*** FOX goes PAN&SCAN? 10 Fox discs re-released in MARCH (1 Viewer)

[Ricardo C]

Malcolm, I understand your position a lot better now. I certainly would react like you if I were in your shoes I take back sooo much of what I said earlier
Gavin, do you mean the OAR edition of From Hell will be the limited one??

 

[Ricardo C]

Cosey, Widescreen formatting DOES NOT chop up the picture. Pan and Scan does.

The only way you'll see more of a film in its full screen version is if it is open-matted, which is NOT Pan & Scam.

What you're describing sounds like someone took a 4x3 picture and chopped it up to make it appear widescreen, which sounds like a pretty dumb thing to do, if the film was originally shot at 4x3.

I looked up Friday Foster on the imdb and could not find info about its original aspect ratio. The DVD IS 1.85:1. When you saw it in the theater, was it widescreen or 4x3? (4x3 is TV size, which means the screen would have been almost square)

 

[David Lambert]

Cosey, welcome to the forum.
Please...You don't need to use such a big font size. You are not only "shouting", but it makes it hard to read your words and understand what you are saying!
But I get that your main objective is to see more nudity and so forth. If the released film doesn't contain the actual nipples or other fleshy parts that you want to excite yourself with, then maybe it is because the actual nudity wasn't part of the "director's vision". Perhaps it was intended to only HINT at that nudity, a much more classy move.
Less is more, y'know?
As you grow older and more experienced, you will realize that watching the fleshy bits isn't everything, and that it's what they SAY and how they ACT that's sexy, not what they SHOW. Getting into an OAR vs. MAR debate isn't what I'd recommend to get yourself titillated. Try Link Removed if that's what you're looking for!
DAVE/Memphis

 

[cosey jackson]

My only point was that it is disturbing to me to see some things in the theatre & they not be on my widescreen dvd.

I am not putting widescreen down, because I always buy the widescreen version when available, but I also will buy the full screen version so I can see the missing parts. I then put both versions in a double case.

This is why I hope Fox releases a full frame version of Point Break.

So can somebody help me see the missing parts on my widescreen dvds, so I can stop wasting money on full frame releases?

Sorry my post came out so large. It was my first post, & it was normal size when I previewed my reply.

Cosey

 

[Damin J Toell]

My only point was that it is disturbing to me to see some things in the theatre & they not be on my widescreen dvd...This is why I hope Fox releases a full frame version of Point Break.

if you saw Point Break in the theatre, then you saw it in "widescreen" and not "full frame."
DJ

 

[David Lambert]

Damin's correct, Cosey. What you saw on the DVD should be EXACTLY what they showed in the theater.

With few exceptions, films that were released in theaters after 1954 were all widescreen. So, viewing the widescreen version at home, means you see EXACTLY what was seen in theater.

That's called "Theatrical Aspect Ratio", or TAR. It is almost always the Original Aspect Ratio, or OAR. HTF members agree when they sign up that the HTF promotes only OAR. I believe in this doctrine; here's why:

I want to see it at home the same way I saw it in the theater. That's why they call it "Home Theater". That's why this is the "Home Theater Forum": here we promote the home theater experience...the experience of a theater in our homes!

As to your font size, per your last post it sounded to me like you have a genuine technical problem going on. If you preview the font at one size and it comes out much larger (and your 2nd post is identically as huge as your first one), then there's something wierd going on. I used the "report this post" button to ask a moderator to step in and see if they can figure out what's wrong here. I emphasized that there's probably nothing malicious going on; just that you might need some help.

I'm just trying to help you out and make you feel welcome here. If the attention is unwanted, then I'll apologize right now.

Cheers,

 

[Chad R]

'Point Break' was shot super-35 I beleive, so the extra naughty bits you remember seeing are not from the theatrical release. The widescreen version is how it was in the theater.

Super-35 is a film process in which the image is captured on film at a close to TV ratio (but not exactly), but then printed for theatrical release with the 2.35:1 ratio that the director wanted. Often when that film goes to video, to make the cropping less dramatic (although there will still be cropping) the film is transferred with the extra info on the top and bottom that wasn't meant to be seen by the director.

So if you repsect the director, don't worry about the extra naughty bits of nudity.

 

[Jerry Gracia]

cosey jackson,
You are very confused.

Quote:

They were intended to be out of the picture. The reason you see them in the full screen verison is because the movie was open-matted. Click these link: ttp://hkfanatic.com/widescreen/matte/matte.html
http://hkfanatic.com/widescreen/
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/

 

[AaronMK]

Oh, the joys of soft matting. :rolleyes
Using it to justify pan & scan is pretty lame.
There various advantages and disadvantages to different types of film, cameras, lenses, etc. Filmmakers using cameras and lenses that result in an image that is different from the intended aspect ratio almost never do it because they are concerned about what people will be missing when the watch a P&S version. For example, they may use Super 35 because they like certian qualities that it gives the final image, or how it reacts to lighting used on the set, not because less will have to be cropped out if they decide to pan & scan. Adding can be just as bad as removing.
To get back on topic...
I envy those of you who live close enough to a rental outlet that has a pro-OAR policy, or who can afford to buy every movie they wish to see. I and many others don't have either of those options, so P&S is a threat. It would not be a threat if so many retailers and rental outlets didn't refuse to support OAR along with P&S, but it is usually one or the other, and then it is usually P&S.
It is also disturbing that OAR may be relegated to more expensive collector's editions that will only be available in limited quantities or for a shorter amount of time.
Limited availability P&S as an afterthought to an OAR release may not be such a threat in of itself, but...
If you give a mouse a cookie....