matrix - extra wide
D
damn..
is it just me, or is it extra wide?
The black bars seem bigger than on my other dvds...
ta
D
Steve Tannehill
D <oldp...@removethisifuwantyourmailtogetthrough.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Non anamorphic...
>
>damn..
Uh, it's 16x9 enhanced 2.35x1 widescreen...anamorphic in all sense of the word.
- Steve
--
Steve Tannehill
The DVD Resource Page
http://www.dvdresource.com
Havok
--
Havok
"Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free"
Buenos Aires, Argentina
D escribió en mensaje
<37E7A08B...@removethisifuwantyourmailtogetthrough.hotmail.com>...
Joe Anstett
> Non anamorphic...
Wrong, I watched it come up 16x9 enhanced on my 16x9 display, just as
promised on the back of the disc.
> damn..
>
> is it just me, or is it extra wide?
>
> The black bars seem bigger than on my other dvds...
It's just you. The movie is in the 2.35:1 ratio, which is quite
common. Have you not watched a lot of DVDs so far?
Joe
Bryan
ain't it...
D <oldp...@removethisifuwantyourmailtogetthrough.hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:37E7A08B...@removethisifuwantyourmailtogetthrough.hotmail.com...
> Non anamorphic...
>
> damn..
>
> is it just me, or is it extra wide?
>
> The black bars seem bigger than on my other dvds...
>
> ta
>
> D
>
Ethan Straffin
Lionel" <blionelJ...@home.com> wrote:
>I measured. It's using about 45% of my actual screen. What a ripoff. I guess
>I'll buy it on VHS so I can see it from across the room.
Guess you'll be wanting to stay away from these 2.35:1 widescreen-only
titles as well:
Alien
Alien3
Alien Resurrection
Apollo 13
Blade
Con Air
Contact
Crimson Tide
Die Hard
Die Hard 2
Die Hard: With A Vengeance
Face/Off
The Hitcher
Lethal Weapon 4
The Negotiator
The Rock
Rosewood
Se7en
Speed
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
2010: The Year We Make Contact
And those are just the ones in *my* collection.
Hey, 45% of your screen, or 45% of the image you were meant to see. Your
call...
Ethan
--
MiniDisc RoX! http://www.minidisc.org/minidiscv.html
The DVD FAQ: http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html
Save 5-25% on purchases from Amazon, Reel, BigStar, CDNow, many more!
Check it out: http://www.ebates.com/index.jhtml?referrer=drumz
Ray Nicolet
Bob `MadBob' Lionel
I'll buy it on VHS so I can see it from across the room.
Bob Lionel
D <oldp...@removethisifuwantyourmailtogetthrough.hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:37E7A08B...@removethisifuwantyourmailtogetthrough.hotmail.com...
Ray Nicolet
DVDsaint
or cutting off 45% of the movie screen?
You are right. You should go back to VHS. People like you
are a shame for DVD.
In article <I6_F3.3$8f1....@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com>,
blionelJ...@home.com says...
The Razor
Bob `MadBob' Lionel <blionelJ...@home.com> wrote in message
news:I6_F3.3$8f1....@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> I measured. It's using about 45% of my actual screen. What a ripoff. I
guess
> I'll buy it on VHS so I can see it from across the room.
>
Bobby Vincent
picture, now that's a real rip-off.
Post-Age
--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
Bob `MadBob' Lionel wrote in message ...
Joe Anstett
> I measured. It's using about 45% of my actual screen. What a ripoff. I guess
> I'll buy it on VHS so I can see it from across the room.
The ripoff is buying the VHS so you can chop off 43% of the picture from the
sides. It would be interesting to see how badly they butcher this film to fill
your screen. There are a lot of scenes in the movie with characters at the
extreme ends of the image. Guess some of them will be disappearing.
Talk about a ripoff.
Joe
Bruce Chastain
> I measured. It's using about 45% of my actual screen. What a ripoff. I
guess
> I'll buy it on VHS so I can see it from across the room.
I agree. Preserving the sides of the original frame is totally worthless if
the whole thing is too small to be seen. Until a better solution is found,
is widely in use, and is affordable, 4:3 pan&scan is the least objectionable
solution.
Bruce.
Post-Age
alone........
--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
Bruce Chastain wrote in message <7sb7a9$4...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
Ghostbuster
says...
>
>Bob `MadBob' Lionel <blionelJ...@home.com
>> I measured. It's using about 45% of my actual screen. What a ripoff. I
>guess
>> I'll buy it on VHS so I can see it from across the room.
>
>I agree. Preserving the sides of the original frame is totally worthless if
>the whole thing is too small to be seen. Until a better solution is found,
>is widely in use, and is affordable, 4:3 pan&scan is the least objectionable
>solution.
>
>Bruce.
>
You can always go back to VHS. People like you
don't deserve DVD.
Joe Anstett
> Bob `MadBob' Lionel <blionelJ...@home.com
> > I measured. It's using about 45% of my actual screen. What a ripoff. I
> guess
> > I'll buy it on VHS so I can see it from across the room.
>
> I agree. Preserving the sides of the original frame is totally worthless if
> the whole thing is too small to be seen. Until a better solution is found,
> is widely in use, and is affordable, 4:3 pan&scan is the least objectionable
> solution.
Unless you actually happen to like movies and give a rat's ass about preserving
the movie as its creators intended it to be seen, rather than by some hack who
may not even have SEEN the movie who arbitrarily hacks up the image.
Joe
Darryl Lee
>Bob `MadBob' Lionel <blionelJ...@home.com
>> I measured. It's using about 45% of my actual screen. What a ripoff. I
>guess
>> I'll buy it on VHS so I can see it from across the room.
>I agree. Preserving the sides of the original frame is totally worthless if
>the whole thing is too small to be seen. Until a better solution is found,
>is widely in use, and is affordable, 4:3 pan&scan is the least objectionable
>solution.
Oh, if only all movies were 100% digital, like Bug's Life. That way
everyone could be happy: http://www.pixar.com/feature/bugs/reframe/
(They repositioned characters, expanded the sky/ground, and did all
sorts of other neat stuff to make it really work in 4:3.)
(Of course this takes lots of time and money, as well as committment
and support from the studio to do.)
--
Darryl Lee <lee@@darryl.com> | New, yes. But improved? <http://www.darryl.com>
Bruce Chastain
> You can always go back to VHS. People like you
> don't deserve DVD.
Do you have a macro key assigned to that saying?
Anyone who can pay for the player deserves the higher resolution of DVD ...
except, of course, people with stuck macro keys. :-)
Bruce.
Bruce Chastain
> Unless you actually happen to like movies and give a rat's ass about
preserving
> the movie as its creators intended it to be seen, rather than by some hack
who
> may not even have SEEN the movie who arbitrarily hacks up the image.
Making the picture to small to enjoy IS a hack.
Bruce.
DVDsaint
says...
Why would you buy DVD if you simply hate widescreen?
BTW, using smiling face only makes me sick.
DVDsaint
says...
As I told you, no one forces you to buy DVD.
Go back to VHS and you will be happy.
Danny Clark
<richar...@post-age-collectibles.com> wrote:
>Good, then you will be moving to the VHS newsgroup and leaving us
>alone........
>
>--
>Richard
I'm hoping he sticks around. He throws great parties.
Would you be leaving the group anytime soon Dick? I heard that you just
insult people at your parties.... and only serve chips and soda. Broads,
booze and "thanks for coming" is always a nice start to a party.
