unmatted vs. pan and scan (1 Viewer)

[Qui-Gon John]

I agree that the main concern should be director's intent. But I also see a valid reason for distinction. IMHO Open-Matte is the lesser of two evils when compared with Pan & Scan.

 

[MarkHastings]

Just don't let J6P know what Open Matte is or you'll never be able to get him used to the black bars.

J6P: "See! I told you they are covering up the rest of the picture with those dang black bars!"

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Mike,

It is worth mentioning that there exist a small minority of films that are properly viewed unmatted. Examples include certain Kubrick films (SHINING) and certain Disney animated features (101 DALMATIANS). I would also give consideration to documentaries, especially those shot with handheld 16mm cameras. Some of those shots in ROGER & ME would look awfully "tight" if they had been matted, and one of the first rules of photography is not to chop the tops of the heads off your subjects.

Also, some films are improperly matted on DVD. Last LAST TANGO IN PARIS should be 1.66:1, as on the lovely Criterion laserdisc, but the MGM DVD is more like 2.00:1.

Also THE EVIL DEAD has always been unmatted on LD and DVD until the most recent release, which is "tilt-n-scanned" to 1.78:1. Hardcore fans can pick out some gags that are ruined by this matting. The book INSIDE THE EVIL DEAD states that the original aspect ratio of the film is 1.66:1, so the new widescreen DVD is MAR. Generally a minor discrepancy like this isn't significant, but as I said, some visual gags are destroyed by the overmatting; certainly that couldn't have been Mr. Raimi's original intention.

 

[WillG]

"one of the first rules of photography is not to chop the tops of the heads off your subjects."

Maybe I'm missing something here but pretty much every movie I have ever seen in its OAR has many, many shots where the tops of heads of subjects are cut off.

 

[Jenna]

...someday we're all going to have widescreen sets, and then the full frame DVDs will have black bars on the SIDES.

That day can't come soon enough! Revenge is sweet.

 

[Mike DB]

OK, I'm gonna play devil's advocate here because for the most part, I do prefer to see films in the theatrical OAR. I can say that I would never prefer "pan and scan" type full frame. But when it comes to the choice of matted or unmatted, I don't take as firm a stand.

Consider these points.

Most directors now DO shoot with the thought in mind that the film will eventually be seen on video, and they compose the image accordingly. I must say that I find this a sad fact because I like the early scope pictures that really took advantage of the widescreen shape. But not many directors shoot that way anymore. Nowadays there are probably even some who compose their shots with a thought towards how they will look both matted and unmatted.

James Cameron has expressed a preference for the full frame version of some of his films for video viewing.
I believe Kubrick did too.

I am convinced that some films that actually were originally full frame in shape are being intentionally improperly presented cropped to letterbox shape on DVD. This is done to appeal specifically to videophiles who will only buy letterboxed product. With an obscure film there is almost no way to research this so they figure, why not?

Finally, I love watching DVD's in widescreen at home thru my tough little sound sysem, but you really gotta understand that you are not seeing a theatrical presentation on video anyway. All kinds of compromises are being made, letterboxed or not. The film is transfered to video and viewed on a TV instead of projected from photographic film. The image is many times smaller than a theater. The sound is different, you are in a smaller room with speakers that project in a whole different fashion. The only real way to see a film the way it was "meant" to be seen....is to see it in a theater.

 

[WillG]

"Most directors now DO shoot with the thought in mind that the film will eventually be seen on video, and they compose the image accordingly"

Although I understand your point and have potificated this myself, I still think that the theater is the Premier experience of a film. Most directors know this and still make the film with a theatrical Aspect Ratio in mind. Look at countless "Making of" Featuretts on DVD where they show video assist monitors and you can clearly see that hash marks for the 1.85:1 area with the area beyond that darkened out, or not there at all (1.85:1 or Super35 is what I assume we are talking about since there is no second guessing Anamorphic Scope presentations) Even though most directors might Protect the 1.37:1 frame on Open Matte Photography that does not necessarily mean that they were composing for two separate aspect ratios (a point on which many in this forum will argue is impossible)

