Anamorphic might be the wrong choice. In this thread, we discuss why.

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Javier_Huerta, Oct 29, 2002.

  1. Javier_Huerta

    Javier_Huerta Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all, NO. I am an enemy of non letterboxed editions of movies and films. I don't buy them. I recently returned my R4 edition of Monsters, Inc., because it was Pan and Scan.

    Or so I thought. And so the story goes.

    When I bought the R1, I realized the entire movie had been reformatted for TV, meaning that, instead of watching less of the picture, I was actually getting more of it. Interesting.

    Then I noticed how incredibly good my IMAX movies looked on my projector. Which got me thinking...

    And then, I saw the TV at my kitchen. If it was anamorphic, or widescreen, I would definitely need a smaller set in order to fit it in there. Which is not good.

    Maybe the solution is not less. Less as in "less height per width". Maybe the solution is more, as in "more image for your TV". Let movies be widescreen, with black bars on top and bottom of the TV.

    BUT...

    When HDTV comes, instead of a long, thin image, let's get a big one. We have the resolution now; let's now settle for less. Instead of watching a football match in widescreen, let's see a huge view of the field, showing exactly where the strikers and the goalie are. We now have the technology to make it happen!

    I guess I could sum it all up with "Say yes to OAR, NO to Widescreen sets!"
     
  2. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,020
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry, but what the heck are you talking about? [​IMG]
     
  3. Ricky Hustle

    Ricky Hustle Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 29, 2000
    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    0
    I stand behind Rain in the line that is designated 'Confused people, que up here' [​IMG]
     
  4. BrentPollard

    BrentPollard Second Unit

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2001
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Huh?[​IMG]
     
  5. LukeB

    LukeB Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2000
    Messages:
    2,179
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,020
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not entirely sure, but I think you may need a little tutorial on "open matte" vs. "pan and scan" and why neither one is a good option for DVD presentations of films.
     
  7. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,286
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think what he's trying to say is that widescreen sets mean less vertical height compared to width so a "smaller" image

    Monsters Inc wsa literally RESHOT by Pixar for 4:3. You can do that with a CG movie. What you have to realize is that a widescreen TV does NOT mean less vertical space, it means you can more in the horizontal field
     
  8. Javier_Huerta

    Javier_Huerta Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, here it goes again:
    The whole idea of my post is that it is esentially wrong for us to have widescreen TVs in our houses when HDTV is a reality.
    Instead of settling for less of an image (say, 1.78:1), we might want to stick with the 4:3 format, and use the extra resolution for added information, as is done in IMAX.
    That's the whole point of my "OAR is good" theory. If movies continue to be made in widescreen formats, they should be displayed in our TVs as such. Black bars on top and bottom of the screen. The point of my "Widescreen is bad" theory is that, at least for TVs in our houses, widescreen is not a good idea because of size issues, and mostly because HDTV will make the whole need for widescreen moot, since we could benefit by using the added resolution as an IMAX screen does: to display more information.
    As I see it now, the confusion started because of the title of my post. It should have read "Widescreen might be the wrong choice..."
    Sorry about that.
     
  9. Randy A Salas

    Randy A Salas Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,348
    Likes Received:
    1
    The funny thing is that the perfect proportion to view your example of a soccer (or football) game is a long rectangle--say, about a ratio of 2.35:1--not the nearer-to-square proportions of a regular TV set.
     
  10. Sean Moon

    Sean Moon Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    confused I am. I do agree with Jeff in his observation though.
     
  11. Lew Crippen

    Lew Crippen Executive Producer

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    Messages:
    12,060
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  12. Paul McElligott

    Paul McElligott Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    2,598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    Paul McElligott
    Reading that gave me a headache.
     
  13. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,286
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, now I'm confused too

    What you don't seem to understand is that you're talking apples and oranges. With IMAX, the negative is roughly 1.44:1, and so is the OAR. But widescreen has a different aspect ratio. The point of widescreen televisions is to let you use MORE of the screen real estate WITHOUT sacrificing the picture. If you're saying that people should start shooting 1.33:1, well that's not going to happen. WHy do you think so many shows are beginning to be shot in widesceen ONLY?
     
  14. Lew Crippen

    Lew Crippen Executive Producer

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    Messages:
    12,060
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  15. Javier_Huerta

    Javier_Huerta Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm... my point is *still* not getting across [​IMG]
    OK Lew, imagine the football transmission in widescreen. Now imagine it with added content on top and on the bottom. That's what I'm talking about. Forget about the IMAX analogies, et al - it's hard enough to try to be understood in a language such as english to now be discussing the technical merits of the format.
    Point is, if HDTV can do widescreen with black bars on top and bottom, and look good while doing it, maybe we could use the extra space on top and on bottom to add extra info (just as widescreen added extra info on the sides).
    I find widescreen TVs to be as cumbersome as they come, and I have figured out by now that if I want to buy a TV set on widescreen, it'll have to be the same width as my current TV. Which will mean my TV will actually be *smaller*, since it won't be as tall.
    Again - I support OAR, but I feel widescreen TV's are not the best solution from a consumer point of view. So I'll stick with watching black bars on top and bottom (whatever that is called - masked image?) of the image for the time being [​IMG]
     
  16. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,020
    Likes Received:
    0
    Javier, I'm beginning to think you have some lack of understanding as to how images are composed.

    If something is shot flat (1.37:1) but intended to be matted to 1.78:1 or 1.85:1, this is taken into account in the composition. Anything that is matted over is never intended to be seen.

    Anything shot in a "scope" aspect ratio via Panvision or CinemaScope, etc. will not result in "more picture" when reformatting to 4:3. The only way to show these in 4:3 is to lop off the sides.

    And then there is Super 35 which is likely going to confuse things even further...

    I'm not sure how to explain this to you exactly without diagrams. I would suggest you do a bit more research on this issue as I think much of what you're saying is based on misunderstanding.
     
  17. Paul McElligott

    Paul McElligott Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    2,598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    Paul McElligott
     
  18. Vince Maskeeper

    Vince Maskeeper Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 1999
    Messages:
    6,505
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe Javier says, instead of widescreen- just zoom out and give the width of widescreen with more info at top and bottom.
     
  19. Javier_Huerta

    Javier_Huerta Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    0
    Vince:
    THANKS!!!!! My entire posts can be summed up in your one paragraph sentence [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  20. Randy A Salas

    Randy A Salas Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,348
    Likes Received:
    1
     

Share This Page