> HORIZONTAL
>VIEW AS WIDESCREEN and has a larger vertical view because it is not traditional
>widescreen. And I would. Right?
So far.
> Then you can watch your traditional
> widescreen
>while I watch the new WidgyBone format that provides the exact same horizontal
>view as traditional widescreen and has a larger vertical view and we would both
> be
>happy.
But do you seriously expect this to happen? Over half of all modern
movies are made with either soft matte or Super35... do you really think
all of them will be unmatted just because it looks good to you?
>And in response to your previous post. I do own a widescreen TV and I only
> watch
>widescreen DVDs.
Then your argument makes even less sense. Until now, everything written
applied to altering a ratio to fit a 4:3 screen. No one alters a ratio
to fit a 16:9 screen... get a super 35 2.35:1 movie on one of those, and
kiss your "additional information" goodbye.
Tim
"link...@SpammersWillBeExecuted.ptd.net" wrote:
<snip>
> >Now let me introduce something. If deleted scenes were left out of theatrical
> >release because they were deemed not important to the plot, why are they
> >included on some DVDs either in "uncut" versions or as an extra bonus?
>
> "Uncut" versions of a movie have scenes which were specifically
> intended by the filmmakers re-inserted into the film. The soft-matted
> portion of a movie is not specifically intended to be inserted in the
> movie-- on the contrary, it's expected to be taken out.
>
> > If
> > these
> >deleted scenes were deemed important enough to be put on the DVD why is the
> >excess vertical information not worth being included on the DVD even though
> > both
> >were deemed not important to the plot of the movie.
>
> The deleted scenes are not integrated into the movie, are they? Not
> often. That's for exactly the same reason that soft matted protions are
> not re-inserted... they're not actually part of the movie anymore.
> Again, you can *want* to see anything you'd like, but don't claim that
> it's a valid part of the movie just because *you* think it's neat.
>
True the deleted scenes are not integrated back into the movie but they are on the
DVD. Since they were not in the movie do you refuse to watch them on the DVD?
Now can we get back to main part of my argument. If the extra vertical information
was important enough that the director took the time to use his artistic skills to
make it look good in a P&S release why is it not important enough to include in an
non-P&S format release. True this new format, lets call it WidgyBone, does not
match what is shown in the theater but then again this not what I am talking about.
Since WidgyBone shows all of the director's artistic work why would he or she object
to people watching it? And for those you who have not read previous messages.
WidgyBone would be a new video format that provided the exact same horizontal view
as widescreen along with the extra vertical info that is sometimes provided in some
P&S. IT IS NOT P&S. IT IS NOT FULLSCREEN. It is more like 16:11. With the proper
compression you could watch 16:11 on a 16:9 TV.
JoeS
>
> Joe,
>
> Just so we are on the same track Widescreen provides the full horizontal view that
> P&S does not provide. Right?
No, this is not a working definition.
An "open matte" full frame picture also provides the full horizontal view. (I'll
disregard for simplicity that many open matte home video transfers also
incorporate some amount of Pan&Scan)
Since your original premise is incorrect, I'll leave the follow-ups without
comment.
> So then if a new format comes out that provides the EXACT SAME HORIZONTAL VIEW AS
> TRADITIONAL WIDESCREEN and can show additional vertical information you say can
> not be considered widescreen at all? If that is all then we are quibbling over
> semantics. I'll just call the new format WidescreenEx or WidgyBone or something
> else if you want. Would that make you happy?
>
> So we are now at:
> You would not watch a DVD in a new format if it provides the EXACT SAME HORIZONTAL
> VIEW AS WIDESCREEN and has a larger vertical view because it is not traditional
> widescreen. And I would. Right? Then you can watch your traditional widescreen
> while I watch the new WidgyBone format that provides the exact same horizontal
> view as traditional widescreen and has a larger vertical view and we would both be
> happy.
>
> And in response to your previous post. I do own a widescreen TV and I only watch
> widescreen DVDs.
Then what is the purpose of your posts and why would you want to see WidgyBone
on your widescreen TV, losing picture resolution and size?
Joe
JoeS
>
> Now can we get back to main part of my argument. If the extra vertical information
> was important enough that the director took the time to use his artistic skills to
> make it look good in a P&S release why is it not important enough to include in an
> non-P&S format release. True this new format, lets call it WidgyBone, does not
> match what is shown in the theater but then again this not what I am talking about.
> Since WidgyBone shows all of the director's artistic work why would he or she object
> to people watching it? And for those you who have not read previous messages.
> WidgyBone would be a new video format that provided the exact same horizontal view
> as widescreen along with the extra vertical info that is sometimes provided in some
> P&S. IT IS NOT P&S. IT IS NOT FULLSCREEN. It is more like 16:11. With the proper
> compression you could watch 16:11 on a 16:9 TV.
Could you explain how this would work?
How would the 16:11 frame get represented in DVD's 4:3 (virtual) frame and how
would that get output properly to 4:3 TVs and 16:9 TVs?
Joe
Tim
JoeS wrote:
> Joe
>
>
The same way you can watch widescreen and letter box movies on a 4:3 TV. You can use the
same type of compression to watch 16:11 on a 4:3 or 16:9 TV. Both ways you get black
bands some where on your screen. With a large enough TV who cares if the entire screen is
not filled.
David Mullen
the
>effort to make the excess vertical information consistent with the rest of
the
>information what is wrong with wanting to see that excess information?
He doesn't make it "consistent", he just keeps it free of unwanted junk --
that's hardly a ringing endorsement for the artistic value of extraneous
information, that it's simply "junk free".
There is an art form called COMPOSITION where you arrange people and objects
against a background, balancing them against each other and light against
dark, colors against other colors, even balancing something against
nothingness (a concept called negative space) -- all within a FRAME.
