Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Willy Wonka is Open Matte not Pan and Scan? What about LOTR? Chariots of Fire?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 of 18 OFFLINE   rob kilbride

rob kilbride

    Supporting Actor



  • 711 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 12 2001
  • Real Name:Rob Kilbride

Posted August 08 2001 - 05:51 AM

Rather than reading through 20 pages of messages on the subject can someone confirm for me that this has been confirmed by a reliable source? Has anyone heard whether Lord of the Rings is pan and scan or open matte? I posted a question about whether Space Jam and Chariots of Fire were open matte or pan and scan a few months ago. Someone said Space Jam had animated scenes in P&S and live scenes open matte I believe, but I never got a definite answer on COF. Anyone know about the answer?

#2 of 18 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor



  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted August 08 2001 - 06:04 AM

COF is open matte.

Keep in mind that as others have posted, very few full-frame "open matte" films are really 100% open matte. Often there is occasional cropping or zooming for whatever.

Also, even if one could theoretically restore the OAR by zooming on a 16x9 display...you've now just thrown out 33% of your resolution in the OAR image area for lack of 16x9 encoding.

Bummer with COF is that it's OAR is reported to be 1.66:1, and warner doesn't do 16x9 for 1.66:1 titles.

-dave
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#3 of 18 OFFLINE   Walter Kittel

Walter Kittel

    Producer



  • 4,791 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted August 08 2001 - 06:12 AM

Turner Classic Movies is showing Chariots of Fire in letterbox next week. It will make for an interesting comparison against the current DVD release.

Here is the original thread ( and my thoughts on the subject )

http://www.hometheat....ML/028399.html

- Walter.

[Edited last by Walter Kittel on August 08, 2001 at 01:20 PM]
Fidelity to the source should always be the goal for Blu-ray releases.

#4 of 18 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor



  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted August 08 2001 - 06:50 AM

Walter,

If you get a chance to watch it let us know how it compares image content wise.

Also...take note of the apsect ratio if you can.

thanks,

dave
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#5 of 18 OFFLINE   Walter Kittel

Walter Kittel

    Producer



  • 4,791 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted August 08 2001 - 09:35 AM

David,

I'm definitely planning upon comparing the two versions and will post my observations back to this thread.

- Walter.
Fidelity to the source should always be the goal for Blu-ray releases.

#6 of 18 OFFLINE   rob kilbride

rob kilbride

    Supporting Actor



  • 711 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 12 2001
  • Real Name:Rob Kilbride

Posted August 09 2001 - 07:14 AM

How about Wonka and LOTR? Anybody?

#7 of 18 OFFLINE   Greg_M

Greg_M

    Screenwriter



  • 1,193 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2000

Posted August 09 2001 - 07:29 AM

How about Warners Pan & Scan DVD of "Arthur". Filmed the same year as "Chariots of Fire", is this also Open matte?

#8 of 18 OFFLINE   Mark Bendiksen

Mark Bendiksen

    Screenwriter



  • 1,090 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted August 09 2001 - 07:47 AM


quote:
How about Warners Pan & Scan DVD of "Arthur". Filmed the same year as "Chariots of Fire", is this also Open matte?[/quote]
Yes, and it's a crappy transfer on top of that!

Wow...this my 1000th post. Hey Ron, do I get a free HTF coffee mug now or somethin'? Posted Image

Posted Image


[Edited last by Mark Bendiksen on August 09, 2001 at 02:47 PM]

#9 of 18 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor



  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted August 09 2001 - 08:29 AM

Mark,

I just looked at my post a few above and I was on 999!!! Check out the number on this post! hmmmm....

-dave

[Edited last by DaViD Boulet on August 09, 2001 at 03:30 PM]
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#10 of 18 OFFLINE   Paul W

Paul W

    Second Unit



  • 468 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 17 1999

Posted August 09 2001 - 08:34 AM

I don't know about open matte for LOTR, but IMDB lists the OAR as 1.85:1. It is being released PS. I'm not sure how it was animated, tho (hard or soft matte).

------------------
Posted Image Paul Warren

Hey fella . . . I bet you're still livin' in your parent's cellar . . . downloading pictures of Sarah Michelle Gellar . . . and posting "Me too!" like some brain-dead AOL-er . . . I should do the world a favor and cap ya' like Old Yeller . . . you're just about as useless as MPEGs [sic] to Hellen Keller.

"Hairs are your aerials. They pick up signals from the cosmos, and transmit them directly into the brain. This is the reason bald-headed men are uptight." —Danny, Withnail and I

#11 of 18 OFFLINE   Mark Bendiksen

Mark Bendiksen

    Screenwriter



  • 1,090 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted August 09 2001 - 03:35 PM


Quote:
Mark,
I just looked at my post a few above and I was on 999!!! Check out the number on this post! hmmmm....

-dave
Ha! And look, we both signed up with HTF within a month of each other (nearly 2.5 years ago).

Life's weird, huh?

Cheers!
--mark
Posted Image


#12 of 18 OFFLINE   Graham Perks

Graham Perks

    Second Unit



  • 322 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 08 1998

Posted August 10 2001 - 01:39 AM

Visit www.thebigpicturedvd.com/bignews.shtml . They have excellent reviews, and have just done a Willy Wonka review. They show that WW is open-matte, not p&s.

