Tilt 'N Scan - the new OAR violator (1 Viewer)

[MatthewA]

Imagine if they tried to pull this bs with The Brady Bunch...

"Oh my God! Florence Henderson has no chin!"

 

[Jesse Skeen]

The intro on "The Brady Bunch Movie" was done in 1.85.

 

[gregstaten]

A few comments:

Tilt and scan isn't new and is used today for quite a few shows shown in HD on CBS. The 16x9 framing on these shows is done using "common top and side." This means that the full width is used and the topline is maintained (for headroom, for example). The image is tilted down, however, when the composition warrants it.

For reference, Paramount (at least the last time I checked) shoots most of their shows 35mm 4 perf (yielding a 1.37:1 aspect ratio). These shows are then transferred full frame. After editing, the HD master is created using tilt and scan, common top and side.

Most other studios now shoot 35mm 3 perf. This yields a widescreen frame roughly equivalent to 16x9. Most shows shot this way are shot "compose 4x3 and protect the wings." This means that the composition is still done for a 4x3 frame but they make sure that nothing unwanted appears in the 16x9 wings.

For example, I was watching a 16x9 transfer of Judging Amy earlier this year. The composition was so tightly framed to 4x3 that the wings were left empty on nearly every shot I saw. To be blunt, it looked like crap in 16x9.

When transferring these shows to 4x3, they usually do a "center extraction." This means they pull the middle of the frame out and drop the wings. Sadly, this is often done in the initial telecine transfer and all the editor ever sees is the center extraction.

Some shows are cut in 16x9. Not many, but the number grows each season.

-greg

 

[MatthewA]

The intro on "The Brady Bunch Movie" was done in 1.85

I meant the original TV series.

 

[Scott H]

Ah...nope, nevermind.
[thinking] Don't do it![/thinking]

Jerry, I was with Spike Jonze this afternoon... You prob don't want to know what he's doing with S35

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Although this is almost completely true, there is at least one exception: V: The Beginning was shot in 1.85 with an eye for foreign theatrical release. Kenneth Johnson goes into this on the current 1.85 anamorphic set from Warners.

Still, though, wasn't this just open-matte? It may have been framed for 1.85:1, but open-matte and 16:9 widescreen are two different things, even if their intended AR is the same. Correct me if I'm wrong; I may be.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

That's right everyone.

you've heard it from Paramount.

While everyone else was filming their widescreen *movies* on 4x3 fill-stock and "soft matting" for the theater, Paramount, 20 years ago, decided to film their TV shows in anamorphic WS on film and then P/S the final result for television audiences.

BUUHHAAAAA HHHAAAAAa HAAAhHHHhhaaaAAAAa.

-dave

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Please tell me that you guys are mad about the Evil Dead Book of the Dead edition and are boycotting it, too. After all, it was tilt-and-scanned (by Bruce Campbell, at the director's request).

The people in the review thread for the Book of the Dead edition have bent over backwards to defend it, so I gave up.

 

[Damin J Toell]

The people in the review thread for the Book of the Dead edition have bent over backwards to defend it, so I gave up.

is it really bending over backwards to say: "if the director wants it, i support it"? it seems to me that it requires no bending whatsoever...

DJ

 

[Patrick McCart]

If Super-16mm was used for Cheers, it would indeed by 16x9. Super-16 has a wide aspect ratio due to it having no soundtrack.

Since Cheers was edited on tape, it would definately be Super-16, hence Paramount being RIGHT.

Please tell me that you guys are mad about the Evil Dead Book of the Dead edition and are boycotting it, too. After all, it was tilt-and-scanned (by Bruce Campbell, at the director's request).

What is there to defend? You want to see the movie how YOU want it to be seen, not how the director wants it to be seen.

I didn't see anyone boycott the Fantasia DVD which cropped on all four sides in a few scenes.

 

[Thomas Newton]

I didn't see anyone boycott the Fantasia DVD which cropped on all four sides in a few scenes.

I didn't see any warning that the Fantasia DVD cropped the picture on all four sides. But maybe I wasn't reading all of the multi-page thread closely enough.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

is it really bending over backwards to say: "if the director wants it, i support it"? it seems to me that it requires no bending whatsoever...

I would agree, but then why all the fuss over 2.35:1 -> 2:1 for Apocolypse Now? The director approved that. Why all the fuss over the non-scope Kubrick films being open matte and/or p&s? I'm sick of this selective OAR devotion. If it's anamorphic and OAR then I'm all OAR, but if it's OAR is 1.34:1 (TV shows, excetra), then by all means open up the rest of the 1.78:1 frame (TV box sets) even though we boycotted the open matte Wonka. If it's 1.34:1 without the 1.78:1 outter frame, then by all means tilt and frame (this thread being a refreshing exception.)
I want it however the director originally intended it, period.