Without a frame there is no art of composition. A cinematographer and a
director work within a chosen frame; for theatrical movies that frame is the
area that will be projected. They put all of their artistry into that area
and they try to keep the area outside the theatrical frame clear of garbage
so that they won't have to crop the sides as much when they make the
inevitable pan & scan version for 4:3 full-frame presentation. The general
rule is called "COMPOSE for theatrical, PROTECT for television."
Composition goes far beyond simply putting important action within a frame.
Even a simple shot of a tree on a hilltop silhouette against a sky is
"composed" and how low or high or left or right that tree is in the frame is
an artistic decision -- so whether you add or subtract space when making the
4:3 full-frame TV version DOES have an effect on that composition, basically
diluting it. As a cameraman, you can't put your heart & soul into composing
and then also say "well, it doesn't really matter where the tree is in the
shot -- it's just a shot of a tree afterall!" That's like telling Cezanne
that the arrangement of fruit in his still life painting doesn't really
matter -- whether the apple is to the left or the right of the peach is no
big deal.
That's the "art" side of composition -- there's also the storytelling side
of it, where you are balancing one element against another for dramatic
reasons or to make a plot point. Now in this case, having extra picture
information revealed won't (usually) significantly alter the obvious meaning
of a scene, but it still weakens it because it's not EXACTLY the balance and
arrangement that the cameraman and the director chose in the viewfinder when
they shot the scene. To them, whether they framed one person from the
chest up but the reverse person from the collar up is an important decision,
and how much darkness they put behind one person versus the other affects
the mood of the scene.
Without composition, the frame is merely a window thru which you view the
action of the scene, and a computer could frame the shot -- what makes
movies an artform is that the frame DOES matter, that you can go beyond
merely recording action but begin to augment the psychological effect of the
shot by how you arrange that action within a frame. And you can't spend all
those months working with a certain frame and then have someone say "just
open it up top & bottom -- it doesn't really matter... and I want to see my
TV set filled with picture."
>Now let me introduce something. If deleted scenes were left out of
theatrical
>release because they were deemed not important to the plot, why are they
>included on some DVDs either in "uncut" versions or as an extra bonus? If
these
>deleted scenes were deemed important enough to be put on the DVD why is the
>excess vertical information not worth being included on the DVD even though
both
>were deemed not important to the plot of the movie.
Can't you see that there's a difference between a deleted scene -- a scene
which was deliberately written by someone, and then deliberately acted,
directed, edited, etc. -- and excess space trimmed out of a shot because the
film format you are using relies on cropping to achieve the final frame???
It's NOT the same thing. A director never says, "I put so much work into
that little extra space above and below the frame and I can't believe the
studio just ruthlessly chopped it off!" In editing, a scene might be
deleted because once the whole film is viewed, it no longer seems that
necessary even though it did when it was written. And it might appear on a
DVD merely to satisfy someone's curiosity to see it, or as a marketing
method to get you to buy the DVD. Or the movie was shortened because it
seemed too long for the theatrical release but now it seems OK to let the
home video release run longer. But the extra picture information above &
below the theatrical frame is NOT the same thing as a scene that a writer
wrote because he though it was important and then a director shot it because
he thought it was important, but in editing someone decided it wasn't
important afterall. If I gave you a camera that took a square photo and
told you to compose a rectangle within it, excess picture information would
be the natural byproduct of fitting a rectangle into a square.
Most directors who shoot in a widescreen format that uses cropping have
their video assist monitors masked off with black tape to show just the
theatrical area SO THEY WON'T GET DISTRACTED BY THE EXTRA PICTURE AREA.
It's usually the camera operator's job therefore to make sure that the mic
doesn't dip into the TV area or that a flag isn't in that area. This is
hardly a case where the extra picture area has artistic value -- in fact, it
weakens the artistic value of the theatrical frame if used.
You can always find an exception -- Kubrick being the most famous, and even
his films were clearly COMPOSED for theatrical presentation (look at the
headroom) even though he preferred the TV versions be full-frame for a
number of reasons. If you want to see a film artistically composed for 4:3,
look at a classic 1.37 Academy movie like "Citizen Kane" or "Casablanca" --
the balance of objects, of people, of light and dark, are different than
those of a 1.85 movie that is shown open-matted on a 4:3 monitor.
>As a professional may be you can answer this: In terms of number of scan
lines
>what is the resolution for widescreen / theater prints? And why can't it
be
>increased?
Sure it can be increased -- just shoot in 65mm and project in 70mm. Even a
film shot in 35mm anamorphic generally has more onscreen resolution when
projected than a 1.85 film or a Super-35 blown-up to anamorphic. (The 35mm
anamorphic frame uses more of the 35mm negative and print area than standard
1.85 or Super-35 cropped to 2.35 -- therefore anamorphic photography
generally has less grain, more detail, etc.)
As for the "resolution" of a print, you are basically trying to apply
digital terms to an analog system. A 35mm negative is considered to be in
excess of 12 million pixels per frame -- in other words, you'd have to scan
it at "4K" resolution (roughly 4000 x 3000 pixels, depending on the aspect
ratio) in order to reproduce a digital version without any visible loss of
information. However, a lot of visual effects work is done a
half-resolution -- i.e. 2K (2048 x 1556 or so) -- which is only slightly
higher than HD resolution (1920 x 1080 pixels). Hence the controversy over
"Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" being shot in HD instead of 35mm film and
the debate as to whether that's enough resolution. And the controversy of
switching to digital projection in the theaters when current DLP-Cinema
technology isn't even 1920 x 1080 pixels, but at its highest is 1280 x 1024
pixels.
