Young Frankenstein MATTED ??

[Donald DiPaula]

i was just checking out the image website, and saw the information on the
upcoming special edition of young frankenstein. according to image, it will
have an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. HELLO?? the original, theatrical aspect
ratio of young frankenstein was 1.37:1, to simulate the old movies it was
parodying (the same reason it was in black and white).

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.

[Bryant Frazer]

Donald DiPaula (dip...@access2.digex.net) wrote:
: i was just checking out the image website, and saw the information on the

: upcoming special edition of young frankenstein. according to image, it will
: have an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. HELLO?? the original, theatrical aspect
: ratio of young frankenstein was 1.37:1, to simulate the old movies it was
: parodying (the same reason it was in black and white).

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."

[Dali & Droog]

In <533clj$p...@access2.digex.net> dip...@access2.digex.net (Donald

DiPaula) writes:
>
>i was just checking out the image website, and saw the information on
the
>upcoming special edition of young frankenstein. according to image,
it will
>have an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. HELLO?? the original, theatrical
aspect
>ratio of young frankenstein was 1.37:1, to simulate the old movies it
was
>parodying (the same reason it was in black and white).
>

>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?

Have you considered the possibility that it was a misprint?

Geena P.

[Duggerman]

Donald DiPaula wrote:
>
> i was just checking out the image website, and saw the information on the
> upcoming special edition of young frankenstein. according to image, it will

> have an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. HELLO?? The original, theatrical aspect
> ratio of young frankenstein. was 1.37:1, to simulate the old movies it was

> parodying (the same reason it was in black and white).

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

[RONIN TOM]

Donald DiPaula wrote:
>
> i was just checking out the image website, and saw the information on the
> upcoming special edition of young frankenstein. according to image, it will

> have an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. HELLO?? the original, theatrical aspect
> ratio of young frankenstein was 1.37:1, to simulate the old movies it was

> parodying (the same reason it was in black and white).
>

> 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-

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

[Ned Snell]

> i was just checking out the image website, and saw the information on the
> upcoming special edition of young frankenstein. according to image, it
will
> have an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. HELLO?? the original, theatrical aspect
> ratio of young frankenstein was 1.37:1, to simulate the old movies it was
> parodying (the same reason it was in black and white).
>
> 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?
>

Probably because there are so many dead-from-the-neck-up LD buyers (many
who frequent this newsgroup) who declare profoundly that they will not buy
anything that's not letterboxed, regardless of what the director was trying
to achieve. For example, for years, people have been explaining that
Copolla framed The Godfather at academy ratio, and preferred that the disc
not be cropped top and bottom, even though the film was probably so cropped
in the theatre. To this day, there remain numbskulls demanding a
letterboxed Godfather, just as they've been demanding a letterboxed YF. At
$90 a pop, Image probably though that us dummies would be outraged at a $90
disc that wasn't letterboxed.

[Wolfe]

You are correct. I can't understand this "fake" matting. It totally
ruins the original picture ratio. I suppose this is to meet the
demands of all the "widescreen" fanatics who think everything on laser
should be printed that way. Sad!

[Scott Lange]

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>

[Dali & Droog]

In <325703...@worldnet.att.net> Scott Lange

<scott...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>Wolfe wrote:
>>
>> You are correct. I can't understand this "fake" matting. It
totally
>> ruins the original picture ratio. I suppose this is to meet the
>> demands of all the "widescreen" fanatics who think everything on
laser
>> should be printed that way. Sad!
>
>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?

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.

[Thomas Biddle]

I agree that when you matte a full-screen shot you lose some top and
bottom screen information. I guess videophiles just want to see the
movie the way it was shown a theatres: matted.

[Dennis M. Severson]

In <3268A3...@earthlink.net> Thomas Biddle <tkus...@earthlink.net>
writes:

>
>I agree that when you matte a full-screen shot you lose some top and
>bottom screen information. I guess videophiles just want to see the
>movie the way it was shown a theatres: matted.

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

[Guy Badger]

Dennis M. Severson wrote:
I guess videophiles just want to see the
> >movie the way it was shown a theatres: matted.
>
> 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.

[Richard Spoonts]

In article <54c8pd$2...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> sama...@ix.netcom.com(Dennis M. Severson) writes:
>In <3268A3...@earthlink.net> Thomas Biddle <tkus...@earthlink.net>
>writes:
>>
>>I agree that when you matte a full-screen shot you lose some top and

>>bottom screen information. I guess videophiles just want to see the

>>movie the way it was shown a theatres: matted.
>
>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

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

[Dennis M. Severson]

In <326C65...@gb.karoo.co.uk> Guy Badger <g...@gb.karoo.co.uk>
writes:
>

>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

[Dennis M. Severson]

In <54ei28$l...@decaxp.harvard.edu> spo...@husc7.harvard.edu (Richard
Spoonts) writes:
>

>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

[Guy Badger]

Dennis M. Severson wrote:
>
> In <326C65...@gb.karoo.co.uk> Guy Badger <g...@gb.karoo.co.uk>
> writes:
> >
>
> >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.

Any time.

Guy.

[cbde...@aol.com]

I have this on laserdisc in academy ratio (1:37:1) and have seen it on home video matted to 1:85:1. Clearly, the film was shot in academy ratio. This ratio, as well as the b/w cinematography, is only right for a film that both parodies and reveres the Universal horror films of the 1930s. The grain of the film looks right for that period when viewed in its original 1:37:1 aspect ratio. When matted for 1:85:1 and viewed on a 16:9 HD video screen, the grain becomes annoyingly exxagerated.

[Barney]

Sorry to inform you the movie was shot at the standard flat ratio of
1.85:1. Not only did I see this movie during it's original release; I also
saw it recently from a beautiful transfer (digitally) at a cinema recently;
both at 1.85:1

IMDB shows the Aspect Ratio being originally recorded at 1.85:1

There is a letterboxed edition of Young Frankenstein on laserdisc with the
ratio of 1:85:1, but I'm sure that's not the one you have.

Here's some screen shots from a list of Mel Brooks movies shown in their
original aspect ratio.


Barney


cbde...@aol.com wrote in
news:9cb3cf5c-f566-4e8e...@googlegroups.com: