Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

I'm sure someone with a vastly better knowledge of the subject can (and will) correct me but the 'whole image' is larger than 1.85 so it's not about the whole image, it's about what is the correct part of the image to be seen. You're gonna get different cropping in every transfer, it's the nature of the beast.

Once again, that's my less than scientific understanding.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

I picked up the Karate Kid on dvd, and while I watched it I noticed that although it was anamorphic widescreen, it didn't look any different than my vhs copy, so I did a little investigative work.

Cued both copies up on 2 tvs, and played them side by side.

The result: This is gonna sound like one of those old ladies arguing about how widescreen movies "cut off" the top and bottom of the movie, but in this case, that is exactly what happened. The dvd had no extra on screen image on the left or right sides. It was the exact same image as the vhs, except it was missing about 20% of the picture on the top, and bottom.

I have always been a widescreen purist, all the way back to my Laserdisc days, but after this I am really skeptical about 1:85 anamorphic widescreen.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

The 1.85 image is what was shown in theaters and what is intended to be seen. The extra information on the top and bottom isn't meant to be seen.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

Regular 1.85:1 films are usually matted widescreen. The "lost" image is junk.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

Boy, people tend to get kind of touchy with words here, so I'll shorten my post. Of course it's about composition, but there's also "junk" info that directors don't care about in the film, like microphones, etc. and there's "good" info that can get lost in Pan & Scan, like people/objects out of view (many directors include specific things in the picture to non-verbally tell the audience something, which is something I would call "info".)
You can check out the Widescreen Museum and go to the very bottom of this page and you'll see how a movie can be cropped differently even on non-matted widescreen.: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/spec...eat_emptor.htm

Thanks!

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

Interesting. I don't understand the deal with Silence of the Lambs if the Director of Photography supervised both DVDs, but I guess my response was more towards Bryan's post with Karate Kid.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

What always interests me about these types of discussions is that different people have different ideas about what the "proper" OAR is for any given film. Two different DVDs may present the same movie at 2.35:1 yet some details are missing in one 2.35 transfer but not the other - and then, which details were meant to be seen or not to be seen?

Maybe one projectionist showed it one way in 1970, and perhaps another showed it a little differently on a theatrical screen which wasn't quite as large as another... so how do we arrive at ONE definitive and indisputable ratio? It can't be merely how it was projected in any single theater, since it may have been projected improperly. I'd say it's the director's call.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

There is no way for the average consumer to know that an image is correct.

RAH

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

Yes, the only way to see a correct image is by going back to a 35mm print. A full frame transfer SHOULD be 1.37, and SMPTE makes test loops exactly for this sort of thing, but most transfer houses simply don't use them when they're doing telecine.

That's not to say you won't get over or undercropping in an average theater setting. That's its own can of worms, though.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

Unfortunately, too often films with 2.35 aspect ratios aren't properly exhibited in their proper ratios in theatres either. When I saw the 1995 Richard III with Ian McKellan, the on screen title read Richard II, I kid you not. I also recall some of the opening credits being cut off when I saw L.A. Confidential in theatres.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

TRUE! I've seen 2.35:1 films projected on 1.85:1 screens (the recent Romeo + Juliet), and 1.85:1 open matte films projected with all of the high end of the frame exposed and the bottom cut off.....making microphones visible throughout and cutting people off at the chin (THE MIRROR HAS TWO FACES). I also had the extreme displeasure of seeing CABARET projected full frame, center of a 1.85:1 screen with no matting at all.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

ScottR, referring to your original post which was about identical aspect ratios sometimes containing slightly different portions of the image depending on what company or person was in charge of the transfer:

I always prefer when they don't zoom in too much on the frame. But I'd guess that one reason why some companies zoom in too much (like on the upcoming edition of Goldeneye, where even the artistic opening montage is ruined) is because they're overcautious about accidentally scanning in the edge of the image (where the image ends, and unexposed film begins - just before the sprocket holes) and having to run the reel again. Not exactly lazy, just being overly economical. Just a layman's guess.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

This is always a thorn in my side. A lot of people (particularly OAR enthusiasts) need to understand it is not about "quantity", "information" or "detail". It is about COMPOSITION. More is not better, or just as good, or acceptable.

Of course it looked different, significantly different. There is no way a 1.85:1 image and a 1.37:1 can look the same. It is physically impossible.

As Robert Harris points out, there is no way to know what is "right", plus any creative process will have more than one "right" presentation. It's an intrinsic aspect of creativity. Even if the original director or DP oversees the transfer, he or she may approach it a bit differently from how they originally did. It isn't etched in stone. Besides, the issue of overscan pretty much eliminates the possibility of precisely controlling framing for everyone. Eliminating it on your system isn't the perfect solution either, since it may have been taken into account in the original transfer.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

John is correct.
Personally, I prefer movies composed for Academy or 4:3 aspect ratios.
Actors act with more of their bodies than just the part from the middle of their foreheads to the bottom of their necks. So, many movies displayed at 1.85:1 in theaters are more fun to watch as open-matte transfers at home. The vast majority do not include extraneous matter; they do include more of each actor (and more background).
Raging Bull, The Big Lebowski and The Caine Mutiny are some examples. (dvdbeaver.com used to show screen shots comparing the widescreen vs. open-matte transfers, but no more.)