Some people say that once a print is made from a dupe negative and once it's
projected, the resolution can drop as far down as only 800 to 900 lines on
the big screen, so 1024 lines of DLP-Cinema is "good enough". Others feel
that setting the standard of digital projection to match the average
mediocre 35mm projection at some strip mall is not a good idea. Kodak,
using JVC's ILA technology, has a prototype 2K digital projector.
Personally, I think 2K should be the minimum resolution we should accept for
any digital projection that intends to replace 35mm print projection.
But it's hard to make a direct comparison -- a moving film image has a
random grain structure that varies frame-to-frame while a digitally captured
or projected image has a fixed pixel structure that remains constant per
frame, increasing the chance for artifacts like aliasing. Plus film is not
"compressed" information, at least not in the digital meaning of the word.
One possible area for print improvement would be if the "digital
intermediate" process (where the film negative is scanned, digitally
color-corrected, etc. and recorded back to film) jumped from its current 2K
limits to 4K resolution, and it was affordable enough to record out to film
as many "original" negatives as needed for all release prints, rather just
make one negative and then go through an IP and IN intermediate duping stage
to make mass release prints. Making multiple negatives off of the digital
master would mean that every 35mm print would look like a "show print" --
one made off of a original negative, not a dupe negative.
A 2K digital intermediate process was used for "O Brother Where Art Thou",
"Amelie", parts of "Pleasantville", "Hart's War", "We Were Soldiers", "Panic
Room", "Brotherhood of the Wolf", and most of "Lord of the Rings." 4K
digital intermediates aren't considered affordable at this time. With 2K
digital intermediates, there is a little softening but often there is also a
reduction in graininess, so there's a trade-off. Also, there are digital
color-correction tricks that can be applied that are impossible using
conventional film printing techniques.
David Mullen
JoeS
You've simply described open matte at 1.45:1 rather than 1.33:1, a minor
difference with no benefit over 1.33:1. I have no idea what "compression" means
in this context. This "idea" precludes anamorphic enhancement, and since you
have a widescreen TV, you know what *that* means.
I have to conclude that you really have no idea what you are talking about and
will leave you alone to work out your WidgeyBone plan. Good luck.
Joe
Richard C.
"Tim" <t...@tim.tim> wrote in message news:3D0801F6...@tim.tim...
: Have you bothered to read the previous posts? I am against pan and scan.
: What I am trying to get across is that I want WideScreen with more vertical
: information. Since that vertical information is provided in P&S why not
: included it with a WideScreen format that has the capacity for more vertical
: information.
===============================
Do you have a single clue about how insane that sounds?
Are you talking about some kind of phony-ass digital re-processing or what?
============================
Richard C.
"Tim" <t...@tim.tim> wrote in message news:3D082144...@tim.tim...
: Joe,
:
: Just so we are on the same track Widescreen provides the full horizontal view that
: P&S does not provide. Right?
:
: So then if a new format comes out that provides the EXACT SAME HORIZONTAL VIEW AS
: TRADITIONAL WIDESCREEN and can show additional vertical information you say can
: not be considered widescreen at all?
=========================
It would NOT be widescreen - it would be exactly what you already have with open matte!
=======================
Richard C.
"Thas Wack" <cant...@me.com> wrote in message news:AIUN8.2972$iR2.3...@news.xtra.co.nz...
: This smells like a whacking great, almost cleverly constructed Troll. There
=================
I was starting to think the same thing.
Is Tim MAX?
Richard C.
"Tim" <t...@tim.tim> wrote in message news:3D0834D7...@tim.tim...
:
: If the extra vertical information
: was important enough that the director took the time to use his artistic skills to
: make it look good in a P&S release why is it not important enough to include in an
: non-P&S format release.
==================================
Most directors do NOT make any attempt to make the matted out portions "look good".
Most directors do not even look at that part of the picture.
Your primary point is invalid!
=====================================
: True this new format, lets call it WidgyBone, does not
: match what is shown in the theater but then again this not what I am talking about.
: Since WidgyBone shows all of the director's artistic work why would he or she object
: to people watching it?
============================
Theatrical Aspect Ratio (OAR, WS) ALREADY shows all of the director's artistic work.
=============================
: And for those you who have not read previous messages.
: WidgyBone would be a new video format that provided the exact same horizontal view
: as widescreen along with the extra vertical info that is sometimes provided in some
: P&S. IT IS NOT P&S. IT IS NOT FULLSCREEN. It is more like 16:11. With the proper
: compression you could watch 16:11 on a 16:9 TV.
====================
Shows how little you know about film making.
The picture area of a 35mm film is almost EXACTLY 1.33:1 - the same as a TV.
What you are talking about is merely the same thing that is already avaliable on FS DVD!
You also have to realize that on "scope" or "anamorphic lens" movies you are seeing ALL of the picture in WS.
There are NO extra bits.
=========================
Tim
David Mullen wrote:
David,
Thank you for all this great info on digital information. Being in the
computer industry it is something I can understand quite well. And thank you
for the information on traditional film making. When it is clearly stated as
you have done I can see where most of my assumptions were wrong. I tip my
virtual hat to you.
Tim
Vincent Pereira
> In terms of number of scan lines
> what is the resolution for widescreen / theater prints? And why can't it be
> increased?
> Tim
35mm negative is generally accepted to be capable of approximately 3000 pixels by
4000 pixels of resolution when expressed in "video" terms.
BTW, who said it "can't be increased"? Every time Kodak introduces a new,
finer-grained film stock, the possible quality of 35mm cinematography is increased.
Ditto whenever newer, sharper photographic lenses are intoduced by companies like
Panavision.