--
Danny Clark
Danny Clark
<richar...@post-age-collectibles.com> wrote:
>And miss half the picture!
>
>--
>Richard
I'm still waiting for a reply to you....from somebody. Is it because you
sound like a know it all, pompous prick?
Could be.
Could also be the negative feedbacks on ebay.
--
Danny Clark
Andy Bates
<b...@XNOSPAMXpcquote.com> wrote:
> I agree. Preserving the sides of the original frame is totally worthless if
> the whole thing is too small to be seen.
Try sitting closer to your TV.
--
Andy Bates.
Bruce Chastain
Bruce Chastain
> Why would you buy DVD if you simply hate widescreen?
Higher resolution, better sound and more channels, smaller and easier to
store media, media storage lifetime, additional features like menus, chapter
indexing and searching, faster searching, no rewinding, extras, director
tracks, etc. etc., etc., etc., etc.
However, just to be accurate. I don't hate widescreen. I hate letterbox.
But ya take the bad with the good. If they'd always put a 4:3 pan&scan
version on the other side, I'd be delighted.
>BTW, using smiling face only makes me sick
Seems very odd, but I'll resist the temptation.
Bruce.
Bruce Chastain
> As I told you, no one forces you to buy DVD.
> Go back to VHS and you will be happy.
Sorry, no looking back now!
Bruce.
TNMorpheus
Doug Pippel
: Was the movie shot in Super 35
Yes, "The Matrix" was shot in Super35 according to the IMDB.
DP
DVDsaint
says...
>
>DVDsaint <DVDs...@dvdworld.com>
>> Why would you buy DVD if you simply hate widescreen?
>
>Higher resolution, better sound and more channels, smaller and easier to
>store media, media storage lifetime, additional features like menus, chapter
>indexing and searching, faster searching, no rewinding, extras, director
>tracks, etc. etc., etc., etc., etc.
>
>However, just to be accurate. I don't hate widescreen. I hate letterbox.
>
And I thought you were smart, until the last sentence.
>But ya take the bad with the good. If they'd always put a 4:3 pan&scan
>version on the other side, I'd be delighted.
>
Unfortuately for you, not many DVDs do that today.
You must be really pissed off, eh?
DVDsaint
says...
>
>DVDsaint <DVDs...@dvdworld.com>
>> As I told you, no one forces you to buy DVD.
>> Go back to VHS and you will be happy.
>
>Sorry, no looking back now!
>
>Bruce.
>
It also means no looking back to Pan&Scan.
You will be assimulated. Resistance is futile.
DVDsaint
mrp...@mindspring.com says...
Here is a reply to you, dick.
DVDsaint
I love smart asses.
Andy Bates
<lee@SPAMNO!darryl.com> wrote:
> Oh, if only all movies were 100% digital, like Bug's Life. That way
> everyone could be happy: http://www.pixar.com/feature/bugs/reframe/
>
> (They repositioned characters, expanded the sky/ground, and did all
> sorts of other neat stuff to make it really work in 4:3.)
In other words, they used a combination of opening the matte,
pan-and-scanning, and reframing certain scenes. No matter how they
dance around the subject, they're still losing picture information and
framing from the original. The only good thing about that transfer is
that it was supervised by the director.
--
Andy Bates.
Post-Age
All of my friends do......
--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
DVDsaint wrote in message <7sbkub$9jk$1...@news.ycc.yale.edu>...
>In article <mrpitt-2209...@user-2iveahk.dialup.mindspring.com>,
>mrp...@mindspring.com says...
>>
Danny Clark
(DVDsaint) wrote:
>I love smart asses.
Then, we could have a future together. My man needs to be sensitive and
willing to open up. If you fit this bill, we'll need to make our first
date.
May I suggest a quiet evening at my place? We can watch the Matrix with
some cheese and crackers.
--
Danny Clark
Danny Clark
(DVDsaint) wrote:
>Here is a reply to you, dick.
Dick is the other guy. I'm Danny. And what reply? I'm a smart ass? That
was the other reply. You need a new one.
--
Danny Clark
Post-Age
--
Richard
Danny Clark wrote in message ...
Ethan Straffin
(DVDsaint) wrote:
>In article <7sbjo1$7...@dfw-ixnews19.ix.netcom.com>, b...@XNOSPAMXpcquote.com
>says...
>>
>>However, just to be accurate. I don't hate widescreen. I hate letterbox.
>
>And I thought you were smart, until the last sentence.
Well, semantically speaking, he does have a point. A widescreen 1.85:1
film on a widescreen set will not be appreciably letterboxed, and Bruce is
saying that he would be happy to watch it under those conditions. Though
I don't recall what he plans to do about 2.35:1 films on that widescreen
set...lobby for a version that's panned and scanned to 1.85:1, perhaps?
>>But ya take the bad with the good. If they'd always put a 4:3 pan&scan
>>version on the other side, I'd be delighted.
>
>Unfortuately for you, not many DVDs do that today.
I figure it's about one in three of the titles in the average collection,
presumptuously using my own 82-disc collection (with 27 dual-format discs)
as a model.
Ethan
--
MiniDisc RoX! http://www.minidisc.org/minidiscv.html
The DVD FAQ: http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html
Save 5-25% on purchases from Amazon, Reel, BigStar, CDNow, many more!
Check it out: http://www.ebates.com/index.jhtml?referrer=drumz
Ethan Straffin
>No, Danny...you are the dick! Deal with it!
But at least he has a sense of humor and a relatively entertaining writing
style...
Invid Fan
<DVDs...@dvdworld.com> wrote:
> In article <7sbfhb$s...@dfw-ixnews16.ix.netcom.com>, b...@XNOSPAMXpcquote.com
> says...
> >
> >Ghostbuster <ghost...@ny.com
> >> You can always go back to VHS. People like you
> >> don't deserve DVD.
> >
> >Do you have a macro key assigned to that saying?
> >
> >Anyone who can pay for the player deserves the higher resolution of DVD ...
> >except, of course, people with stuck macro keys. :-)
> >
> >Bruce.
> >
>
> Why would you buy DVD if you simply hate widescreen?
I love replies like this *smile* What does the format of dvd have to do
with widescreen? Hell, part of the specs is suppost to be the ability
do do an on the fly pan/scan for those that prefer full frame images.
And as for going back to vhs, there are more movies I'm interested in
buying avalible on widescreen vhs then there are on dvd at the moment.
But I'm content to wait till the dvd back cataloge catches up.
--
Chris Mack "You do NOT, I repeat, do NOT ask a guest in my
'Invid Fan' home to make a PILLAR OF FIRE!!"
"I asked him IF he knew how!! IF! IF! IF!!"
In...@localnet.com -Cerebus:Jaka's Story
Post-Age
--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
Ethan Straffin wrote in message ...
Danny Clark
>No, Danny...you are the dick! Deal with it!
>
>--
>Richard
I know you are....but what am I?
I invented that one back in the third grade. I also invented the koodie
shot to deal with the koodies. Because of me, many third graders were
spared the fatal koodie disease. I've since began to turn my medical
studies on the relationship of little voices towards big voices inside the
heads of DVD users.
Contributions welcome.
--
Danny Clark
Danny Clark
>If you go for masturbation
Hmmm...
Are you saying that you have never masturbated? That's a strange subject,
that masturbation thing. Think about it. You turn 12, find your penis
growing at the sight of naked people....or animals, depending upon what
God made you....and then you begin to find pleasure with that same penis.