"I am convinced that some films that actually were originally full frame in shape are being intentionally improperly presented cropped to letterbox shape on DVD. This is done to appeal specifically to videophiles who will only buy letterboxed product. "

Believe me, there isn't anymore that an few souls in the Hollywood industry that is trying to do a seeming small minority like us any favors. However, it is completly evident that OAR enthusiam has unprecedently grown since the dawn of DVD. For the first time in Home Video history OAR is been given AT LEAST equal billing (if not more so) as "Modified to Fit Your Screen" Presentations. And also for the first time in home video history, OAR has been consistantly outselling MAR presentation, not a bad feat considering the Monolithic Wal-Mart's heavy favoritism of MAR. I still don't understant why they don't see that OAR sells better and become more OAR friendly. Hell, even Blockbuster finally admitted that OAR is becoming the format of choice and changed their business model accordingly. I think very few directors, if any, are intetionally shooting for full frame and simply cropping just to appease OAR enthusiasts. I find that your claim that the Scope film is dying to be not as accurate as you think. Hell, I can't think of the last recent movie I've seen that did not have an OAR of 2.35:1 (Super35 or not) I recently saw "American Wedding" and that was shown at 2.35:1 even thought the other two were 1.85:1 which I found to be encouraging (among other examples) that the Scope Aspect Ratio is making a big comeback.

"but you really gotta understand that you are not seeing a theatrical presentation on video anyway. All kinds of compromises are being made, letterboxed or not. The film is transfered to video and viewed on a TV instead of projected from photographic film. The image is many times smaller than a theater. The sound is different, you are in a smaller room with speakers that project in a whole different fashion. The only real way to see a film the way it was "meant" to be seen....is to see it in a theater. "

Yes, very few home viewing formats are going to accurately recreate the theater experience, but that is no excuse for Directors and Studios to not try as best they can to come as close as possible. Roger Donaldson when reformatting "The Recruit" had the same mentality as you seem to have, and as I recall, not too many members of this forum (including myself) were happy with that, This is just one of many examples.

"James Cameron has expressed a preference for the full frame version of some of his films for video viewing.
I believe Kubrick did too."

This old debate again, huh?

Mike, I don't mean to sound condescending on these points or anything, but that is just my rebuttal, please don't take any of this personally

 

[Mike DB]

"Believe me, there isn't anymore that an few souls in the Hollywood industry that is trying to do a seeming small minority like us any favors. However, it is completly evident that OAR enthusiam has unprecently grown since the dawn of DVD. "

In fact that is exactly why I believe that sometimes things are being cropped down to give the illusion of being widescreen when they weren't originally shown that way. To move product ! "Widescreen" and "Letterboxed" are buzzwords now that videophiles look for in the description of a DVD. Have you ever considred a blind buy on a DVD? Did you check if it was the widescreen version? Have you ever passed one up if it was not? I have . So when companies are marketing the lesser known titles that they hope will appeal to the hard core home theater geeks like you and me, they know that offering them as widescreen is a plus...and if the title is obscure enough, they may be able to get away with cropping it to look widescreen when it wasn't meant to be.



" I find that your claim that the Scope film is dying to be not as accurate as you think. Hell, I can't think of the last recent movie I've seen that did not have an OAR of 2.35:1 "

Ummm, that's not at all what I claim. Please read it again. What I was talking about was the lessening USE of the widescreen frame compositionally. Sure we are seeing plenty of 2.35, but most of the action and character placement in these films is center oriented. And there is less use of the full expansiveness of a wide screen. In the early days of widescreen there was much more interesting use of the frame with characters and action sometimes occupying a small part of the extreme left and/or right side of the screen. That, to me was part of what really made a scope film something special that TV could never capture.

"Mike, I don't mean to sound condescending on these points or anything, but that is just my rebuttal, please don't take any of this personally "

Hell, man, I enjoy this kind of discussion. I don't think you are talking down to me at all. We all have our opinions, thats what the forum is for. I know some of you guys have researched this stuff and that's why I asked the original question.