--
VINCENT PEREIRA
http://www.viewaskew.com/vincent/
writer/director/editor: A BETTER PLACE
ABP official website: http://viewaskew.com/A_Better_Place/
A BETTER PLACE trailer: http://viewaskew.com/A_Better_Place/download.html
Vincent Pereira
> And in response to your previous post. I do own a widescreen TV and I only watch
> widescreen DVDs.
So you never watch films made before 1953 or films that were framed for 1.33:1? Wow,
you're missing a lot of great films.
JoeS
>
> David,
>
> Thank you for all this great info on digital information. Being in the
> computer industry it is something I can understand quite well. And thank you
> for the information on traditional film making. When it is clearly stated as
> you have done I can see where most of my assumptions were wrong. I tip my
> virtual hat to you.
>
> Tim
For the curious...could you mention what you know now that you didn't know
before and how that changes your perspective?
Joe
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
>
>True the deleted scenes are not integrated back into the movie but they are on
> the
>DVD. Since they were not in the movie do you refuse to watch them on the DVD?
I don't refuse to watch them. I *do* refuse to think they are part of
the movie proper simply because I enjoy them. That is the key
difference.
>Now can we get back to main part of my argument. If the extra vertical
> information
>was important enough that the director took the time to use his artistic skills
> to
>make it look good in a P&S release why is it not important enough to include in
> an
>non-P&S format release.
You almost answered your own question. The DP took the time to make it
look okay (I don't even want to use the word "good") for a P&S release,
not for the ACTUAL release. P&S is a contractual obligation, the OAR is
the true goal. The extra vertical information was not only not
"important enough", it isn't important AT ALL.
It exists only to make an open matte transfer easy, not to make it
enjoyable.
> True this new format, lets call it WidgyBone, does
> not
>match what is shown in the theater but then again this not what I am talking
> about.
>Since WidgyBone shows all of the director's artistic work why would he or she
> object
>to people watching it?
SImple-- they don't want it seen. Most filmmakers prefer OAR, and
anything other than that, wheather it shows more information or less, is
undesirable.
It's not a matter of showing "all the work", it's a matter of showing
the *finished* work in it's best possible manner.
Aaron P. Brezenski
>
>Just so we are on the same track Widescreen provides the full horizontal view that
>P&S does not provide. Right?
>
>So then if a new format comes out that provides the EXACT SAME HORIZONTAL VIEW AS
>TRADITIONAL WIDESCREEN and can show additional vertical information you say can
>not be considered widescreen at all? If that is all then we are quibbling over
>semantics. I'll just call the new format WidescreenEx or WidgyBone or something
>else if you want. Would that make you happy?
>
>So we are now at:
>You would not watch a DVD in a new format if it provides the EXACT SAME HORIZONTAL
>VIEW AS WIDESCREEN and has a larger vertical view because it is not traditional
>widescreen. And I would. Right? Then you can watch your traditional widescreen
>while I watch the new WidgyBone format that provides the exact same horizontal
>view as traditional widescreen and has a larger vertical view and we would both be
>happy.
>
>And in response to your previous post. I do own a widescreen TV and I only watch
>widescreen DVDs.
You are "Sukato" and I claim my twenty pounds:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=rsasma64j7113%40corp.supernews.com&output=gplain
--
Aaron Brezenski
Not speaking for my employer in any way
Aaron P. Brezenski
>was important enough that the director took the time to use his artistic skills to
>make it look good in a P&S release why is it not important enough to include in an
>non-P&S format release.
You miss the point. The extra vertical information is not "important" at all, or
else it would have been on the movie screen. The director "took the time to use
his artistic skills to make it look" *tolerable* on a P&S release,
because he knows that the studio is going to release it in that format regardless
and he doesn't want it to look like complete ass.
But "not complete ass" != "awesome", or even "good". If the directors truly cared
about the home video P&S release, they'd have the effects shots done open matte
as well; however, this is entirely a rarity (Kevin Smith did it in Dogma, but that's
the only example I can come up with offhand). Instead, even when the matte is opened
up for a 4:3 release, we still get panned/scanned effects shots.
> True this new format, lets call it WidgyBone, does not
>match what is shown in the theater but then again this not what I am talking about.
>Since WidgyBone shows all of the director's artistic work why would he or she object
>to people watching it?
Because he made a *conscious* decision to exclude that particular picture information
from the screen. When a painter-- say DaVinci-- creates a work of art, sometimes there
are pieces he doesn't like. When he paints over them, their remnants can still be seen
using a variety of modern photographic techniques. Should we then scrape off the cover
paint so that the mass audience can see all of the info that could possibly be available
to us?
Of course not! The artist defines his work by what he leaves out, as well as what he
puts in. DaVinci removed some perfectly acceptable "artistic work" from the background of
some of his paintings, because he felt they detracted from the main presentation. There
is no difference with film-- the director/cinematographer put the edge of the theatrical
frame right >there< because it kept all the important art and the rest was chaff.
>And for those you who have not read previous messages.
>WidgyBone would be a new video format that provided the exact same horizontal view
>as widescreen along with the extra vertical info that is sometimes provided in some
>P&S. IT IS NOT P&S. IT IS NOT FULLSCREEN. It is more like 16:11. With the proper
>compression you could watch 16:11 on a 16:9 TV.
But only the bizarre would actually *want* to.
Jeff Rife
> I was starting to think the same thing.
> Is Tim MAX?
Not unless he has moved to New Jersey, which is where Tim's post(s) come
from.
If Max does end up that close to us, it's time for *us* to think about
moving somewhere else.
--
Jeff Rife | "I'll be back in five or six days."
301-916-8131 |
| "No, you'll be back in five or six pieces."
| -- "The Lost World"
Larry G
> Patronizing? Tim has a fundamental misunderstanding that a professional
> cinematographer, among others, has attempted to explain. Tim apparently
remains
> convinced that his presumption is accurate and that the pro is mistaken.