Then, the quest begins. You must find a woman. Who cares that they hate
baseball, don't want to laugh at farts and cry everytime you smack them
around. Hell....they have tits and asses. Finally, you score with the ugly
girl around the corner and after much abuse by your friends, you decide to
begin masturbating again....and thus the quest begins once again. Finally,
you find a pretty girl who puts out and also puts up with a rhoids all
game and even laughs when you make her pull your finger. You're in love.
Then you get married, puke, and learn that going out with the boys becomes
easy to do if you want to be locked out of the house stone drunk and thus
causing the neighbors to hide their children when you walk by. Yeah. The
first 5 years, sex every night. Oral, anal, toys, in the car, on the roof,
driving to church...anything goes. The next 15, you are back masturbating
after your wife has gained 125 pounds and has planted her fat ass in front
of the television watching Friends reruns for the 121st time until you
begin to masturbate to Matt LeBlanc. Life begins with masturbation and
ends up with masturbation.
> and spousal denigration!
The tragedy. Don't get me started on my entire family. I save those
stories for a bar. Richard. You seem to be wound up and easily annoyed. I
like that. I feed off that. I can be a dick, an asshole, a putz, moron
....or anything else you want me to be. Even wear a dress for you. Keep
posting Rich. I've got a million stories to tell. We'll laugh. We'll cry.
We'll scratch our hemoroids in public. Why? Because the damn things itch
so badly that a good scratch feels better then masturbation.
Just don't masturbate in public. This should be done privately.
--
Danny Clark
David Mullen
>I agree. Preserving the sides of the original frame is totally worthless
if
>is widely in use, and is affordable, 4:3 pan&scan is the least
objectionable
>solution.
Filling up a 4:3 monitor with picture information is totally worthless if
only half the film image can be viewed at a time. Until a better solution
can be found, letterboxing is the least objectionable solution.
I've owned a 23" TV set for years and have never found letterboxed movies
"too small to be seen". I can see them.
What if all reproductions of paintings in books only showed you half of the
image? Would that be acceptable -- or would you long for the day when
someone finally reproduced the entire painting? That JOY of finally seeing
the entire frame was how I felt when I first saw letterboxed versions of my
favorite 'scope movies.
David Mullen
ApplesOran
picture, now that's a real rip-off.>>
Actually, I'm almost certain Matrix was shot in Super 35 and NOT with
anamorphic lenses (FX sequences in VistaVision). While it was shot with 2:35:1
framing in mind, Super 35 is actually a matted format. You're missing info on
top and bottom and gaining a bit on the sides (but nowhere near as much as when
a film is shot with anamorphic lenses).
On a related note, James Cameron also prefers Super 35 because of the less
strenuous "pan-n-scanning" for video. Also, since Super 35 is a spherical
(i.e. non-anamorphic) format, you can shoot at lower light levels (anamorphic
lenses require a TON of light to retain focus).
To be MOST accurate, I believe the standard Super 35 composition is to shoot
with a "common top" framing and most of the cropping occurs at the bottom.
Andy Bates
<apple...@aol.com> wrote:
> Actually, I'm almost certain Matrix was shot in Super 35 and NOT with
> anamorphic lenses (FX sequences in VistaVision). While it was shot with
> 2:35:1
> framing in mind, Super 35 is actually a matted format. You're missing info on
> top and bottom and gaining a bit on the sides (but nowhere near as much as
> when
> a film is shot with anamorphic lenses).
And? The special effects were most likely generated at the 2.35:1
aspect ration, so you are still losing 47% of the picture in the
pan-and-scan format for those scenes, and not gaining any picture
information.
Andrew See
<joe_anstett@SPAM_IS_A_SCOURGEemail.com> wrote:
>Unless you actually happen to like movies and give a rat's ass about preserving
>the movie as its creators intended it to be seen, rather than by some hack who
>may not even have SEEN the movie who arbitrarily hacks up the image.
>
>Joe
Joe, I like widescreen, but your comment above is not truthful.
You claim that the P&S process is completely arbitrary and done by someone
who hasn't even seen the film.
1/ P&S is not done arbitrarily. It moves about the frame to "follow" the
action, dialog, or most significant part of the frame.
2/ This process is often done, or overseen by the director, or a similar
person involved with the production of the film.
Joe Anstett
> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:06:41 -0400, Joe Anstett
> <joe_anstett@SPAM_IS_A_SCOURGEemail.com> wrote:
>
> >Unless you actually happen to like movies and give a rat's ass about preserving
> >the movie as its creators intended it to be seen, rather than by some hack who
> >may not even have SEEN the movie who arbitrarily hacks up the image.
> >
> >Joe
>
> Joe, I like widescreen, but your comment above is not truthful.
>
> You claim that the P&S process is completely arbitrary and done by someone
> who hasn't even seen the film.
>
> 1/ P&S is not done arbitrarily. It moves about the frame to "follow" the
> action, dialog, or most significant part of the frame.
I didn't claim it was done RANDOMLY. I said it is often done by someone who wasn't
even involved in the filming of the original movie, and THIS person is the one
deciding which portions of the movie to jettison. This person is second-guessing
the work of the original filmmakers.
> 2/ This process is often done, or overseen by the director, or a similar
> person involved with the production of the film.
Often but not always.
Joe
Bruce Chastain
DVDsaint <DVDs...@dvdworld.com
> Unfortuately for you, not many DVDs do that today.
No, not with the format at all. Just with the widescreen only DVDs.
Bruce.
The CardShark
Clark) wrote:
>I know you are....but what am I?
>
>I invented that one back in the third grade. I also invented the koodie
>shot to deal with the koodies. Because of me, many third graders were
>spared the fatal koodie disease. I've since began to turn my medical
>studies on the relationship of little voices towards big voices inside the
>heads of DVD users.
>
>Contributions welcome.
Ooh.. I thought it was Cooties... Must be another strain, those
buggers are a real kicker...
CS
--
got dvd?
http://www.vendetta.com/rons/tg16 for TurboGrafx-16 OnLine!!
Bruce Chastain
> Well, semantically speaking, he does have a point. A widescreen 1.85:1
> film on a widescreen set will not be appreciably letterboxed, and Bruce is
> saying that he would be happy to watch it under those conditions. Though
> I don't recall what he plans to do about 2.35:1 films on that widescreen
> set...lobby for a version that's panned and scanned to 1.85:1, perhaps?
Yes, I hate letterbox and am willing to entertain virtually any solution
that eliminates it. An optimum solution would be for everyone to
standardize on one ratio. Certainly unlikely today, but standards are
constantly being established where none existed before, so I don't view a
one ratio world as unobtainable.
Failing that in the short term, yes, pan&scan 2.35:1 to whatever the display
set ratio is. That certainly isn't an optimal solution, but I'll take it
over letterboxing.
I would like to see the DVD "interest center" feature used so the player
could do the appropriate pan&scanning to best match the desired final ratio.
One recording on the DVD, and everyone gets the ratio that best suits their
preferences and hardware.
Bruce.
Bruce Chastain
> What if all reproductions of paintings in books only showed you half of
the
> image? Would that be acceptable -- or would you long for the day when
> someone finally reproduced the entire painting? That JOY of finally
seeing
> the entire frame was how I felt when I first saw letterboxed versions of
my
> favorite 'scope movies.
