What's new

Another w/s vs. p&s thread (split off from "Universal addresses and fixes BTTF") (1 Viewer)

Dan Hitchman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 11, 1999
Messages
2,712
Do not, under any circumstance buy the FULL SCREEN VERSION!!

Some posters' replies that I've read which state they are leaning to-wards the open matte version (even when Universal may fix the problems with the WS version) seem to show that they don't seem to understand wide-screen framing and composition.

Even though you may see more of someone's legs or head (in a close up) in the full screen/open-matte version, does not mean the DP meant for you to see it that way.

In order to stop this confusion over wide-screen composition I think all 1.66:1 to 1.85:1 matted films and Super 35 (using spherical instead of anamorphic lenses) from now on should be hard matted in-camera (such as James Cameron's Aliens was). That way the original composition is maintained (called "shoot and protect"). There would be very little chance of the telecine operator screwing things up then because the burned in matting would be the template for the film to video transfer composition.

Dan
 

Ryan Patterson

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 11, 1999
Messages
105
Do not, under any circumstance buy the FULL SCREEN VERSION!!
Dan Hitchman, after reading your post I tried hard for a few days to ignore it, but the truth is you had so much anger in your post that I had to come back and defend a point that people like Chris Baucom, John Co, and Christopher*KH were trying to get across. For everyone who's reading this thread, sorry about the fact that this post is a little off-topic, but I've got to get this off my chest.
While I am a fan of OAR, I am a fan of it for only one reason: missing information. When it comes to 2.39:1 scope films and 1.85:1 films that I know are hard masked, then it's a no-brainer, I will get the widescreen version. However, when the movie proves to be 'shot and protected' for an open-matte 4:3 screen, then things get a little more complicated. Notice how I said 'shot and protected' above, this refers to the director being fully aware that the film will be transfered to video soon after its theatrical release, so he makes sure that boom mikes and other props don't show up in the frame when the 4:3 transfer happens later. Keep in mind that most movies only last in theaters for a few weeks, and that the real lasting power is in home video. Robert Zemeckis even stated in the DVD archives that he didn't expect the original BTTF to last in theaters for very long. Should we really take to heart that a theatrical aspect ratio should be the be-all, end-all intent of the movie if the director is wary of the theatrical performance and thus ensures a serious shoot-and-protect scheme for a home video release?
Shooting & protecting is a better choice over always hard-matting, even for today, considering how many people still own 4:3 TVs and still scream for full screen movies. I don't think you should blame Zemeckis for not hard-matting his material back in '85, '89, and '90, simply because there was no real justification for it. Back then, nobody knew what a widescreen TV was, let alone owned one. Even laserdisc was just barely starting the OAR revolution at the time, so from Zemeckis' point of view, all home video releases would be released in 4:3. (Which was true... the first releases of all BTTF movies on LD were P&S). Still, considering that the WS releases that were released later on LD had good framing shows that this could've been done right, no matter if the movies were shot and protected instead of hard matted. (Also take note that at least BTTF1 was matted at 1.66:1 for the LD release, which tells me that the theatrical 1.85:1 has no real value to Zemeckis.)
I have to agree with the posters above who say that the original BTTF looked better in 4:3 because you get to see more of the people, sets, and everything else that went into this movie. The loss of some shots where special effects were used is very minor, as this was not really a special effects movie to begin with. (Considering the 1.66:1 framing on the LD release, the loss in these shots is really quite minimal). The same goes for BTTF 3, Pump Up the Volume, At First Sight, Untamed Heart, and a great number of movies that shoot and protect and have little or no special effects in the film.
I find it interesting when I check out some other threads where people complain that TV shows are being released on DVD in 4:3 even though they were supposedly shot on 16:9 capable equipment. Well, if you're asking for the 16:9 version, you're basically asking the same thing as asking for a film to be in 4:3 even though it was shot and protected at 1.85:1. Sure, for the 16:9 version of a TV show, you're getting more information on the sides, but is this really the director's intent, considering his primary audience would be watching it on a 4:3 screen? So, why are people demanding extra & unnessesary information for TV programs but not for movies?
To correct you, Aliens was not hard matted on Super35. As a matter of fact, I don't think it was even shot on Super35 (I read somewhere that The Abyss was Cameron's first delving into the special film stock). As far as I know, Aliens was shot and protected at 1.85:1 on standard 35mm film. Anyway, compare the full screen version of Aliens to the WS version during the scene where Hicks teaches Ripley how to work the pulse rifle. When Ripley says "You started this, show me everything!" Her watch is fully veiwable in the full screen version, but the WS version has most of it covered up below the frame. Now, Aliens has quite a few special effect shots, so I still prefer the WS version, but I respect the FS version for what it is and would never slam my friends for buying that copy. As for Super35 movies, James Cameron has stated that he prefers the P&S version of the Abyss, so as you can see, the theatrical aspect ratio is not always the biblical ratio that everyone should necessary follow.
My 2 cents,
Ryan
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
As for Super35 movies, James Cameron has stated that he prefers the P&S version of the Abyss, so as you can see, the theatrical aspect ratio is not always the biblical ratio that everyone should necessary follow.
Cameron never stated that. And, given that The Abyss was only released in widescreen on DVD, it's clear which version Cameron prefers.
DJ
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
Oh, and yes, the Abyss has been available in fullscreen on DVD.
Yes, you're right, I forgot that Fox later released it. For about a year and a half, however, only the widescreen version was available. That would be an odd choice from a director who didn't prefer that version.

