Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Scott Weinberg, Feb 7, 2002.
This should be non-OAR.
Fullscreen is the format used for correctly made transfers of movies such as Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind, and Citizen Kane and also for modified transfers of films that should be seen at 1.66, 1.85, 2.35, etc.
Fullscreen is ok when it's supposed to be 1.33:1 or lower. Bad if it is not.
Very good point, Patrick, but my impetus for writing up this petition was the release of Follow that Bird, so I was in the Fullscreen mindset.
It just irriates me when ANY movie is presented in FS only. Several people I've talked to say "So what? It's a Sesame Street movie!"
I simply canot understand this logic. I have friends who consider this one as beloved a film as The Muppet Movie.
When a person says that a movie is in full screen I consider that to mean Pan & Scan. When I am talking about movies Like Gone With The Wind & Wizard of Oz I say Full Frame, because the Full Frame that was filmed is being seen. Where as to me Full Screen just means the screen is filled with picture. Or maybe I'm just weird?
Of course, but we need to show the difference.
There's people who want widescreen, but they don't realize that 99.9% of the movies made before 1952 are 1.33:1 or lower and meant to be seen that way.
Fullscreen means nothing to me. There is no negative connotation there. Fullscreen is often ideal, depending on the screen. Patrick's first post was right on, though I would add that in regards to TV fullscreen may also equal 1.78:1 (and 1.85:1) on 16:9 TVs.
Jonathan, for a 4:3 TV fullscreen means either P&S, open-matte, or OAR. Bad, still bad, or just right.
I want TAR, Theatrical Aspect Ratio. That can be anything from 1.33 to 2.5:1. However it was shown theatrically is what I want to see, and anamorphic at 1.66:1 or wider.
There is no such thing as "can't be projected". I could project 1:1 if I wanted to or 10:1 on 35mm film. It would involve matting or windowboxing the image, but it still could be projected. My wish is for the ratio (or ratios) that was used theatrically to be represented on home video.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't want unmatted transfers of films composed and theatrically exhibited at 1.85:1 (ala Kubrick), nor do I want 1.85 or 1.78 versions of films theatrically presented wider. I prefer the image area I was intended to see theatrically, which in some cases, will mean matting slightly to eliminate splices from the full aperature.
It seems that a majority of American films of the past 30 years or so are released 1.85:1 when letterboxed on DVD. If a studio releases the DVDs like this, is that absolutely the way they were shot, rather than the "open matte" theory?
If the film is presented at 1.85, then it is not open matte. 35mm film has an aspect ratio of 1.37:1. To achieve 1.85 requires "matting" the film to that aspect ratio, by blocking off portions that were not intended to be seen in the composition. "Open matte" means presenting films composed for a wider aspect ratio with the mattes removed, thereby showing image that was not intended to be seen, and changing the composition from the theatrical presentation.
Jeff, thanks for answering my question. Your the second person who said the same thing, so I wanted to get another opinion from an expert like yourself.
I was mainly concerned with 1.85 films that show more information when they're shown in a standard TV format. But if that picture information is not supposed to be there, then I'm all for matting. Of course altering 2.35 to something less wide than that shouldn't be allowed.