You consider the entire frame to be comparable to the whole view of a piece
of art. I don't. In 99.9999% of the films released, it's just
entertainment to me, nothing more. Did I really need to see 10 more feet
of the wall behind the actor? Nope. I know what a wall looks like. That
ain't art. It's a wall. A boring wall.
So I could care less if the largely irrelevant side bits are trimmed off,
and will trust pan&scan to show me what I need to see to enjoy the film. It
ain't perfect, but I'll take the rare 1% pan&scan flaw over the 100% reduced
picture size any day.
No doubt there are exceptions, but I prefer to stick with the rule rather
than the exceptions.
Bruce.
Andy Bates
<mrpitt-2209...@user-2iveau1.dialup.mindspring.com>, Danny
Clark <mrp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I also invented the koodie shot to deal with the koodies.
Everyone knows that it's "cooties," not "koodies." Sheesh.
--
Andy Bates.
Core
Look... it *is* hard to see "heavily letterboxed" movies on a 27" or
smaller TV set from across the room. And if you can't see it, you
can't enjoy it.
So why don't you give the original poster some credit. Not everyone
can afford a projection TV set, or is even INTERESTED in a
giant-screen TV set. Some of us have real lives too, and other things
to do than sit on our asses, fart, munch popcorn and watch movies.
Tim
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:02:20 -0700, dr...@best.com (Ethan Straffin)
wrote:
>In article <I6_F3.3$8f1....@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com>, "Bob `MadBob'
>Lionel" <blionelJ...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>I measured. It's using about 45% of my actual screen. What a ripoff. I guess
>>I'll buy it on VHS so I can see it from across the room.
>
>Guess you'll be wanting to stay away from these 2.35:1 widescreen-only
>titles as well:
-----
Yes, I write shareware and freeware...
Go take a look at tshareware.webjump.com.
Adam Honse
top and bottom.
adam
Doug Pippel wrote:
> TNMorpheus <tnmor...@aol.com> writes:
>
> : Was the movie shot in Super 35
>
> Yes, "The Matrix" was shot in Super35 according to the IMDB.
>
> DP
--
Look Sir, Droids!
David Mullen
a piece
of art. I don't. In 99.9999% of the films released, it's just
entertainment to me, nothing more. Did I really need to see 10
more feet
of the wall behind the actor? Nope. I know what a wall looks like.
That
ain't art. It's a wall. A boring wall.
With panning & scanning of scope movies you get so many framing
atrocities -- too many to list. But I remember one from "Ladyhawke" --
director Donner shot a high angle of the Bishop tossing & turning in a bed
having a nightmare BUT decided to put the focus on a foreground animal
skeleton hanging on the wall above the bed.
In the pan & scan version, the telecine operator decided to go for the
out-of-focus image of the Bishop rather than the in-focus image of the
skeleton (what choice did he have? The Bishop was never shot in focus.) So
you can sort of see this blurry action, thus "understanding" the reason for
the scene -- but all the artistry is gone and the shot looks technically
atrocious to boot.
Composition of elements in a frame is one of the director's and
cinematographer's primary tool in figuring out how to shoot a sequence -- by
eliminating composition and simply panning & scanning the action, you have
eliminated much of the directing. The producer could have just hired a hack
and told him to just pan the camera around and record the action, instead of
actually blocking & rehearsing & composing the scene. It reduces filmmaking
to mere recording.
David Mullen
Post-Age
signs.
--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
Andy Bates wrote in message <230919991002180900%and...@corp.webtv.net>...
Post-Age
Could never stand to go back to pan and scan....for any reason.
--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
Core wrote in message ...
Core
<b...@XNOSPAMXpcquote.com> wrote:
>Bob `MadBob' Lionel <blionelJ...@home.com
>> I measured. It's using about 45% of my actual screen. What a ripoff. I
>guess
>> I'll buy it on VHS so I can see it from across the room.
>
>I agree. Preserving the sides of the original frame is totally worthless if
>the whole thing is too small to be seen. Until a better solution is found,
>is widely in use, and is affordable, 4:3 pan&scan is the least objectionable
>solution.
That must be why quite a few DVD's include both P&S and widescreen
versions (and the tendency will increase as rentals increase).
I tend to gravitate toward DVD's that offer both (because I don't know
what I'll be watching it on), but when a deal like $11.94 or less for
The Matrix (someone said they got it for $2.00) comes around, I'll
generally take the plunge.
For those who bitch about watching DVD's on a PC, here's another point
in the PC's favor. Sitting 12-18" away from a 17" screen, 16:9 looks
just fine, no problem whatsoever. DVD on PC's is cheap, why not get
both a PC player and a "regular" player like I did, and solve all your
problems (hmmm, people seem to prefer to piss and moan than to solve
problems - human nature, I guess).
Tim
Bruce Chastain
> With panning & scanning of scope movies you get so many framing
> atrocities -- too many to list. But I remember one from "Ladyhawke" --
> director Donner shot a high angle of the Bishop tossing & turning in a bed
> having a nightmare BUT decided to put the focus on a foreground animal
> skeleton hanging on the wall above the bed.
Yes I know there are exceptions, but like I said, the rule is far more
important to me. And I'm NEVER going to compare a widescreen version with a
pan&scan version because that isn't how I watch movies. I rent them, plop
them in the player, and enjoy. So if something on the side is missing, it
has to be obvious to me *without* doing a A/B comparison of the wide screen
version. If it isn't obvious to me without prior knowlege of what's
missing, then I don't care because I didn't notice it.
> Composition of elements in a frame is one of the director's and
> cinematographer's primary tool in figuring out how to shoot a sequence --
by
> eliminating composition and simply panning & scanning the action, you have
> eliminated much of the directing.
Like I said, to me it just isn't art. I'll adjust the
base/treble/volume/brightness/contrast/tint/saturation the way *I* like
them. How loud the sound engineer wanted me to hear it is irrelavant when
no one else in the house can hear themselves think. If that means I miss
some of the quiet sounds, so be it. Doing the same to the framing to best
suit the hardware you own, is just one more expression of personal
preference.
So long as framing change doesn't subtract from my overall movie experience,
I don't care. But the reduction of picture size and resolution unavoidable
with letterboxing ruins that experience for me.
Bruce.
Bruce Chastain
> For those who bitch about watching DVD's on a PC, here's another point
> in the PC's favor. Sitting 12-18" away from a 17" screen, 16:9 looks
> just fine, no problem whatsoever. DVD on PC's is cheap, why not get
> both a PC player and a "regular" player like I did, and solve all your
> problems (hmmm, people seem to prefer to piss and moan than to solve
> problems - human nature, I guess).
Sure, all I'd need to do is spend yet more money on a DVD player and
decoder, and recreate my stereo system in the upstairs computer room.
If you'd like to contribute to the cause, I'll be happy to send you address
where you can mail the check. :-)
Bruce.
Danny Clark
<and...@corp.webtv.net> wrote:
>In article
><mrpitt-2209...@user-2iveau1.dialup.mindspring.com>, Danny
>Clark <mrp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> I also invented the koodie shot to deal with the koodies.
>
>Everyone knows that it's "cooties," not "koodies." Sheesh.
Ahhh...but you are wrong. The cootie was a disease that caused erratic
behavior such as line cutting, blowing milk out of your nose, eating paste
and excessive spitball firing. This disease was incurable by medical
science and quite a nuisance for the teacher aids. However, two or three
visits to the principle's office solved this remedy. The cause was usually
neglect at home....or a grandma that spoiled you.