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

Absolutely. The Steve Martin/Lily Tomlin comedy All of Me has only (as far as I know) had a full-screen DVD release, like many other comedy and "family" films. There is one joke that is completely lost in the full-screen version, because it depends on the director's ability to direct the viewer's eye where he wants it to go - in this case a particular part of a woman's anatomy. In full screen you just have a shot of a man and a woman talking to one another, and the dialogue has not particular amusement value. But at 1.85:1 it is a funny moment.

An even more egregious example comes in A Fish Called Wanda when John Cleese's underwear is clearly visible in the full frame version of a scene where he's supposed to be naked. Obviously he wore boxers on set the day they shot the scene, secure in the knowledge that when projected properly no one would know he wasn't actually "el buffo".

The simple fact is that 1.85:1 films are shot open matte in order to make it cheaper and easier to crank out airplane, TV and home movie versions. Since directors and DPs concentrate on theatrical presentation, they don't always adequately "protect" the top and bottom of the frame, so things like boom mikes and electrical cables (or footprints and tire tracks) show up on home video versions of films. (Many IMDB "goofs" and entire books full of "film mistakes" are based on things like this, which were never seen by a theatrical audience. No, the costume department didn't put the actor in sneakers instead of dress shoes in that shot. His feet weren't supposed to be visible, so the director let him wear something comfortable.)

"Information" means nothing. Composition is everything. "More" isn't always better. (Because if that were the case every film would be done in master shots and there would be no two shots and close-ups. )

Regards,

Joe

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

If I remeber correctly when "The Great Escape " first came out on dvd it had an aspect ratio of about 2.55:1. Yes, I think we got all of the information from he original negative but, occasionally, you could see a crewmember or equipment on the extreme edge of the picture. . Later versions had a ratio of about 2.30:1 and none of the crew or equipment were visible. Apparently, John Sturges filmed this way so that, if necessary, he could reframe in post production.
In my humble opinion, as Joe implies above, more isn't everything: composition is what matters. If it looks right and feels right then it is ok by me regardless of the aspect ratio.
Pan & scan rarely looks right or feels right.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

Several movies originally framed at 1.85:1 have been opened up on DVD to fill the 16:9 space (opened up to 1.78:1). This is just a tiny little bit, but I think it makes a lot of sense -- I wish more movies did this. Movies which are in 1.85:1 AR on my widescreen television have a small black area at top or bottom.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

While this is true of some films, with others it is an illusion created by overscan. The "black bars" are still there on the disc, but are not in the displayed image because they are "pushed off" the screen.

(For that matter overscan makes it almost impossible to "measure" aspect ratio on many sets. Just grabbing a ruler and checking the displayed image doesn't necessarily tell you what's encoded on the disc.)

Regards,

Joe

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

Whether exhibited theatrically or transferred to DVD, the aspect ratio of a movie will virtually never be exactly on the nose. Directors and cinematographers are aware of this, and frame accordingly. The difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1, is slight, and falls within this "wiggle-room." It's a non-issue, in my opinion. As Joseph alludes to, the overscan of one's monitor is likely to alter the aspect ratio by at least this much.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

Going back to the original post, the MGM and Criterion transfers of Silence of the Lambs are so different that they can't both have been approved by the film's cinematographer.

Criterion explicitly state that their transfer was made "in consultation with cinematographer Tak Fujimoto" (per their website). To my knowledge, MGM has made no such claim about their version. It's reasonable, then, to suggest that the Criterion transfer is "correct", and the MGM version is not.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

John,
My mistake. You are correct. The widescreen version of the Karate Kid on dvd is definately different than the vhs. It is missing about 20% of the picture on the top, and bottom. Other than that, there is no additional image on the left, or right. Granted that 20% of image was never meant to be seen in the first place, as it is junk footage. That is a fact I've never known about until reading this thread. I'm not trying to start an argument about widescreen vs. full screen, I'm just relating the facts. I only buy widescreen dvd's.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

There is no overscan on my plasma. Whatever the aspect ratio is on the disk -- that's what I'm seeing.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

I picked up Fortress(1985, Rachel Ward) on dvd today. This was never shown in theaters. it was made for tv,(HBO) so why is this widescreen? Shouldn't it remain as it was originally aired on tv?

This is a big pet peeve of mine, Warner Brothers did the exact same thing with Kung Fu season 1. Why do studios make shows, and programs that are made for tv widescreen? It just doesn't add up.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

That's the difference between full screen and P&S. The two terms tend to be used interchangeably, but they are quite different. Neither is a good way to present a movie, but it can be argued that at least full screen may not be quite as bad.

Since Fortress is an Australian movie, it is unlikely it was made for HBO, though they are listed as a distributor in the US. A simple check of the technical page at imdb indicates it was, in fact, shot for 1.85:1. It may have been originally intended for theatrical release, but didn't end up going that route, which is not unheard of.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

Here's an interesting example I came across recently of a film shot in Super 35 for both widescreen and full-frame:





Now, notice the effect of this. The widescreen version is basically a close-up - you're right there, in their face, so close to the acton. By opening up to the full frame, the effect of the shot is lost - instead, you're standing some distance away watching the event.

So even in this example, where you're gaining information (rather than losing information, as in P&S), even though the new information doesn't reveal any unwanted information (such as boom mikes or John Cleese's not-maked boxer short), the effect of the scene is damaged.

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

That is exactly why it annoys me to see image content constantly referred to as "information". What do you mean "the new information doesn't reveal any unwanted information"? It's ALL unwanted, because it destroys the composition and purpose of the shot. How is that not unwanted?

Re: Aspect Ratios-what's correct?

John I think that Matthew means that there is nothing like a boom mike showing up in the background.