Willy Wonka is Open Matte not Pan and Scan? What about LOTR? Chariots of Fire? (1 Viewer)

[rob kilbride]

Rather than reading through 20 pages of messages on the subject can someone confirm for me that this has been confirmed by a reliable source? Has anyone heard whether Lord of the Rings is pan and scan or open matte? I posted a question about whether Space Jam and Chariots of Fire were open matte or pan and scan a few months ago. Someone said Space Jam had animated scenes in P&S and live scenes open matte I believe, but I never got a definite answer on COF. Anyone know about the answer?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

COF is open matte.
Keep in mind that as others have posted, very few full-frame "open matte" films are really 100% open matte. Often there is occasional cropping or zooming for whatever.
Also, even if one could theoretically restore the OAR by zooming on a 16x9 display...you've now just thrown out 33% of your resolution in the OAR image area for lack of 16x9 encoding.
Bummer with COF is that it's OAR is reported to be 1.66:1, and warner doesn't do 16x9 for 1.66:1 titles.
-dave

 

[Walter Kittel]

Turner Classic Movies is showing Chariots of Fire in letterbox next week. It will make for an interesting comparison against the current DVD release.
Here is the original thread ( and my thoughts on the subject )
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/...ML/028399.html
- Walter.
[Edited last by Walter Kittel on August 08, 2001 at 01:20 PM]

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Walter,
If you get a chance to watch it let us know how it compares image content wise.
Also...take note of the apsect ratio if you can.
thanks,
dave

 

[Walter Kittel]

David,
I'm definitely planning upon comparing the two versions and will post my observations back to this thread.
- Walter.

 

[rob kilbride]

How about Wonka and LOTR? Anybody?

 

[Greg_M]

How about Warners Pan & Scan DVD of "Arthur". Filmed the same year as "Chariots of Fire", is this also Open matte?

 

[Mark Bendiksen]

quote: How about Warners Pan & Scan DVD of "Arthur". Filmed the same year as "Chariots of Fire", is this also Open matte?[/quote]
Yes, and it's a crappy transfer on top of that!
Wow...this my 1000th post. Hey Ron, do I get a free HTF coffee mug now or somethin'?
Link Removed

[Edited last by Mark Bendiksen on August 09, 2001 at 02:47 PM]

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Mark,
I just looked at my post a few above and I was on 999!!! Check out the number on this post! hmmmm....
-dave
[Edited last by DaViD Boulet on August 09, 2001 at 03:30 PM]

 

[Paul W]

I don't know about open matte for LOTR, but IMDB lists the OAR as 1.85:1. It is being released PS. I'm not sure how it was animated, tho (hard or soft matte).
------------------
Link Removed Paul Warren
Hey fella . . . I bet you're still livin' in your parent's cellar . . . downloading pictures of Sarah Michelle Gellar . . . and posting "Me too!" like some brain-dead AOL-er . . . I should do the world a favor and cap ya' like Old Yeller . . . you're just about as useless as MPEGs [sic] to Hellen Keller.

 

[Mark Bendiksen]

Mark,
I just looked at my post a few above and I was on 999!!! Check out the number on this post! hmmmm....
-dave

Ha! And look, we both signed up with HTF within a month of each other (nearly 2.5 years ago).
Life's weird, huh?
Cheers!
--mark
Link Removed

 

[Graham Perks]

Visit www.thebigpicturedvd.com/bignews.shtml . They have excellent reviews, and have just done a Willy Wonka review. They show that WW is open-matte, not p&s.
>Bummer with COF is that it's OAR is reported to be 1.66:1, and warner doesn't do 16x9 for 1.66:1 titles.
It's not just Warner. In fact, DVD doesn't do 16x9 for 1.66:1 titles. 1.66:1 is 4x3. For 4x3 images, DVD uses all its lines of resolution. There is no benefit to using anamorphic with this ratio. DVD is already doing everything it can. So, you'll never see a 4x3 title "enhanced for 16x9 TVs". It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Paul W]

Oh boy! Here we go again!
If you can count to 500, then it should be easy to see tha anamorphic enhancement _will_ benefit 1.66:1 movies. 450 lines is still greater than 360 lines.
The only problem is, people ridiculously object to the side-bars necessary to anamorphically enhance 1.66:1.
Not only is loss of resultion an undesireable effect of non-anamorphic, if you want to zoom your TV, then you lose bits of the top and bottom.
------------------
Link Removed Paul Warren
Hey fella . . . I bet you're still livin' in your parent's cellar . . . downloading pictures of Sarah Michelle Gellar . . . and posting "Me too!" like some brain-dead AOL-er . . . I should do the world a favor and cap ya' like Old Yeller . . . you're just about as useless as MPEGs [sic] to Hellen Keller.

 

[Adam Tyner]

No, 1.33:1 is 4x3.
------------------
My DVD list | My personal site

 

[Jerry Gracia]

Adam is right, 1.66:1 most definitly is not 4:3.
1.33:1 is 4:3
------------------
LuvLBX

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I don't know about open matte for LOTR, but IMDB lists the OAR as 1.85:1.

Someone in the other thread posted a somewhat-cryptic piece of mail from a Bakshi rep that seemed to confirm that the film was hardmatted (the text of the message had something to do with not animating much past the edge of the 1.85 frame, if I'm remembering right).

 

[Walter Kittel]

I'm currently taping a letterboxed presentation of Chariots of Fire on TCM as I type this. Based on synching up the DVD to the broadcast I can make the following observations...
The reason ( at least for me ) for the confusion over open matte vs. pan and scan is due to the framing of the current R1 DVD release. The framing represents a zoomed image ( cutting off the sides ) while opening up the top and bottom mattes. Hence the extra headroom combined with the claustrophobic feeling of some of the shots.
I used the same display device and switched two S-Video signals to compare the aspect ratios of several DVDs to the broadcast. The Chariots of Fire letterboxed presentation appears to be at 1.90:1. It is somewhat smaller ( vertically ) than Republic's Highlander disc and is marginally larger than Apocalypse Now which is framed at 2.0:1. I was surprised at this ratio as I had previously thought that it was 1.66:1, but it was definitely 1.85:1 or somewhat larger. ( And yes, the DVD player setting for the display was switched to 4:3 letterbox for the Apocalypse Now comparison. )
Using the letterboxed presentation as a baseline, the DVD's image is zoomed with approximately 5 to 6 % ( just guessing ) cut from each side of the image. The zooming appears slightly asymmetrical with more image missing from the right side when compared to the left side. The zoom is obvious as objects displayed on the DVD release are noticeably larger than their counterparts in the letterboxed presentation. Following the zoom, the top and bottom mattes are then opened up around 5 to 10 % to complete the 1.33:1 framing of the DVD.
A perfect example of why the open mattes suck is at around 19:50 in the film. During Eric Liddell's speech at the race ( when Sandy convinces him to race that day, 'If we can find some kit for Scotland's finest wing' ) there is a hat visible in the lower right corner of the DVD presentation that sticks out like a sore thumb. In the letterboxed presentation only Liddell occupies the frame, and the composition is much more satisfying due to the lack of the distraction.
Anyway, I'm hoping that Warner Bros. will do right by this title. I'm somewhat encouraged that we may see an anamorphic release since the aspect ratio of the TCM presentation was obviously at least 1.85:1. ( Crossing my fingers. )
- Walter.
[Edited last by Walter Kittel on August 14, 2001 at 04:25 AM]

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Thanks Walter.
Now...if we could only convince Warner that even 1.66:1 titles deserved the added resolution of 16x9 encoding...we wouldn't have to worry regardless of what the OAR turns out to be!
dave