The koodie....or "mad child disease" as it was better known, was a finger
pinch carried disease (although some feel it was airborn....tests have
never proven this theory) and the symptoms were having no friends, being
made fun of and mid day hunger due to giving up your lunch money to the
koodie collectors. I, Daniel Clark, have discovered the cure for this
pinch. It was simply another pinch by myself to the infected person.
Instantly, the infected individual would be cured....make friends, become
cool and while still remaining hungry (I charged for my shots) ...the
infected person would become a new person.
My entire third grade class has held me in high honor, although, some
parents did call my mom and ask for their childs money back.
--
Danny Clark
Danny Clark
<richar...@post-age-collectibles.com> wrote:
>Canny was raised in one of those neighborhoods that had the "Slow Children"
>signs.
>
>--
>Richard
Sheesh. Everybody knows it's Danny....not Canny. Canny was my less
fortunate brother who lived his short life at the Brookly peers. His real
name was Eugene, but got the nickname "Canny" because of his massive can
collection that he used to survive. Canny Clark was dealt a tough blow as
a child. He contracted Koodies, and was never given the cure by myself.
Why? Because he told my mother about me masturbating to my sisters Barbie
doll. I'm sorry....but after touching Barbies breasts, I was aroused. I
was a bit disappointed that their was no nipples, but they sure were firm.
Canny is buried next to by Uncle Fanny. Don't ask.
--
Danny Clark
Ethan Straffin
>Look... it *is* hard to see "heavily letterboxed" movies on a 27" or
>smaller TV set from across the room. And if you can't see it, you
>can't enjoy it.
This has not been my experience with my 27" set...but that's a personal
preference.
>So why don't you give the original poster some credit. Not everyone
>can afford a projection TV set, or is even INTERESTED in a
>giant-screen TV set.
I'm fully aware of that. It's the fact that the original poster doesn't
seem to have a clue about aspect ratios, despite the vast number of free
clues being offered here every day, that I was responding to. He stated
that "The Matrix" was a "ripoff" because it was presented in its original
aspect ratio, which just happens to be the second most common ratio in
theatrical (and therefore DVD widescreen) use today. In other words, he
is too uninformed about the medium to be taken seriously in his criticism
of it. IMHO.
>Some of us have real lives too, and other things
>to do than sit on our asses, fart, munch popcorn and watch movies.
Really? Like what? And even presuming that's the case, what does it have
to do with the subject at hand, other than its implied personal snipe at
someone with whose opinion you happen to disagree?
Luis Canau
>
>> I measured. It's using about 45% of my actual screen. What a ripoff. I guess
>> I'll buy it on VHS so I can see it from across the room.
You were cheated. It should use about 46,6% of the screen of your 4:3 TV.
About 75% in a 16:9 TV.
--
luis canau_____
e-mail: not > net_________
http://home.EUnet.pt/cinedie
Luis Canau
...
>The ripoff is buying the VHS so you can chop off 43% of the picture from the
>sides. It would be interesting to see how badly they butcher this film to fill
>your screen. There are a lot of scenes in the movie with characters at the
>extreme ends of the image. Guess some of them will be disappearing.
Yes, but I think this one's Super 35 so you'll have a bit more of the guys
pants in a few shots. Since it has so many F/X shots, "hard matted" to all or
almost all the theatrical ratio, it would indeed be ridicullous. But then it
has been working for so many people, for decades, why wouldn't it be "working"
still?
Danny Clark
>I watched LTBX LD for years on a 25" set.....
>Could never stand to go back to pan and scan....for any reason.
>
>--
>Richard
Dick hates pan and scan. The point is taken. We all know this. I'm getting
a little sick and tired of responding to your posts when all they are is
about your damn love of widescreen. I need change! You bore me. What's
happening with your web sight? How about the multiple negative feedbacks?
Any more? Have you found any more rotted discs among your 800?
Maybe you can make one big post....begin a thread...and announce for all
to see and read about your hate of pan and scan. Then move on in your
life.
--
Danny Clark
Ethan Straffin
<b...@XNOSPAMXpcquote.com> wrote:
>David Mullen <dav...@earthlink.net>
>> With panning & scanning of scope movies you get so many framing
>> atrocities -- too many to list. But I remember one from "Ladyhawke" --
>> director Donner shot a high angle of the Bishop tossing & turning in a bed
>> having a nightmare BUT decided to put the focus on a foreground animal
>> skeleton hanging on the wall above the bed.
>
>Yes I know there are exceptions, but like I said, the rule is far more
>important to me. And I'm NEVER going to compare a widescreen version with a
>pan&scan version because that isn't how I watch movies. I rent them, plop
>them in the player, and enjoy. So if something on the side is missing, it
>has to be obvious to me *without* doing a A/B comparison of the wide screen
>version. If it isn't obvious to me without prior knowlege of what's
>missing, then I don't care because I didn't notice it.
Okay, so say you're watching the above scene in pan&scan, without knowing
the story behind it (since you didn't read this thread or do an A/B
comparison). All of a sudden you see this blurry guy tossing around in
bed. Do you say, "What a crappy shot! The DP must have been a grade-A
moron!"? Or is it truly the case that you wouldn't notice anything wrong,
because you had no prior knowledge...or because you consider film to be
entertainment, not art, and niceties such as focus that makes sense in
context aren't part of your criteria for entertainment?
>Like I said, to me it just isn't art.
If you'd said "isn't just" instead of "just isn't," I'd simply let this
quote go. But as it stands, as someone who loves film, I'm really
saddened by it.
Post-Age
--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
Danny Clark wrote in message ...
Post-Age
--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
Danny Clark wrote in message ...
>
Ethan Straffin
(I have to admit, this is one of the more amusing flame wars I've read
lately. It would be even better if it were even close to evenly matched.)
Ethan
In article <37ea...@news2.foxinternet.net>, "Post-Age"
<richar...@post-age-collectibles.com> wrote:
>I hear that you need change in the underwear department too.......
>
>--
>Richard
>Post-Age Collectibles
>http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
>Danny Clark wrote in message ...
>>In article <37ea...@news2.foxinternet.net>, "Post-Age"
>><richar...@post-age-collectibles.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I watched LTBX LD for years on a 25" set.....
>>>Could never stand to go back to pan and scan....for any reason.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Richard
>>
>>Dick hates pan and scan. The point is taken. We all know this. I'm getting
>>a little sick and tired of responding to your posts when all they are is
>>about your damn love of widescreen. I need change! You bore me. What's
>>happening with your web sight? How about the multiple negative feedbacks?
>>Any more? Have you found any more rotted discs among your 800?
>>
>>Maybe you can make one big post....begin a thread...and announce for all
>>to see and read about your hate of pan and scan. Then move on in your
>>life.
>>
>>--
>>Danny Clark
--
Post-Age
but little Danny and his monochromatic obsession with masturbation, hookers,
and berating his wife are just not worthy of any real effort. In fact I
ignore about 90% of his ejaculations, even though he slurps mine up
frantically!
Anyone who grows "sick and tired of responding to..posts" has serious
life-deprivation.
Danny is just a pimple on the butt of life.
--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
Ethan Straffin wrote in message ...
Danny Clark
>How many years have you been in that class, anyway?