>
> I'm asking that if he has convincing evidence to contradict David, then
please
> present it.
>
>
> > I *prefer* widescreen myself, but having the option of seeing
> > the missing vertical information is also interesting.
>
> Not at the cost of losing disk space or anamorphic enhancement. If they
want to
> make separate releases, that is fine with me. Simple as that.
Agreed. A two- or three-disc set release is what I was referring to.
>
>
> > I'll use one example
> > of a director's vision for 4:3. Back in the 70s, the TV show
"Battlestar
> > Galactica" was released in theaters. It was *designed* for television.
The
> > director's vision was a 4:3 release television pilot for ABC in the
U.S..
> > When the film was released on DVD years later, it was released in the
> > cropped "widescreen" version that was seen in theaters, even though the
film
> > was designed and framed as a *television* pilot. Thus, in this rare
case,
> > it was the TV version that was the director's original version.
>
> It is irrelevant to the topic to discuss any movies that are incorrectly
framed.
No it isn't. Because my contention is that *some* directors frame their
movies with home video or 4:3 in mind, because the movie will have a longer
video/TV life. Some directors believe 4:3 is better. Kubrick was an
example. I personally prefer widescreen, I'm not saying I didn't. I just
like the option of seeing the missing information, and question whether or
not a director might have a compromised frame for both theatrical and home
4:3 presentations.
> Tim is insisting that important information is missing from the
widescreen, so
> it is a matter of that. He apparently believes that whatever was exposed
on the
> film frame is somehow "important". This is a misconception and is the only
> reason I made my post. I asked for him to demonstrate his position, and to
> re-read the information provided by a professional cinematographer.
Not everything. I'm saying there are *exceptions*, where one might question
that a certain scene was in fact framed for a later 4:3 release. Here's an
example from Harry Potter:
http://plum.cream.org/HP/dvd/Big/01511.jpg
If the letter had been properly framed for 2.35:1, a shot further out from
the letter should have been made. The address at the top might be
considered extraneous. But, there is a paragraph missing at the bottom in
the widescreen version.
>
> No director in his right mind would consciously decide to *intend* "for
viewers
> to see this additional information at some point" but exclude it from the
> theater. I'd love to hear how you arrived at this notion. How about some
> examples and how you know that the director intended you to see it "at
some
> point".
See above.
Another Potter example:
http://plum.cream.org/HP/dvd/Big/03235.jpg
(If this were truly framed for 2.35:1, I think he might again have pulled
back to include all the important information.)
This one has benefits in either direction:
http://plum.cream.org/HP/dvd/Big/21519.jpg
> How about some examples of where the director and DP decided to hide this
> important information from the theater and save it for home video
exclusive.
> Please include how you came to the conclusion that it was meant for you to
see
> at home only while it was being hidden from the theatrical audience.
See above. I'm not privy to private conversations of movie directors. I
can only judge from some examples I've seen, and others have pointed out
such as the website I posted. It isn't my website, it's someone else's
observations. They feel that *both* versions have advantages and
disavantages, and I tend to agree. They also say that they prefer
widescreen, but were simply surprised with the few examples where the
fullscreen version was better, and were disappointed by this. This is
something I also agree with.
> Simply amazing. Nowhere to go from here. Consider yourself patronized.
Simply amazing, that you didn't read the bit about a *two- or three- disc*
set where no important information would be lost. Consider yourself better
informed about my position. :-)
I agree with most of what you say. But, I point out the possibility that
*some* directors might compromise and frame for 2.35:1, aware of a future
home video release.
What I disagree with is your contention that everyone must think as you do,
and not have an open mind to the possibilities that certain directors might
frame this way. I don't think that all extraneous information is important,
or that "more is better". I simply like the option of seeing the whole
picture. A cut of the entire filmed movie might be interesting.
I'm not for releases where any information is lost at the expense of the
other. Perhaps, I shouldn't have said one release on one disc. I'm for the
choice of *both* release in a single package, however many discs that
requires for a pristine picture and presentation.
Larry
Larry G
> Exceptions don't prove the rule. It's wrong to show something in a manner
> in which it was not framed. People who love the art of composition are
(or
> should be) just as upset to see a classic 1.37 Academy movie cropped to
> widescreen as a theatrical widescreen movie unmatted to 4:3. The point
> isn't "widescreen at all costs" but to see the movie as it was composed to
> be seen. If it were composed to be seen on a 4:3 TV, then THAT'S how it
> should be shown. If it were composed to be cropped to widescreen, then
> THAT'S how it should be shown.
>
> So the "Battlestar Galactica" example only reinforces the importance of
> preserving the correct composition throughout a variety of presentation
> formats and technologies.
I agree. My point is that directors, like the rest of us, don't live in a
vacuum. They are very aware that the current standard for television at
least in the large American market, until the U.S. adopts 16:9, is 4:3.
(Personally, I wish the U.S. would get on with adopting digital widescreen
already.) Therefore, I think that many have in mind both the theatrical and
home presentations when filming. I don't believe that all of them frame for
the theatrical presentation alone. Overall, the widescreen Harry Potter is
superior to the 4:3 version. But, there are a few examples to the contrary.
That is my point. With the advances to DVD in the upcoming years, there
should be no reason at all not to include a 2.35:1 widescreen version, a 4:3
version, and a raw director's version of the entire filmed area as an extra,
if they so chose. I understand the limitations now, but these won't be
around forever.
Larry
Larry G
better
> picture?
Will you be against widescreen TVs when they crop your favorite classic TV
show's 4:3 picture to make it fit 16:9? This will, of course, not be the
director's original vision. I'm looking forward to widescreen TVs, but do
acknowledge there will be limitations.