 

[WillG]

"What I was talking about was the lessening USE of the widescreen frame compositionally"

I don't think that is necessairly true, So many Films are being done Super35 these days so that the whole 2.35:1 frame can be used fully with not to much damage (horizontally) in 1.33:1 presentation. But I'll certainly by paying attention to recent films. I miss the golden age of Widescreen, but I think that with the enourmous popularity of DVD and a new awareness of Widescreen, we may see a resurgence of true widescreen photography (I Hope)

 

[Michael Reuben]

Note the qualifiers. Note how carefully Cameron restricts his observations to this particular film, presentation and era. That was before DVD (with its dramatically improved clarity and resolution), before affordable widescreen displays, and at a time when many video transfers were still being done with analog equipment. Those comments simply don't apply today.

M.

 

[Brian W.]

I am convinced that some films that actually were originally full frame in shape are being intentionally improperly presented cropped to letterbox shape on DVD.

Actually, I know of at least one case where that is true -- the upcoming "Kung Fu" Season One boxed set is not in its original full frame broadcast aspect ratio. It's matted to 1.78. I know, I've seen the master tapes myself, and TVShowsOnDVD.com confirmed it.

The reason for this, according to TV Shows On DVD, is that the show had already been transferred to hi-def for television broadcast in matted 16:9, so the home video department figured they'd simply use those masters for a DVD box set.

Expect to see more of this in the future.

 

[Mike DB]

"James Cameron has expressed a preference for the full frame version of some of his films for video viewing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh. Here it is again. I'm just going to repost what I've said just about every time this erroneous claim has been made on HTF: "

There's no need to dwell on this. If you think his statement no longer applies, leave out Cameron and Kubrick too for that matter. I still say that nowadays many directors keep a watchful eye towards the image composition and how it will play on video as well as in the theater. I wouldn't be surprized if the movie company bigwigs even request it.. Yes I also agree that increased video quality and DVD's could open the door again to directors making more creative use of the widescreen frame.

:rolleyes

 

[Michael Reuben]

I still say that nowadays many director keep a watchful eye towards the image composition and how it will play on video as well as in the theater.

Who know whether they do or don't? A directors has to keep a watchful eye on so many things just to get the film up on the screen. My guess is that thinking about the video composition (other than keeping equipment out of a "safe" area) is very far down the list of priorities. People become so fixated on OAR in these discussions that they often forget how much more goes into making a film -- you know, little things like acting, dialogue and plot.

M.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I was just watching the extras on my T2:Ultimate Edition last night, which include a rather elaborate explanation not omly of the formatting of Super 35 to video, but also of the creation of a widescreen anamorphic print from the Super 35 negative, and Cameron once again used the same qualifiers that he used in describing the video transfer of the Abyss: that the pan-and-scan is in some ways superior FOR HOME VIEWING (my emphasis) because of video's poor resolution. I believe this may have been one of his reasons for shooting his first few films in 1.85:1 (Terminator, Aliens).
Unmatted transfers can work, but only if the director has that possibility in mind. One more reason why a director should be actively involved in the video transfer process.

 

[Michael Reuben]

That part of the T2:UE was originally done for the T2 special edition LD, which was released not too long after The Abyss special edition LD. So it's from roughly the same era.

M.

 

[JohnRice]

Maybe I'm missing something here but pretty much every movie I have ever seen in its OAR has many, many shots where the tops of heads of subjects are cut off.

And that would definitely be right, at least particularly involving widescreen films. Not cutting people's heads really mostly involves still photography. Cinematography is a completely different animal in many ways from still photography.


I'll just throw this monkey into the wrench. Every once in a while, FF has some advantages. Anyone ever compare the WS version of Embrace of the Vampire with the FF one? In that particular case, I'll take the FF. :p)

 

[Fredric]

This is a great thread for the following comments and questions:

I have only two films on DVD that that aren't in their OAR: FEARLESS and YEAR OF THE GUN. Both are originally filmed in 1.66:1, so they're not panned or scanned, they're just cropped slightly on right and left sides. You can still see the framing, nearly intact, but characters and objects at the edges, especially in YEAR OF THE GUN, are sliding off. For FEARLESS, I knew the problem existed, but I found the disc in the $5 bin at Price Club, so I got it anyway, and Weir didn't really compose his subjects to the edges of the frame, so there isn't much problem. YEAR OF THE GUN, however, is advertised as being OAR on the box itself, and Columbia/Tristar just flat-out lied. Frankenheimer really composes his frames and uses wide angle lenses, so there are many times then his touches are falling off the screen. Since I'm a JF nut, this really irritates me.