Twelve. I can make it more to help your flame along. How about this? I'm
still in third grade and can not get out due to me being stupid. I also am
ugly and my nose is big. On the positive side, I win all of the wrestling
matches and by dick is the biggest in the entire third grade. Oh....aside
from Rufus. He's got me beat by at least a foot.
>--
>Richard
>Post-Age Collectibles
>http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
>Danny Clark wrote in message ...
>>
>>My entire third grade class has held me in high honor, although, some
>>parents did call my mom and ask for their childs money back.
>>
--
Danny Clark
Andy Bates
<as...@nospam.com.au> wrote:
>
> Joe, I like widescreen, but your comment above is not truthful.
>
> You claim that the P&S process is completely arbitrary and done by someone
> who hasn't even seen the film.
>
> 1/ P&S is not done arbitrarily. It moves about the frame to "follow" the
> action, dialog, or most significant part of the frame.
And what the "most significant part of the frame" is may be subjective.
For example, which character is "most significant" in the final shot of
Luke, Han and Leia in Star Wars? In the early transfers, the camera
focused on Luke and Leia. In later transfers, it focused on Han and
Leia. And in the most recent transfers, it focused on Leia alone, with
Han and Luke both cut out of the frame! Which character is the most
important? All of them.
> 2/ This process is often done, or overseen by the director, or a similar
> person involved with the production of the film.
"Often"? Try "occasionally." For every transfer overseen by James
Cameron or John Lasseter, there are thousands that are overseen by some
transfer engineer who knows nothing about what the director intended.
--
Andy Bates.
Danny Clark
>I hear that you need change in the underwear department too.......
>
>--
>Richard
Yo mamma wear da army boots....
LOL!
Damn. What a lightweight. I hear you change in the underwear department?
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? And is that supposed to make my
face turn red with anger? Jesus. At least come up with a decent flame so I
can at least say....good one. Let me help you out and give you some
ammunition about me.
1- I masturbate 12 times a day
2- I ejaculate 2 of those times
3- I smell if I don't shower
4- I shave my ass
5- I can run
6- I can walk
7- I prefer to do neither and sit down
8- I like be drink beer
9- I have looked at myself naked in a mirror and flexed
10-I then quickly put on some cloths
--
Danny Clark
Danny Clark
>Sorry, Ethan,
Ethan just wants you to come back firing with at least one good shot.
>but little Danny
This is where you lack. "Little" Danny is a nah nah reference. For
somebody as pompous and snobbish as yourself, I would expect a bit more
intelligence in your replies. You spend so much time spell correcting, I
feel you should at least be intelligent enough to give me something more
then sticking out your tongue. I might lick back "Big" Dick.
> and his monochromatic obsession with masturbation,
I'm masturbating right now. Ewwww....ahhhh....ewww....ahhh...okay. All
done. Be right back....need some tissue paper. (delay)
Okay...I'm back.
>hookers,
I once did a toothless hooker nick named "the hoe that sure could blow".
Hey....I was in the Navy. What can I say. You get the clap, and you bend
some steel bars while you piss....then get a shot. It was a cycle.
>and berating his wife
I also beat her ass. I'm making her tougher, stronger and more durable.
What if I leave her? I have to prepare her for the next drunken slob.
> are just not worthy of any real effort.
Come on Dicky!!! You are being trounced. At least something with a bit of
imagination and creativity. Maybe I can make a game show and you can be a
contestant. Then you can say...."You are the dick Danny"....and then I can
do a A&E biography on you....and you can say....."blow it out your
ass"...as you look silly putting up your feedback profile. Face it Dicky
boy....you are a pathetic tightly wound up snob that has entered my world
with that one "rare" post.
> In fact I
>ignore about 90% of his ejaculations
Those are the ones that dribble out. But....what about the other 10%? You
know...the Vitamin E jet streams that can KO a unsuspecting lady or knock
lamps down? What do you do with these?
>, even though he slurps mine up
>frantically!
And I can also add that Richard is aply named as he has a very large Dick.
See Dick...I can complement you when you deserve it.
>
>Anyone who grows "sick and tired of responding to..posts" has serious
>life-deprivation.
I have no life other then masturbation, hookers and hiding the twinkies
from my old lady. What else is there?
>Danny is just a pimple on the butt of life.
Well, thanks a lot. I'd rather be the herpes on the vagina of life or a
scratch on a tit of life....but you have to to attach me to the butt. Is
life at least a hooker? I wouldn't mind being a pimple on a hooker named
life's butt. Probably not....as you are insulting me. Life is probably
Janet Reno. You win. There can be nothing worst then being a pimple on
Janet Reno's ass.
>--
>Richard
--
Danny Clark
Ethan Straffin
mrp...@mindspring.com (Danny Clark) wrote:
>In article <37ea...@news2.foxinternet.net>, "Post-Age"
><richar...@post-age-collectibles.com> wrote:
>
>>Sorry, Ethan,
>
>Ethan just wants you to come back firing with at least one good shot.
Sure, that would be nice, though Richard chooses his own destiny.
Funny. Everybody goes after Palpatine, except for those of us with a
sneaking suspicion that he's putting one over on us. We do it because we
disagree with him. Richard generally gets the benefit of being simply
ignored, since he's on the "right" side of the issue...even though he too
has been pounding the same key on the piano for time immemorial. Which is
okay; it's just that he seems to think he's writing a concerto.
Ethan
Danny Clark
dr...@best.com (Ethan Straffin) wrote:
>In article <mrpitt-2309...@user-2iveb8h.dialup.mindspring.com>,
>mrp...@mindspring.com (Danny Clark) wrote:
>
>>In article <37ea...@news2.foxinternet.net>, "Post-Age"
>><richar...@post-age-collectibles.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry, Ethan,
>>
>>Ethan just wants you to come back firing with at least one good shot.
>
>Sure, that would be nice, though Richard chooses his own destiny.
It's called no sense of humour. Once you learn to laugh at yourself, you
can laugh at everything.
>Funny. Everybody goes after Palpatine, except for those of us with a
>sneaking suspicion that he's putting one over on us. We do it because we
>disagree with him. Richard generally gets the benefit of being simply
>ignored, since he's on the "right" side of the issue
Dick knows his shit. It's how he takes the dump that I find amusing.
>...even though he too
>has been pounding the same key on the piano for time immemorial. Which is
>okay; it's just that he seems to think he's writing a concerto.
See....that's funny. No harm. Just be careful or he will have you living
on a street with a sign named "stupid third graders that were left back".
Unfortunately, he does more harm to himself in these replies. They are
quite pathetic.
>
>Ethan
--
Danny Clark
Zion
:><<Yeah that makes sense Bob, watch the pan & scam VHS and lose over 40% of the
:>picture, now that's a real rip-off.>>
:>
:>Actually, I'm almost certain Matrix was shot in Super 35 and NOT with
:>anamorphic lenses (FX sequences in VistaVision). While it was shot with 2:35:1
:>framing in mind, Super 35 is actually a matted format. You're missing info on
:>top and bottom and gaining a bit on the sides (but nowhere near as much as when
:>a film is shot with anamorphic lenses).
:>
:>On a related note, James Cameron also prefers Super 35 because of the less
:>strenuous "pan-n-scanning" for video. Also, since Super 35 is a spherical
:>(i.e. non-anamorphic) format, you can shoot at lower light levels (anamorphic
:>lenses require a TON of light to retain focus).
