Full Screen? Why do they Lie? (1 Viewer)

[Dave Scarpa]

The Cover Art for Cats & Dogs the Pan and Scan Version conviently Deceives the public with the Misnomer "Full Screen" , makes you think your getting gibbed does'nt it?

 

[Alex Spindler]

I think it's because they had poor focus group results with their previous "Sucker Edition" labeling.

 

[Brian Kidd]

Well, technically, it is full screen. The film was shot open matte. However, most cgi effects are done in the intended theatrical ratio, so any shot with the cgi cats or dogs will be cropped to some extent. That means most of the film. That is, unless the animators composed the shots for 4:3 as well, which I suppose is possible. Any way you look at it, non-OAR sucks!

 

[Kyle McKnight]

What about if you own a 16x9 TV. Then it's not full screen, nor is it "formatted to fit your TV".
------------------
Kyle³
------------------
Yahoo Messenger - digitalkyle

 

[Rachael B]

Shouldn't films that have been reduced dow to fill your screen be called "partial-screen"?
------------------
Rachael, the big disc cat! "...Mandrake, have you ever seen a commie drink water..."
AFI Film Challenge, hey I've only got 1 to go!

 

[Mark Kalzer]

It's certainly a lot better than DVDs which have the nerve to call it, "Standard".

 

[Kyle Milligan]

Well, "Standard" is kinda true, if you do a head count of those with regular, non-widescreen TVS... but it still sucks.
What I'd like to know, is how many housewives are calling up with crying babies in the background, telling the executives that those black bars have ruined her week and that they're going to hell for it? That's got to be the reason , right?
------------------
Kyle
www.toldyouso.net

 

[Patrick McCart]

Most 1.85:1 films are shot at 1.37:1 on film.
In fact, most prints are printed at the same ratio...
Here's the exceptions:
Any film with a ratio higher than 1.85:1, not counting Super-35 films (more on that later).
Hard-matted films (such as Aliens and The Terminator, which were hard-matted to 1.85:1 in-camera.)
SOME films with CGI sequences that are 1.85:1. I wouldn't be surprised if a film such as Cats & Dogs had the CGI sequences composed at 1.33:1 since the video release is coming so soon.
Films made before 1952, with VERY little exception. A few 65mm films were made around 1930 that actually are on DVD in widescreen!
Many popular films were filmed open matte such as Fantasia 2000, Airplane!, Jurassic Park (although CGI sequences WERE hard-matted.)
Willy Wonka is a recent example of an open matte film. Don't belive the BS that the fullframe version is pan & scan. People who say that the movie was cropped in some shots are referring to the older open matte DVD which is a totally different transfer. After all, the people who said the new DVD is pan & scan didn't see the new transfer. (I'm waiting for the matted version, of course.)
If you want to get technical, Ultra Panavision 70 films are open matte on 70mm. Movies like 2001 and Lawrence of Arabia are FULLFRAME on DVD. It's just about which frame size you're talking about.

------------------
P.S.: There's no P.S.

 

[Joseph S]

What about if you own a 16x9 TV. Then it's not full screen, nor is it "formatted to fit your TV".

Yeah, maybe I should go buy the "full screen" Willy Wonka at Walmart and return it. You know it doesn't fill my screen and has these annoying grey bars on the side.

 

[Ryan Patterson]

Hard-matted films (such as Aliens and The Terminator, which were hard-matted to 1.85:1 in-camera.)

You sure about Aliens? In the scene when Hicks is showing Ripley how to work the gun, and she pauses to say "You started this!", her watch is partially cut off at the bottom of the screen in the 1.85:1 version. I'm pretty sure in the 4:3 version that her watch is fully shown, due to removing the mattes. Or maybe we're both wrong, and this movie was shot in Super 35?
Excellent description of how open-matting works though. I'm fine with open matte full-screen films for a couple of reasons:
1) No 4:3 downconversion necessary. This isn't as bad for me now, since I've upgraded from my crappy Dxr2 card to a Panasonic standalone player, but detail is always lost and jagged artifacts are sometimes shown when having to downconvert.
2) Extra footage shown above and below the frame. I'm not talking about boom mikes and other technical props that sometimes (albeit rarely) show up. I'm talking about movies like "Pump Up the Volume" that show, uh-hrm, Samantha Mathis in all her glory in that topless slow-dance sequence.
Of course, I must respect you 16x9 TV owners, and I admit that someday I will buy one myself, and thus I prefer it when they release an open matte movie with both "full" screen and widescreen versions.
I've never seen Willy Wonka, and was curious as to what all the fuss was about. I'm a little confused as to how an older transfer of an open matte film would be cropped though. Could you fill me in a little more regarding this matter?
Thanks,
Ryan

 

[William Ward]

I've never seen Willy Wonka, and was curious as to what all the fuss was about. I'm a little confused as to how an older transfer of an open matte film would be cropped though. Could you fill me in a little more regarding this matter?

Willy Wonka raised a fuss because it was a so called special edition DVD and didn't even have the Original Aspect Ratio of the movie on the DVD. Instead, it was presented with a Modified Aspect Ratio version of the movie. Pan & Scam/Open Matte, it's still MAR and not the only way a movie should be presented on DVD(especially a SE). All the fuss got Warner to go back and release another SE(OAR) of Wonka.
------------------
William
Go Bucs!!
MyDVDs

 

[Tom-G]

Or maybe we're both wrong, and this movie was shot in Super 35?

Aliens was indeed shot in Super 35.
------------------
As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day. --Roger Ebert on The Phantom Menace

 

[frank manrique]

Patrick,
Fantasia 2000 was shot in IMAX, wasn't it (except the Mickey Mouse animated segment from the original movie, which originated from 35mm film)?
Disney made quite a deal about actually building an IMAX theater in Los Angeles, California for the opening exhibitions since the IMAX theater chain refused to accept Disney's terms of their exhibition requirements.
I saw it in IMAX at the Luxor in Las Vegas last year...
-THTS

 

[Patrick McCart]

Fantasia 2000 was shot on IMAX (except for Sorceror's Apprentice) at 1.85:1 (open matte) and it was composed to look good at IMAX 1.33:1 AND 35mm 1.85:1
I saw the movie in IMAX and the DVD is simply matted.
The only difference is that The Sorceror's Apprentice is windowboxed on the 35mm version (although to roughly 1.55:1) and the IMAX version simply blows the image up to IMAX size.
No offense to the visually impaired, but Disney must have had Mr. Magoo "OK" the 35mm to IMAX blowup of The Sorceror's Apprentice. The segment looked awful on the IMAX screen!
This is why the 35mm and DVD versions look so good...65mm photography! Also, the fact that the whole movie except for "TSA" used some CGI elements made Disney output the film back to film using a datacine.
------------------
P.S.: There's no P.S.

 

[Scott H]

quote: Aliens was indeed shot in Super 35.[/quote]
And was not hard-matted in the camera.
quote: Most 1.85:1 films are shot at 1.37:1 on film.[/quote]
Technically, 1.85:1 films are shot at 1.85:1 with a typical exposed aperture of 1.37:1. Except for conventionally optically aligned 35mm cameras shooting with 2:1 anamorphic lenses most all 35mm films are matted from the exposed aperture to the intended frame, which is what they are shot at no matter the exposed aperture. Nearly every film is shot open-matte, few films are hard-matted in the camera, however they are framed and composed to the intended AR delineated on the ground glass and conformed to by the framing leader.
------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.
[Edited last by Scott H on September 29, 2001 at 03:57 PM]