DEAD-BANG, another JF film, is a fullscreen only DVD. I hope someone out there can help. I'd like to know if this DVD is open matte, 1.66:1 with L/R cropping, or 1.85:1 P&S. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a scope film.

Some on my Frankenheimer discussion group are concerned about the OAR of ANDERSONVILLE. Since it was a cable movie, broadcast on TNT (I think), the fact that it is letterboxed on the new DVD is confusing to us. However, JF may have filmed it widescreen, as I beleive the Babylon 5 Eps were filmed widescreen, and broadcast in full frame (either open matte or P&S, I'm not sure). Does anyone know?

I hope these questions aren't too obscure. I think this is probably the only forum out there that would provide the information.

As for a helpful contribution from me on this subject: I think that the rule of thumb was this: in the analog arena only 1.85:1 films can be open matte, all other ratios are hard matted (Super 35 is the exception of course, but that's an anomaly.) I may be wrong about this, but I did hear it somewhere.

 

[Lew Crippen]

duplicate post

 

[Lew Crippen]

I still say that nowadays many directors keep a watchful eye towards the image composition and how it will play on video as well as in the theater. I wouldn't be surprized if the movie company bigwigs even request it..

If that were true (directors framing for 4:3 inside of a 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 canvas) it would be easy to detect by at least two different methods: the composition of 4:3 within a larger frame is evident, and if the compositions were for 4:3, there would be no need for and P&S action, as the frame would already be correct.

Widescreen films would have the same look as some current HD TV shows that are shot in 16:9 format and really framed for 4:3 so that when the show is shown on the SD TV channels it looks OK. The effect of this is very easy to see in shows like Everybody Loves Raymond. If you doubt this watch the show in HD and switch back and forth to you SD channel, where it (at least last season) is shown in 4:3. Or tape it and compare. Another way to see the effect would be to get one of the 16:9 DVDs of ‘Buffy’ from the UK and watch. The composition is immediately evident.

The second way that we should be able to tell is to look at how a P&S version of a film uses the panning and scanning in its transfer. If the shot is composed for a 4:3 frame, there would be no need for the P&S to move across the picture or cut from part to another (as we sometimes see in two-person dialogue shots, during the same scene. You can get a feel for how this works in a good many DVD extras. One that I like quite well can be found in the Criterion edition of Breathless where we are shown exactly how this works in selected shots.

I challenge you to come up with 10 films, where it will be evident that the director and cinematographer composed 4:3 within a 2.25:1 film. This ought to be quite easy, given the techniques I suggest and easy for us to examine and concur.

And as I have already acknowledged that I have seen this practice a lot on TV shows, I am acknowledging the possibility that it happens.

But I am with Michael and others in that I don’t think that it does happen in film (too much work, as Michael observes) or, if it does, I believe the practice to be limited.

 

[Mike DB]

"If that were true (directors framing for 4:3 inside of a 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 canvas) it would be easy to detect by at least two different methods: the composition of 4:3 within a larger frame is evident, and if the compositions were for 4:3, there would be no need for and P&S action, as the frame would already be correct."

I don't claim it to be true for every film and for those that are shot with anamorphic scope type lenses (hard mat?) the director would probably be less likely to be concerned with video/full frame composition since it's gonna have to get P&S treatment regardless. But I do say that it seems there are fewer films that really explore their widescreen frame the way they used to.

But it's a much simpler matter for the matted/unmatted film formats. In these formats, if a director wants to make sure his film is going to play well on video in full frame, all he has to do is keep an eye on the areas that are being matted and make sure the composition is at least acceptable when the matt is removed. I submit to you that IMO they are doing that, some more than others. It would be really hard to prove one way or another anyway. Obviously if there are bits of stage gear visible and ruined gags in an open matt version, full frame viewing was not given any consideration at the time of the shooting. OTOH, a majority of films that are presented in open mat for video play perfectly well. I'm not saying the open mat version is better or preferable in these cases, but it plays without problems or any need for pan and scan cropping.