Larry
JoeS
>
> What I disagree with is your contention that everyone must think as you do,
> and not have an open mind to the possibilities that certain directors might
> frame this way.
Bring some evidence to support your supposition/presumption. There is sufficient
of evidence from professional directors and cinematographers to demonstrate that
the majority do not. Prove them wrong.
Joe
Larry G
> So we are now at:
> You would not watch a DVD in a new format if it provides the EXACT SAME
HORIZONTAL
> VIEW AS WIDESCREEN and has a larger vertical view because it is not
traditional
> widescreen. And I would. Right? Then you can watch your traditional
widescreen
horizontal
> view as traditional widescreen and has a larger vertical view and we would
both be
> happy.
>
> And in response to your previous post. I do own a widescreen TV and I
only watch
> widescreen DVDs.
Tim, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but here's what I think you're
trying to say, so both of you can get beyond the semantics. At least this
is my hope.
Joe, I think Tim is trying to ask if there is not a way to produce a very
high resolution widescreen picture, so that when you zoom in on the picture
to make it bit a 4:3 screen, or a 16:9 one for that matter, that no
resolution is lost. Clearly this is possible, as a cropped fullscreen 4:3
picture has a higher resolution than a zoomed in 2.35:1 picture to fit a 4:3
screen. Surely with the advances in DVD in the future, this should be
possible no? Why isn't it done now? And, if Tim is not asking this, I am.
For people with site problems, sometimes there is no choice than to zoom in
on a 2.35:1 movie to make it fit a 1.33:1 (4:3) picture frame.
As for the lost vertical information in a widescreen version, there's no
reason that certain scenes couldn't be filmed from further away, and with a
higher resolution picture, there should be no problem anyway. At theaters,
the screen is large enough most of these points are irrelevant, but on the
small screen, they do matter.
Larry
JoeS
I am against presenting 4:3 material in a format other than 4:3 regardless of
the shape of the display device.
What's your point?
Joe
JoeS
>
> Joe, I think Tim is trying to ask if there is not a way to produce a very
> high resolution widescreen picture, so that when you zoom in on the picture
> to make it bit a 4:3 screen, or a 16:9 one for that matter, that no
> resolution is lost. Clearly this is possible, as a cropped fullscreen 4:3
> picture has a higher resolution than a zoomed in 2.35:1 picture to fit a 4:3
> screen. Surely with the advances in DVD in the future, this should be
> possible no? Why isn't it done now? And, if Tim is not asking this, I am.
No, it is not possible. Zooming will lose resolution. Period. There is no magic
way around this. There are exactly 2 resolutions available on DVD...standard and
enhanced (technically, it's a single resolution, but an anamorphic-compatible TV
will make an enhanced DVD display with higher resoltion.)
Either you don't understand how DVD works, or you are leaving something out of
your explanation.
> For people with site problems, sometimes there is no choice than to zoom in
> on a 2.35:1 movie to make it fit a 1.33:1 (4:3) picture frame.
Option #2, buy a screen large enough to see the picture. And no, I'm not
interested in ideas that cater to people with sight problems that are too poor
to buy a larger TV. If that's the case, they can stick with VHS.
> As for the lost vertical information in a widescreen version, there's no
> reason that certain scenes couldn't be filmed from further away, and with a
> higher resolution picture, there should be no problem anyway. At theaters,
> the screen is large enough most of these points are irrelevant, but on the
> small screen, they do matter.
I suggest you seek to learn a bit more about filmmaking, as well. Your statement
above makes no sense at all.
Joe
Larry G
magic
> way around this. There are exactly 2 resolutions available on
DVD...standard and
> enhanced (technically, it's a single resolution, but an
anamorphic-compatible TV
> will make an enhanced DVD display with higher resoltion.)
>
> Either you don't understand how DVD works, or you are leaving something
out of
> your explanation.
Well, that's because it's a question, not an explanation. And, the question
was: Can a widescreen movie be presented in a higher resolution on a DVD,
so that when zoomed, even though you have lost resolution during the zoom,
it would be equivalent to the resolution of a film presented in fullscreen
on a DVD? Would the problem be that a higher resolution would affect the
quality of a widescreen picture on the DVD?
> > For people with site problems, sometimes there is no choice than to zoom
in
> > on a 2.35:1 movie to make it fit a 1.33:1 (4:3) picture frame.
>
> Option #2, buy a screen large enough to see the picture. And no, I'm not
> interested in ideas that cater to people with sight problems that are too
poor
> to buy a larger TV. If that's the case, they can stick with VHS.
It's this widescreen DVD snobbery that I detest. The idea that if someone
presents a viewpoint different than yours that they are an idiot and could
not possibly understand the art of filmmaking or the concept of OAR and
widescreen. I'm a widescreen advocate. But if there is a market for the
fullscreen product, for those that wish to see it, that should be made
available. Otherwise, your position is no better than studios who feel that
they shouldn't have to release OAR widescreen releases to the general public
because they saw that in aspect ratio theaters. I detest that, and I detest
this. The public should have a choice. With the technology available to
today, it's possible. There's no need for this "war". I am not talking
about replacing widescreen with fullscreen. I'm saying that each has its
benefits in *some* formats. I really don't think it's a hard concept to
grasp. And, attacking my intelligence about filmmaking will get you
nowhere. It is not simply a matter of missing film information on the
sides. In *some* formats top and bottom information is missing as well.
The matter for debate is whether or not directors intend for this
information to be missing or intend for the viewer to eventually see it on a
fullscreen presentation. I'm *not* advocating pan & scan. You have a
knowledge of filmmaking. I respect that. That doesn't mean that all other
opinions are irrelevant. Sometimes it's healthy to think about things in a
different way that not the same as every other drone out there.