DJ
 

Ryan Patterson

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 11, 1999
Messages
105
way said:
And exactly what is on the mind of the director? Sure, some directors may place severe importance on the way a movie is framed, but we're talking about Back to the Future here. It was framed at 1.66:1 on LD and Zemeckis didn't complain? No, it's obvious that Zemeckis doesn't consider the theatrical ratio to be the biblical final framing ratio.
 

Ryan Patterson

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 11, 1999
Messages
105
Not at all, and I'm unsure how you extract such an implication from my post.
Considering you said "It's really a shame to see how little respect the art of cinematography gets sometimes.", it makes me wonder just how I'm supposed to respect it if I haven't taken a multiple-year course in learning how this is all supposedly comes together. I watch movies for enjoyment, not to learn the art of cinematography.

While hard masked movies require a widescreen version to enjoy, I still feel that open masked movies can go either way. Whether or not you bought a WS version or FS of BTTF1 makes no difference to me. I can see if you own a 16:9 TV that the WS will obviously have an advantage. Heck, even my 43" 4:3 supports the vertical squeeze that eliminates scanlines that I can sometimes see from 8 1/2 feet away. However, if the director was willing to shoot and protect the movie in the first place, this tells me that framing was not his most important artistic aspect.
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
However, if the director was willing to shoot and protect the movie in the first place, this tells me that framing was not his most important artistic aspect.
A given director may well have been willing to protect for 4x3 such that his film doesn't have to be panned and scanned for the eventual 4x3 TV broadcast. Such a concession to reality doesn't mean that framing isn't artistically important. I find it troubling to see artistic integrity so readily disposed of based upon such abritrary criteria.

DJ
 

Ryan Patterson

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 11, 1999
Messages
105
So you also don't think it's possible to show respect for the integrity of the works of oil painters unless you go to art school for multiple years to learn oil painting?
You've lost me. Totally. You're comparing apples to cars at this point. Oil painting is a form of pure art, whereas movies (at least to me) are a form of entertainment. 'Artistic' movies have always turned me off, as I really don't want to spend time trying figuring out some abstract plot when all I really wanted to do was take a load off and have some fun. As a matter of fact, I never considered film making to be an artistic form of expression until I started coming here. Clearly, this has gone way beyond the scope of what I'll ever understand, let alone figure out what you're trying to say about 'artistic integrity' when it comes to what I consider a simple case of an open masked film.

Ah well, I guess I'll always have one foot in the puddle of Joe Six Pack. I have nothing more to say.

Ryan
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Re: James Cameron's supposed "preference" for 4:3 versions of his Super35 films.
This is an internet urban legend perpetuated by careless commentators like some of those cited by Mr. Patterson above. Most of the people who parrot this canard have never even seen the single statement by Cameron, in 1993, on which it is based. Well, I still have my original LD box of The Abyss Special Edition, and here's what Cameron actually said in the liner notes (this is at least the third time I've typed this out for HTF):
I am quite proud of the pan&scan transfer of the film, and believe it to be superior in many ways to the letterbox, due to the poor resolving power of NTSC video. The film was shot in the Super-35 process to allow for improved video transfer, and the result is that the pan&scan transfer does not suffer from many of the horrible cropping losses normally associated with a widescreen film. I feel it is the most dramatically involving and effective version of the film in the current low-res video medium. However, for those interested in the original framing and composition as it appeared on the big screen, the letterbox version is offered as well.
Note the qualifiers. Note how carefully Cameron restricts his observations to this particular film, presentation and era. That was before DVD (with its dramatically improved clarity and resolution), before affordable widescreen displays, and at a time when many video transfers were still being done with analog equipment. Those comments simply don't apply today.
M.
 

Chris Baucom

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
May 17, 2002
Messages
103
Cameron is definitely a Super-35 advocate (or was recently) and is somewhat skeptical about anamorphic. I wonder if that is still the case. I remember reading an article concerning Titanic and his desire to provide both full and widescreen versions, though I don't think he said which he preferred.

On the OAR thing, yes if you are an OAR purist, the you can't back down on it. Back to the Future is one of those movies that can stir the pot a little here given it's filming technique and previous video release history.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Cameron is definitely a Super-35 advocate (or was recently)
So what? Or have you bought into the mistaken notion that Super35 is all about framing for home video? It isn't, and the topic has been covered so many times that there's no need to rehash it, especially in a thread about BTTF.

M.
 

Chris Baucom

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
May 17, 2002
Messages
103
I was just making a comment, Michael, and was not trying to stir anything up. I agree that we don't need to get into it further in a BTTF thread.
 