:>
:>To be MOST accurate, I believe the standard Super 35 composition is to shoot
:>with a "common top" framing and most of the cropping occurs at the bottom.
The matrix was filmed in Super35. The letterbox and cinema version of the film has the top and bottom of the full super35 image blocked out to create a widescreen
aspect ratio. The non letterbox version on video will have more image at the top and bottom of the tv screen.
Which is best?
Always the widescreen letterbox version. Here is why:
1) Letterbox retains the correct artistic composition and framing intended by the director/s.
2) The size of the characters are basically the same on the TV screen for both the letterbox version, and the super35 full frame version, so the argument saying that the
letterbox image is too small on TV has no standing. The only difference is that the full frame version has more image at the top and bottom of the TV screen. This is
actually bad and can give the illusion that the characters look further away on tv than the letterbox version. This is because of the extra unnecessary foreground and
headroom information. Lose it...
Widescreen/letterbox is the only way to go regardless of the format the film was originally shot in.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Register your own Free Virtual Domain Name Today!
http://www.spedia.net/cgi-bin/dir/tz.cgi?run=show_svc&fl=8&vid=102060
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
Bruce Chastain
> Okay, so say you're watching the above scene in pan&scan, without knowing
> the story behind it (since you didn't read this thread or do an A/B
> comparison). All of a sudden you see this blurry guy tossing around in
> bed. Do you say, "What a crappy shot! The DP must have been a grade-A
> moron!"? Or is it truly the case that you wouldn't notice anything wrong,
> because you had no prior knowledge...or because you consider film to be
> entertainment, not art, and niceties such as focus that makes sense in
> context aren't part of your criteria for entertainment?
You're assuming that I sit there "judging" each scene. I don't. Too busy
shoveling popcorn. :-) I'm there to be entertained, not to review the
photography.
But I *do* know what you're saying. I do see those kinds of scenes from
time to time. But the ones that are bad enough for me to notice are so
rare, I just overlook them. If I'm engrossed in the film, I'm thinking
about the action and dialog, not the camera angles. So no, thoughts like
"What a crappy shot!" do not usually race through my mind, even when it
really is a crappy shot. And pan&scan isn't the only source of crappy
shots. I see them at the theater in the original too.
What I notice far more often is lousy editing. Bad cuts (might have been do
to film breakage and repair), too sudden transitions, dirty prints, sound
too loud or soft, etc.
> If you'd said "isn't just" instead of "just isn't," I'd simply let this
> quote go. But as it stands, as someone who loves film, I'm really
> saddened by it.
I know. A friend once told me the same thing when I absent mindedly licked
a stamp without "appreciating all the work that went in to the creation of
the stamp art". Or the incredible job the master carpenter did on the
stairs. We all enjoy art in *some* of the many forms, but we don't have
time for *all* art forms. But thank god we're not all the same. Life would
be so boring if we were!
But I do enjoy the "art" in well done technology, which is another reason
why I hate it when the vertical picture resolution is ruined by
letterboxing.
Bruce.
Oblique
Not to mention cars...people.....etc.
Let us eliminate this variety thing........
Andy Bates wrote in message <240919991143408728%and...@corp.webtv.net>...
>In article <7sdi1t$9...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, Bruce Chastain
><b...@XNOSPAMXpcquote.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I hate letterbox and am willing to entertain virtually any solution
>> that eliminates it. An optimum solution would be for everyone to
>> standardize on one ratio. Certainly unlikely today, but standards are
>> constantly being established where none existed before, so I don't view a
>> one ratio world as unobtainable.
>
>Maybe we should standardize all paintings to one aspect ratio as well,
>so we wouldn't have to worry about getting different frames for
>different picture.
>
>Look, the choice of the aspect ratio, although somewhat limited, is
>still an artistic decision on the part of the director. Let's let that
>be, and not compromise it for the sake of a standard, okay?
>
>--
>Andy Bates.
Andy Bates
Andy Bates
<b...@XNOSPAMXpcquote.com> wrote:
> Yes I know there are exceptions, but like I said, the rule is far more
> important to me. And I'm NEVER going to compare a widescreen version with a
> pan&scan version because that isn't how I watch movies. I rent them, plop
> them in the player, and enjoy. So if something on the side is missing, it
> has to be obvious to me *without* doing a A/B comparison of the wide screen
> version. If it isn't obvious to me without prior knowlege of what's
> missing, then I don't care because I didn't notice it.
Go rent It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. If you don't notice serious
pan-and-scan errors in at least 25% of the movie, then there's
something wrong with you.
> Like I said, to me it just isn't art.
Fine. Then why worry about picture size or quality at all?
--
Andy Bates.
Andy Bates
wrote:
> Look... it *is* hard to see "heavily letterboxed" movies on a 27" or
> smaller TV set from across the room.
It depends on how far away the TV is. In most rooms, the viewing
distance should be fine. If not, then you'll have a problem with both
letterboxed and non-letterboxed movies.
--
Andy Bates.
Andy Bates
<b...@XNOSPAMXpcquote.com> wrote:
> So I could care less if the largely irrelevant side bits are trimmed off,
> and will trust pan&scan to show me what I need to see to enjoy the film. It
> ain't perfect, but I'll take the rare 1% pan&scan flaw over the 100% reduced
> picture size any day.
If the picture size were reduced 100%, there would be no picture.
--
Andy Bates.
Bruce Chastain
> Look, the choice of the aspect ratio, although somewhat limited, is
> still an artistic decision on the part of the director. Let's let that
> be, and not compromise it for the sake of a standard, okay?
I'm the viewer not the director and so would prefer standardization. We
don't let the director get away with filming the entire movie upside down,
creating new sound schemes (say reversing left and right), requiring us to
readjust the color temperature of our sets, or a zillion other standards
that already exist and he/she lives within. I don't see picture ratio as
any different than any other standard.
Where my wallet is concerned, his freedom ends at my inconvenience.
Bruce.
Bruce Chastain
> Go rent It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. If you don't notice serious
> pan-and-scan errors in at least 25% of the movie, then there's
> something wrong with you.
Like I've said, I don't care about the exceptions. It's only the rule that
counts with me.
Bruce.
Bruce Chastain
> > So I could care less if the largely irrelevant side bits are trimmed
off,
> > and will trust pan&scan to show me what I need to see to enjoy the film.
It
> > ain't perfect, but I'll take the rare 1% pan&scan flaw over the 100%
reduced
> > picture size any day.
>
> If the picture size were reduced 100%, there would be no picture.
Time. The picture vertically reduced 100% of the *time*.
Bruce.
Bruce Chastain
news:37eb...@news2.foxinternet.net...
> And the books on my shelves...I wish they were all one size....
> Not to mention cars...people.....etc.
>
> Let us eliminate this variety thing........
Or wall outlet plugs, or TV broadcast specs, or radio frequency allotments,
or cell phones, or drug release procedures. If fact, why just have a fixed
number of shoe sizes. Let's require every pair to be custom made.
And DVD, why just one recording standard? Let's encourage all the designers
to do whatever they want. Who cares if that means I have to buy 30 players?
Standardization is of undeniable advantage to the public whenever the
benefits of standardization outweigh the costs/benefits of not
standardizing. The things you mentioned don't fit that model, and so aren't
comparable or meaningful.
Bruce.
"President John J. Sheridan of the Interstellar Alliance, Capt. Earthforce, Ret.
You can claim not to view movies as art, but it is an art form nonetheless.