>
>
> > As for the lost vertical information in a widescreen version, there's no
> > reason that certain scenes couldn't be filmed from further away, and
with a
> > higher resolution picture, there should be no problem anyway. At
theaters,
> > the screen is large enough most of these points are irrelevant, but on
the
> > small screen, they do matter.
>
> I suggest you seek to learn a bit more about filmmaking, as well. Your
statement
> above makes no sense at all.
Okay, in simple English: If Joe Q. Director wants to film a movie so that
people are happy and not complaining about "chopped off heads" etc., then
said director should film from further away for the widescreen frame,
allowing more material (information) to fill the screen. It seems to me
that older films are done this way, and I believe that open matte and Super
35 are possible reasons why there are problems such as viewers complaining
about chopped heads, and other missing extraneous information.
Larry
Matthew L. Martin
> "JoeS" <me....@gte.net> wrote in message ...
>
>>Are you against widescreen TVs and against anamorphic enhancement for a
>
> better
>
>>picture?
>
>
> Will you be against widescreen TVs when they crop your favorite classic TV
> show's 4:3 picture to make it fit 16:9?
I've had a 16:9 display for over five years. I only watch 4:3 material
in a 4:3 rectangle in the center of the screen. That's the way it should be.
> This will, of course, not be the
> director's original vision. I'm looking forward to widescreen TVs, but do
> acknowledge there will be limitations.
16:9 and 4:3 displays have no limitations. Only confused people do.
Matthew
Larry G
sufficient
> of evidence from professional directors and cinematographers to
demonstrate that
> the majority do not. Prove them wrong.
Did you read my post? I provided some examples. Whether or not you choose
this as evidence is entirely up to you.
You post also implies that a minority of directors do frame with 4:3 in
mind. That is my only point, and with that that they are trade-offs. It is
not simply a question of one way or the other unfortunately.
Larry
JoeS
>
> "JoeS" <me....@gte.net> wrote in message ...
> > Bring some evidence to support your supposition/presumption. There is sufficient
> > of evidence from professional directors and cinematographers to demonstrate that
> > the majority do not. Prove them wrong.
>
> Did you read my post? I provided some examples. Whether or not you choose
> this as evidence is entirely up to you.
I saw that you made some subjective comments regarding your preferences among WS
and FS framing on some examples, but your preference does not override the
director's.
Said otherwise, because you think it looks better does not mean it was made to
look better on purpose by the filmmakers, or that it looks better to everyone
else.
> You post also implies that a minority of directors do frame with 4:3 in mind.
As David Mullen has stated, frame for theatrical, protect for home
video/television. That someone protects for home video/tv does NOT imply that
any single frame in the film is intended to look better in full frame than
widescreen, though it is "in mind". It's a defensive maneuver to avoid a full
pan&scan job.
> That is my only point, and with that that they are trade-offs. It is
> not simply a question of one way or the other unfortunately.
Yes, it is one way or the other. It is either the OAR, or it is not.
Joe
Larry G
The point being that under certain filming techniques, sometimes there is
missing information (or added information to look at this in a positive
manner) from either format. Is widescreen better overall? Yes. No
question. Is the OAR preferred over changing the OAR? Yes.
We basically agree on most points. It is only about whether or not we feel
that an alternative version should be made available to the mass market on
DVD do we differ. As for directors framing for 4:3 or not, I'd be curious
to read their comments either way.
Larry
Larry G
That is how I hope it will be here. Have you ever seen a chopped 16:9
presentation of an originally 4:3 program? Just curious.
Larry
JoeS
>
> Okay, in simple English: If Joe Q. Director wants to film a movie so that
> people are happy and not complaining about "chopped off heads" etc., then
> said director should film from further away for the widescreen frame,
> allowing more material (information) to fill the screen. It seems to me
> that older films are done this way, and I believe that open matte and Super
> 35 are possible reasons why there are problems such as viewers complaining
> about chopped heads, and other missing extraneous information.
You are suggesting that they film in 65mm (for increased resolution), shoot from
farther away so as to include more worthless picture information on the frame,
and then crop the sides so that you'll have more vertical picture information to
fill a 4:3 screen?
I wish I could explain to you, in a way you could understand, what is so
ludicrous about your suggestion, but I wouldn't know where to start since you
seem to think you've got a handle on how films are made.
Since you've demonstrated an unwillingness to try to learn, even with the
benefit of a professional cinematographer, I'll leave you to your own devices.
Joe
David Mullen
>vacuum. They are very aware that the current standard for television at
>least in the large American market, until the U.S. adopts 16:9, is 4:3.
>(Personally, I wish the U.S. would get on with adopting digital widescreen
>already.) Therefore, I think that many have in mind both the theatrical
and
>home presentations when filming.
There are always exceptions, and any number of mediocre movies are
indifferently composed. But in general, if a theatrical release is likely,
then it's the theatrical frame that will be the major point of focus when
shooting. TV presentation is of secondary importance, and for films shot in
2.35 anamorphic, there's no real way to frame for a 4:3 TV version anyway.
I once asked DP Steven Burum, who shoots a lot for Brian DePalma, if he ever
made concessions to TV when framing and he said "the worse the pan & scan
version looks, the better my widescreen compositions must be" -- he
absolutely does not try to compromise for the TV version and he tries to
shoot in anamorphic whenever possible.
Even James Cameron, king of Super-35, has said in an interview that he masks
off his video tap monitor to show him only the 2.35 image. He feels that he
can play around with the whole Super-35 frame later in post when it's time
to make the pan & scan TV version -- but that there's absolutely no reason
to be thinking about the TV version while he's making the movie itself. He
can deal with that later.