Dan Hitchman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 11, 1999
Messages
2,712
Ryan,

I know Aliens wasn't shot in Super35, but it was hard-matted in-camera to protect the 1.85:1 framing Cameron and his DP wanted (that's what I mean by using the term "shoot and protect"). It says as much in the liner notes of the CAV laserdisc boxed set of Aliens. They probably wanted to make sure framing problems, such as those made at the theater by unskilled high schoolers and those cropping up in the Back to the Future discs didn't occur.

With the kinds of statements that some "OAR-sometimes" consumers are making, I can see my point of the DP using in-camera hard-matting to the intended aspect ratio for widescreen movies using spherical lenses (the use of anamorphic lenses are a different matter, of course) is a valid one. Currently, it seems to me the only way to safe guard the composition of the frame.

Dan
 

Seth_S

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 12, 2001
Messages
335
'Artistic' movies have always turned me off, as I really don't want to spend time trying figuring out some abstract plot when all I really wanted to do was take a load off and have some fun.
Ryan,

In a true "art" film, you should be paying attention to what's going on visually, not the plot (plot is an element of narrative films). In fact, must art films don't even have plots of any kind. All the director is trying to do in them is communicate something (feeling, emotion or experience) visually.
 

Grant H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
2,844
Real Name
Grant H


All movies are art, period. Sure, they're entertainment (or most of them are supposed to be, anwyay), but filmmaking is an art. Look at all that has to come together to make a film, all those credits, sound, music, costumes, art, lighting, etc. etc. and someone is in charge of making all that come together, the director (and producers). If it weren't art, we'd have robots making the movies; it would be cheaper for the studios.
Most people listen to music as entertainment too. It's still art. Whtether each work is good or bad, film and music are both art forms.
The cinematography is just one aspect of the art, but an important one we like to see presented properly. For the audience film IS simpler: it's sound and picture, boom, boom. If they'd had a physicist shoot BTF, even one who did know how to travel through time, it's doubtful the film would look as good as if it was shot by a talented DP and director. Not to mention no one of any caliber would want to be in the movie because all the actors (who are artists too) wouldn't want to waste their time with someone who knew nothing about the ART of film-making.
 

Ryan Patterson

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 11, 1999
Messages
105
Hey Michael,
Thanks for moving this to a new thread. If I had known this would've grown so fast, I would've created a new thread myself.
Thanks for quoting the original line from Cameron. Although it clarifies things up, you must realize how easily the quote could've been misread. Cameron states that the P&S version was meant for assisting in the low resolution of NTSC video, but North American DVD is also NTSC. Yes, HDTVs and progressive scan players provide a very effective extension on NTSC, but you can see how even DVD enthusiasts can misread his statement.
Cameron makes a point in which he shot the film in Super35 so that he could make a decent video transfer that he was "quite proud" of. This suggests that he feels changing the aspect ratio of the film to suit standard NTSC does not affect his 'artistic intent' enough to destroy the movie for a video release. The point I was trying to make for the BTTF movies is that possibly Zemeckis had the same feelings, considering that in the 80's all we had were NTSC interlaced displays (and most people only owned a 20" set at the time).
My point is not that the OAR is inferior to any 4:3 version that comes out, but that sometimes the 4:3 version isn't bad enough to dismiss in certain situations. At least 3 people in the BTTF forum were commenting that the 4:3 versions might be a good buy considering the current problems with the widescreen versions of the films. Considering the overall uncertainty of the situation (ie. The return situation for any country other than the US, not to mention people phoning Universal and getting the "um, what?" treatment), this could be the only alternative for some people who want to get decent versions of the problematic scenes. Trust me, if it weren't for the current framing problem with the movies, I would never have posted this debate as I would've just bought the WS version without question. (As it was, I got the set for Christmas and will have to either risk sending in the defective Canadian discs or contemplate exchanging the set for the fullscreen versions).
My point was that if that people like Chris Baucom, John Co, and Christopher*KH want to buy the fullscreen versions, more power to them. They've done their homework; ie. they realize that at least BTTF 1&3 do not suffer from major cropping on the sides and they don't feel that extra information on the top and bottom ruins the movie for them. I agree with them, and I only choose the WS versions at this point because I get more resolution with my HDTV in 16:9 enhanced mode than if I went with the FS versions. You don't know if these guys have NTSC interlaced displays, and thus I question Dan Hitchman's statement that under no circumstances should you buy the fullscreen versions.
Look at all that has to come together to make a film, all those credits, sound, music, costumes, art, lighting, etc.
Do you work at a company? How many people are in it? Could you list each person's duties in the form of film credits? You bet you can. Do you consider your company a form of art? I don't. Companies provide a service, but as a Help Center attendant in the medical field, I don't consider it an 'artistic' service. It's no secret that Hollywood runs its industry like a business. When it comes to commecial-oriented movies, they look for scripts that can appeal to the most people, and then they look for directors, producers, etc that can translate the script into a form that appeals to most people. This is not how I define art. This is how I define entertainment, and I like the movie industry that way. Sure, some of the material they produce is predictable and utter trash, but it beats every artistic director taking over the industry and making hundreds of "Mulholland Drive" movies or whatever.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,710
Messages
5,121,094
Members
144,146
Latest member
SaladinNagasawa
Recent bookmarks
0
Top