>Bummer with COF is that it's OAR is reported to be 1.66:1, and warner doesn't do 16x9 for 1.66:1 titles.

It's not just Warner. In fact, DVD doesn't do 16x9 for 1.66:1 titles. 1.66:1 is 4x3. For 4x3 images, DVD uses all its lines of resolution. There is no benefit to using anamorphic with this ratio. DVD is already doing everything it can. So, you'll never see a 4x3 title "enhanced for 16x9 TVs". It doesn't make any sense.

#13 of 18 OFFLINE   Paul W

Paul W

    Second Unit



  • 468 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 17 1999

Posted August 10 2001 - 01:52 AM

Oh boy! Here we go again!

If you can count to 500, then it should be easy to see tha anamorphic enhancement _will_ benefit 1.66:1 movies. 450 lines is still greater than 360 lines.

The only problem is, people ridiculously object to the side-bars necessary to anamorphically enhance 1.66:1.

Not only is loss of resultion an undesireable effect of non-anamorphic, if you want to zoom your TV, then you lose bits of the top and bottom.

------------------
Posted Image Paul Warren

Hey fella . . . I bet you're still livin' in your parent's cellar . . . downloading pictures of Sarah Michelle Gellar . . . and posting "Me too!" like some brain-dead AOL-er . . . I should do the world a favor and cap ya' like Old Yeller . . . you're just about as useless as MPEGs [sic] to Hellen Keller.

"Hairs are your aerials. They pick up signals from the cosmos, and transmit them directly into the brain. This is the reason bald-headed men are uptight." —Danny, Withnail and I

#14 of 18 OFFLINE   Adam Tyner

Adam Tyner

    Screenwriter



  • 1,413 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 29 2000

Posted August 10 2001 - 02:14 AM

Quote:
1.66:1 is 4x3
No, 1.33:1 is 4x3.

------------------
My DVD list | My personal site


#15 of 18 OFFLINE   Jerry Gracia

Jerry Gracia

    Supporting Actor



  • 537 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 20 1998

Posted August 10 2001 - 04:58 AM

Adam is right, 1.66:1 most definitly is not 4:3.

1.33:1 is 4:3

------------------
LuvLBX

I do not have anything clever nor’ interesting to place in my signature box…so I’ll leave it blank.

#16 of 18 OFFLINE   Aaron Reynolds

Aaron Reynolds

    Screenwriter



  • 1,709 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 06 2001

Posted August 10 2001 - 05:23 AM

Quote:
I don't know about open matte for LOTR, but IMDB lists the OAR as 1.85:1.

Someone in the other thread posted a somewhat-cryptic piece of mail from a Bakshi rep that seemed to confirm that the film was hardmatted (the text of the message had something to do with not animating much past the edge of the 1.85 frame, if I'm remembering right).

#17 of 18 OFFLINE   Walter Kittel

Walter Kittel

    Producer



  • 4,791 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted August 13 2001 - 09:02 PM

I'm currently taping a letterboxed presentation of Chariots of Fire on TCM as I type this. Based on synching up the DVD to the broadcast I can make the following observations...

The reason ( at least for me ) for the confusion over open matte vs. pan and scan is due to the framing of the current R1 DVD release. The framing represents a zoomed image ( cutting off the sides ) while opening up the top and bottom mattes. Hence the extra headroom combined with the claustrophobic feeling of some of the shots.

I used the same display device and switched two S-Video signals to compare the aspect ratios of several DVDs to the broadcast. The Chariots of Fire letterboxed presentation appears to be at 1.90:1. It is somewhat smaller ( vertically ) than Republic's Highlander disc and is marginally larger than Apocalypse Now which is framed at 2.0:1. I was surprised at this ratio as I had previously thought that it was 1.66:1, but it was definitely 1.85:1 or somewhat larger. ( And yes, the DVD player setting for the display was switched to 4:3 letterbox for the Apocalypse Now comparison. )

Using the letterboxed presentation as a baseline, the DVD's image is zoomed with approximately 5 to 6 % ( just guessing ) cut from each side of the image. The zooming appears slightly asymmetrical with more image missing from the right side when compared to the left side. The zoom is obvious as objects displayed on the DVD release are noticeably larger than their counterparts in the letterboxed presentation. Following the zoom, the top and bottom mattes are then opened up around 5 to 10 % to complete the 1.33:1 framing of the DVD.

A perfect example of why the open mattes suck is at around 19:50 in the film. During Eric Liddell's speech at the race ( when Sandy convinces him to race that day, 'If we can find some kit for Scotland's finest wing' ) there is a hat visible in the lower right corner of the DVD presentation that sticks out like a sore thumb. In the letterboxed presentation only Liddell occupies the frame, and the composition is much more satisfying due to the lack of the distraction.

Anyway, I'm hoping that Warner Bros. will do right by this title. I'm somewhat encouraged that we may see an anamorphic release since the aspect ratio of the TCM presentation was obviously at least 1.85:1. ( Crossing my fingers. )

- Walter.


[Edited last by Walter Kittel on August 14, 2001 at 04:25 AM]
Fidelity to the source should always be the goal for Blu-ray releases.

#18 of 18 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor



  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted August 14 2001 - 01:18 AM

Thanks Walter.

Now...if we could only convince Warner that even 1.66:1 titles deserved the added resolution of 16x9 encoding...we wouldn't have to worry regardless of what the OAR turns out to be!

dave
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Forum Nav Content I Follow