The fact that you don't consider it one is irrelevant. The artist does. Have
you seen Pleasantville. Let's just post lists of prohibited colors while
we're at it. Let's decide on what style of painting is acceptable. If you
don't like the aspect ratio don't buy the movie. Sometimes I think the
director chose the wrong aspect ratio, but that's his decision. Pan and scan
is not the way a picture is meant to be seen. Forget the missing information
for a second. The image is often framed to draw your attention to a certain
point. because of where your eyesight is drawn. Usually the middle of a
frame. Pan and Scan AND Open matte change this frequently drawing your
attention to something else entirely.
Personally I can't wait until 16*9 becomes standard.
"I was watching Gone With the Wind the either day and there was all this
black crap to the right and left of the screen. Why don't they just pan and
scan the image to 16*9 so it fills the screen. It's to hard to see from
across the room if it only take up the middle"
Would you also support that?
An artists work deserves to be seen as the artist intended it. Period
paragraph.
JMF
Bruce Chastain wrote in message <7sgm43$2...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
Keenan Wilkie -- see .sig for address
>The matrix was filmed in Super35. The letterbox and cinema version of
>the film has the top and bottom of the full super35 image blocked out to
>create a widescreen aspect ratio. The non letterbox version on video
>will have more image at the top and bottom of the tv screen.
>Which is best?
>Always the widescreen letterbox version. Here is why:
>1) Letterbox retains the correct artistic composition and framing
>intended by the director/s.
>2) The size of the characters are basically the same on the TV screen
>for both the letterbox version, and the super35 full frame version, so
>the argument saying that the letterbox image is too small on TV has no
>standing. The only difference is that the full frame version has more
>image at the top and bottom of the TV screen. This is actually bad and
>can give the illusion that the characters look further away on tv than
>the letterbox version. This is because of the extra unnecessary
>foreground and headroom information. Lose it...
I agree with these two points and would like to add a third.
3) Often CG-generated special effects are created within the 1.85:1/2.35:1
matted frame and not the original unmatted frame. In these cases the
shots involving CG have to be cropped because those particular frames
only exist in the matted fames. There are exceptions, I believe that Deep
Blue Sea's special effects were generated with the full image frame in
mind.
>Widescreen/letterbox is the only way to go regardless of the format the
>film was originally shot in.
And I'm not sure that you meant to sound this general. It almost implies
that you think that Academy-framed movies like Gone With the Wind should
be matted for a wide frame. The real bottom line is how the director
intended the framing. If the movie was shot with the director framing for
a 1.66:1 image ratio (common UK ratio), but it has to be matted to 1.85:1
for theatrical exhibition in US theatres, I won't complain if the DVD is
framed at the 1.66:1 ratio.
--
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
"You're a group of Christian-based, conservative organizations with
several million dollars to spend. Do you: feed the hungry? Clothe the
poor? Don't be so naieve! You blow the millions on a series of slickly-
worded, logic-bending ads espousing a widely-discredited theory that one
can be 'cured' of homosexuality through counseling and prayer."
-- MAD Magazine #337, p. 32
Oblique
It is beautiful to see different types of movie framing.
Bruce Chastain wrote in message <7sgm43$2...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>Standardization is of undeniable advantage to the public whenever the
>benefits of standardization outweigh the costs/benefits of not
>standardizing
>Bruce.
Bruce Chastain
Ret.
> Standardization is an advatange for some things; however art is NOT one.
> You can claim not to view movies as art, but it is an art form
nonetheless.
> The fact that you don't consider it one is irrelevant. The artist does.
Sorry, but as the one paying for the product, the artist's desires are
relevant only when they don't conflict with mine. That's always going to be
true whether I commissioned him to do a paint for my living room, shoot
wedding photos, build a porch, or produce movies that I'll buy. I'm quite
willing to give him a lot of freedom, but not infinite freedom.
> Personally I can't wait until 16*9 becomes standard.
I agree.
> "I was watching Gone With the Wind the either day and there was all this
> black crap to the right and left of the screen. Why don't they just pan
and
> scan the image to 16*9 so it fills the screen. It's to hard to see from
> across the room if it only take up the middle"
I assume that I will always find pan&scan preferable to letterbox and/or
black bars regardless of where they are.
>An artists work deserves to be seen as the artist intended it. Period
>paragraph
And the one laying down his hard earned money deserves to get what he wants.
Period.
Bruce.
Bruce Chastain
> I am sorry, but I prefer the wonderful variety of movie aspect ratios.
> It is beautiful to see different types of movie framing.
Freedom of choice for the consumer always rules with me. That's why I'd
prefer DVDs to *always* include both widescreen and pan&scan versions.
Everyone goes home happy.
Bruce.
Bobby Vincent
<b...@XNOSPAMXpcquote.com> wrote:
> Yes, I hate letterbox and am willing to entertain virtually any solution
> that eliminates it. An optimum solution would be for everyone to
> standardize on one ratio. Certainly unlikely today, but standards are
> constantly being established where none existed before, so I don't view a
> one ratio world as unobtainable.
Get ready, here is your solution: Get a Toshiba dvd player, they have a zoom
mode that will get rid of the black bars. That way you can watch any dvd,
regardless of aspect ratio with no black bars or letterboxing at all. That
way the real movie lovers can have our widescreen without worrying about all
the "Joe VHS's" whining to the studios about the need for more pan & scan.
Andy Bates
<b...@XNOSPAMXpcquote.com> wrote:
> Andy Bates <and...@corp.webtv.net>
> > Look, the choice of the aspect ratio, although somewhat limited, is
> > still an artistic decision on the part of the director. Let's let that
> > be, and not compromise it for the sake of a standard, okay?
>
> I'm the viewer not the director and so would prefer standardization. We
> don't let the director get away with filming the entire movie upside down,
> creating new sound schemes (say reversing left and right), requiring us to
> readjust the color temperature of our sets, or a zillion other standards
> that already exist and he/she lives within.
Sure we do! If the doctor wants to film the movie upside-down, or
reverse the channels, or whatever he wants to do, he has the freedom to
do so. And as the viewer, you have the right to refuse to watch a movie
that is filmed upside-down. However, you don't have the right to
dictate how he will film his movie. A good example of this is The
Matrix; lots of people are complaining that the color in The Matrix is
too green, and they don't like the way that it looks. But this was done
by the directors as an artistic choice. Should the viewers be able to
dictate how the directors will mix the color on their film? No. Should
you be able to dictate the aspect ratio? No.
> I don't see picture ratio as
> any different than any other standard.
Those other things are not "standards." They are up to the director,
just like the aspect ratio.
> Where my wallet is concerned, his freedom ends at my inconvenience.
No. Your purchase ends at your inconvenience. If you don't like the
aspect ratio, then don't buy the movie. However, that is the extent of
your influence over the filmmaker's decisions.
--
Andy Bates.
Bruce Chastain
> Sure we do! If the doctor wants to film the movie upside-down, or
> reverse the channels, or whatever he wants to do, he has the freedom to
> do so.
That's like saying I have the freedom to not eat. A meaningless point.
> Should the viewers be able to
> dictate how the directors will mix the color on their film? No.
If 90% of the viewer/customers find that objectionable? Yes, absolutely.
We're the employer and he's doing contract work for us. We allow him
freedom only so long as that freedom improves the product we get. When it
doesn't, it the bread line for him and the loss of the freedom he misused.
Have a nice weekend!
Bruce.