It's really not possible to frame for two aspect ratios at once -- one will
be the primary area of concern and the other will only be dealt with
offhandedly, if at all. You can't apply the same degree of artistry to two
frames at once because the art of composition is based around the concept of
a frame, and if that frame is nebulous, the compositon becomes nebulous as
well.
Like I said, the general rule on the film set is "COMPOSE for theatrical,
PROTECT for TV" -- that does not impy that the TV version therefore has
equal artistic merit.
As for the examples from "Harry Potter" can you seriously imagine Columbus
and Seale on the set framing shot after shot, month after month, for a 2.35
release and then occasionally just framing something that is only "correct"
for a 4:3 TV version but is incorrect in the theatrical version? Can you
imagine a conversion on-set like "yes, that paragraph on the paper is
important... but make sure you frame it out of the theatrical version"???
It seems to me a case where you are looking at the full-frame version and
are coming to your own conclusions about what looks better and what is
framed correctly, which is the whole problem I have with releasing both a
widescreen and a pan & scan version -- everyone thinks that filmmaking is a
democratic process where their two cents matter on how the movie should be
framed, i.e. "oh, I liked the shot in the full-frame version where he didn't
chop off his forehead as much as the widescreen version, but over here on
this shot, I like the widescreen version..." Even as a cinematographer, I
don't make those sorts of judgement calls when I watch something -- I wasn't
the one who framed it afterall so my opinion is next to worthless. It's not
MY movie.
Yes, I'll admit in low-budget filmmaking where a theatrical release is
remote but one still composes for 1.85 projection "just in case" one might
frame 1.85 on the "tight" side just so the full-frame transfer won't look as
loose. But even then, all important picture information HAS to get into the
1.85 area -- the idea being that if it does, it's also in the TV area, but
the reverse is not true. So it's safer to compose for the most amount of
potential cropping rather than the least.
But even in small features like I shoot, one would not frame something to
look better in the TV version but worse in the widescreen version. Either
you are primarily framing for theatrical or for television -- just for
sanity's sake, you have to commit to one format or another.
David Mullen
JoeS
I don't think an open matte version *should* be made available, but I have no
problem if they make a separate release. I really don't want to spend discs or
disc space on a version I'll never watch.
I think you can take David Mullen's repeated statements on how filmmakers frame
their movies pretty seriously as indicative of the facts. I'm confused why there
is still a question in your mind.
Your suggestions regarding increased resolution and other things that do not fit
into the set of film and DVD capabilities is where things really went haywire.
joe
Doonie
> Tim wrote:
>>Now can we get back to main part of my argument. If the extra vertical information
>>was important enough that the director took the time to use his artistic skills to
>>make it look good in a P&S release why is it not important enough to include in an
>>non-P&S format release.
>
>You miss the point. The extra vertical information is not "important" at all, or
>else it would have been on the movie screen. The director "took the time to use
>his artistic skills to make it look" *tolerable* on a P&S release,
>because he knows that the studio is going to release it in that format regardless
>and he doesn't want it to look like complete ass.
Half the examples posted by someone here looked more framed for 4:3
than 2.35:1 ..
>But "not complete ass" != "awesome", or even "good". If the directors truly cared
>about the home video P&S release, they'd have the effects shots done open matte
>as well; however, this is entirely a rarity (Kevin Smith did it in Dogma, but that's
>the only example I can come up with offhand). Instead, even when the matte is opened
>up for a 4:3 release, we still get panned/scanned effects shots.
Wasn't someone calling the Harry Potter special effects guys
"idiots" for matting out their own special effects in the theatrical
release?
Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone is probably the
biggest-budget made-for-TV movie of all time!
Matthew L. Martin
---8<---8<--- Excellent post snipped --->8--->8---
>
> Either
> you are primarily framing for theatrical or for television -- just for
> sanity's sake, you have to commit to one format or another.
David,
This entire post should be part of a widescreen FAQ. Would you be
willing to donate it?
Matthew
Richard C.
"Jeff Rife" <we...@nabs.net> wrote in message news:MPG.1772cf6a...@news.nabs.net...
: Richard C. (post...@spamcop.net) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
: > I was starting to think the same thing.
: > Is Tim MAX?
:
: Not unless he has moved to New Jersey, which is where Tim's post(s) come
: from.
:
: If Max does end up that close to us, it's time for *us* to think about
: moving somewhere else.
=====================
the very thought kinda' makes your skin crawl, don't it...............
Richard C.
"Larry G" <thela...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aeb50o$5lbnm$1...@ID-37509.news.dfncis.de...
: They are very aware that the current standard for television at
: least in the large American market, until the U.S. adopts 16:9, is 4:3.
==========================
They HAVE!
==========================
: (Personally, I wish the U.S. would get on with adopting digital widescreen
: already.)
=========================
They ARE!
===========================
: Therefore, I think that many have in mind both the theatrical and
: home presentations when filming. I don't believe that all of them frame for
: the theatrical presentation alone. Overall, the widescreen Harry Potter is
: superior to the 4:3 version. But, there are a few examples to the contrary.
: That is my point. With the advances to DVD in the upcoming years, there
: should be no reason at all not to include a 2.35:1 widescreen version, a 4:3
: version, and a raw director's version of the entire filmed area as an extra,
: if they so chose. I understand the limitations now, but these won't be
: around forever.
:
=========================
The same ignorati that complain about "black bars" on their 4:3 sets will STILL complain about them on their 16:9 sets!
Richard C.
"Larry G" <thela...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aeb590$5co4j$1...@ID-37509.news.dfncis.de...
: "JoeS" <me....@gte.net> wrote in message ...
==================
I will not be against the TV because some asshole butchers it to fit the screen...
I will be against the revisionist ASSHOLE!