i can understand matting a film to reproduce the original ratio, but when the
orignal ratio fits on today's full-screen, WHY THE F*CK ARE THE MATTING THIS?
-D-
--
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meet the
definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to
send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to
recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation.
How many theaters actually exhibited YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN at Academy ratio?
I'll bet that, as often as not, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN was cropped to 1.85:1.
This doesn't necessarily mean that's the preferred ratio, but I wouldn't
be surprised if that's what the filmmakers kept in mind. Anybody have
reliable sources on how YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN was shot/exhibited?
-bf-
--
DEEP FOCUS (Movie Reviews)
http://www.panix.com/~bfrazer/flicker/
"Go ahead, mum -- treat yourself."
Have you considered the possibility that it was a misprint?
Geena P.
Donald....
Where the hell would you see "Young Frankenstein." shown @ 1.37:1.
Film for the last 25 years have been displayed in modern 1st run
Theatres at 1.85:1 or 2.35:1.
The matting of this will properly display the theatrical ratio. As for
the film being shot with the Academy ratio, you are probably right. But,
You can bet that 95% of play dates ran at 1.85:1.
Duggerman
I can only assume that since Mel Brooks participated in the production of the new edition (via
commentary, supplements, etc.) that he approves of the way it was framed for laser.
Tom
Yo!
Anybody got a way to let Mel Brooks know what's been done? I mean, he's
on the disc doing commentary, etc. -- I wonder why/whether he even knows
what Image is planning to do! Or maybe he doesn't care?
"What hump?"
--
Scott Lange
<scott...@worldnet.att.net>
Or maybe he wanted it done this way. Unlike some directors, Mel
seems to know a bit about the ld format. Someone should ask him.
Geena P.
Why?
We're not in a theater, I don't care how big your home screen is. Why
sacrifice picture information and image size and clarity when it's not
necessary?
Dennis
I suppose Dennis you go around art galleries ripping off the frames
screaming "I paid to see all the canvas dammit!".
After all, how do we know what Leonardo (and lots of other dead artists)
had in mind?
If you are so keen on unmatted video then get VHS. It's designed
especially for people like you - people who care nothing for artistic
integrity.
Guy.
PS: If Terry Gilliam says that Criterion's Brazil looks exactly the way
he wants then this seems to me to be a clue that the presentation is
exactly as Gilliam (the film director) wanted it - of course Terry
Gilliam could be mistaken.
But unmatting a film does not affect either the size or clarity of the
image. All it does is show additional image that was exposed to the film,
and this additional image was not shown in a theater. The debate over
whether this part of the image should be exposed in the video transfer and
whether this information is significant or extraneous will continue without
end. However, it simply cannot be said that matting sacrifices the size
and clarity of the image within the theatrical frame.
Richard Spoonts
>If you are so keen on unmatted video then get VHS. It's designed
>especially for people like you - people who care nothing for artistic
>integrity.
>
Thank you for this rude and unnecessary insult. I apologize for having
an opinion. All I am trying to do here is have a little intelligent
discussion on what should be a subject of interest to most on this
newsgroup: laserdiscs.
Dennis
>But unmatting a film does not affect either the size or clarity of the
>image. All it does is show additional image that was exposed to the
film,
>and this additional image was not shown in a theater. The debate over
>whether this part of the image should be exposed in the video transfer
and
>whether this information is significant or extraneous will continue
without
>end. However, it simply cannot be said that matting sacrifices the
size
>and clarity of the image within the theatrical frame.
>
You're right, I wasn't thinking clearly when I posted. That really
shouldn't be part of the debate.
Thanks,
Dennis
Any time.
Guy.