 

[Damin J Toell]

2:1 for Apocolypse Now? The director approved that. Why all the fuss over the non-scope Kubrick films being open matte and/or p&s? I'm sick of this selective OAR devotion.

well, i can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, i wholeheartedly support the 2:1 release of Apocalypse Now and the unmatted Kubrick DVDs. my stance is a non-selective one and generally has only one factor: is it what the director wants?
DJ

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Good man!

 

[Scott H]

If Super-16mm was used for Cheers, it would indeed by 16x9. Super-16 has a wide aspect ratio due to it having no soundtrack.

S16 gains exposable width by using single-perf film and exposing where the perfs would be on one side of the film. S35 gains exposabale width by exposing where the optical soundtrack would be.

If S16 was used for Cheers I would be surprised to learn it was composed at 1.78:1 (16x9). While S16 is an ideal 1.78:1 acquisition method for HD, and currently used for that exact purpose, at that time I would think few if any people were shooting 1.78:1 on it. Full aperture S16 is usually framed at 1.66:1. There was also a lot of 1.85:1 OAR S16 stuff then (and now), but I would doubt 1.78:1 then.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I'm really not sure where all this 1.78:1 talk came from, of course Cheers wasn't shot and composed for 1.78:1, if it were, there wouldn't be a need to tilt-and-scan the new HD masters!
Anyhow, it was shot on good old 35mm.
Here is a quote from an excellent article at http://www.cinematographer.com/artic...,31541,00.html

In a 1985 interview, Burrows said "Cheers" was produced on 35mm film because the producers and studio wanted the series to look and feel like a movie every week. They gave cinematographer John Finger creative license to design high-quality production values with lighting.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

What is there to defend? You want to see the movie how YOU want it to be seen, not how the director wants it to be seen.

Really? I said that I want Evil Dead at 1.33:1? Where, exactly?
I am merely saying that there are people on this board who are mad at the full frame transfers of Kubrick films and the 2:1 Apocalypse Now because they are not how the film was originally intended to be seen who are perfectly happy to have Evil Dead cropped at the top and bottom and tilted up or down.
If the director of Willy Wonka wanted it to be pan & scan, would you all be happy with a pan & scan Wonka?
Or how about this...James Cameron clearly states his preference for the pan & scan Abyss on 4:3 NTSC TVs in the insert with the Special Edition LD. He did the reframing himself. How many of you are rushing out to buy the new Fox full-frame Abyss?
And there was QUITE the dustup about Fantasia being censored by cropping into the image, thank you, including numerous threats of boycott.
I have no problem with Evil Dead being reframed by the filmmakers. I have no problem with The Shining being reframed by Kubrick. I have no problem with Apocalypse Now being reframed by Storaro. I have no problem with T2 and The Abyss being reframed by Cameron. However, people who object to one of these and not the others are selectively picking their battles.
edit: typing too fast makes for bad spelling and grammar

 

[Jim Ferguson]

I'm not in favor of T&S on stuff that was originally composed for 4:3 (presumably including Cheers.)

However I do prefer it for shows which are actually meant to be shown on both 4:3 and 16:9 devices.

On shows on which the 16:9 image is just the regular 4:3 image only wider, the extra space usually consist of dead space (the "safe" area.) That's the best case. Often you see actual mistakes.

For example I saw an episode of "Ellen" where you could hear her voice, but she was not speaking (she was on the far right of the screen, cropped out of the 4:3 version.) Obviously the voice was dubbed in later. The editor counted on the fact that she would be "offscreen" in the 4:3 version.

I've also seen gags ruined because of this. I think it was King of Queens where on the 4:3 image you start with a shot of Doug and Carry in bed. The camera pulls back to reveal that Carry's father is also in the bed. That was the joke. However it is ruined in 16:9 since the father is visible even in the beginning of the shot.

Shows like "Becker" which are done with t&s don't suffer from this problem. They seem better composed, with no dead space on the edges of the screen, or with the actors all artificially clustered together in the middle of the set.

 

[David Lambert]

Or how about this...James Cameron clearly states his preference for the pan & scan Abyss on 4:3 NTSC TVs in the insert with the Special Edition LD. He did the reframing himself. How many of you are rushing out to buy the new Fox full-frame Abyss?

Boy, people just love bringing that up, don't they? There's always a selective memory process going on, where they forget that Cameron EDIT (due to stupidity of this know-it-all poster):recanted those statements after he saw the widescreen DVD. THAT is his prefered presentation the last time I saw him discuss the matter. In fact, he approved the non-anamorphicness (is that a word?) of the transfer, IIRC. made those statements based on the existing technology of the time; he had yet to see the widescreen DVD version that would come later on.

It is true that directors' approved versions aren't exactly the same choices we ourselves would make in their shoes. And we want what we want, 'cuz we're paying the money, right?

It comes down to standing up for the original vision version, in my opinion. Because what the director wants in 2002 ain't what he would have wanted in 1977. Look at Lucas, for example.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

version, in my opinion. Because what the director wants in 2002 ain't what he would have wanted in 1977. Look at Lucas, for example.

So you are saying that you are against the reframed Evil Dead?