Jump to content



Photo

Do you hate Fullscreen? Then sign this petition please...


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
29 replies to this topic

#1 of 30 Scott Weinberg

Scott Weinberg

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 7,482 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2000

Posted February 07 2002 - 08:58 AM

http://www.petitiono...n/petition.html

Thanks.


#2 of 30 Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 7,418 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationBlairsville, GA, USA

Posted February 07 2002 - 09:18 AM

This should be non-OAR.

Fullscreen is the format used for correctly made transfers of movies such as Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind, and Citizen Kane and also for modified transfers of films that should be seen at 1.66, 1.85, 2.35, etc.

Fullscreen is ok when it's supposed to be 1.33:1 or lower. Bad if it is not.

#3 of 30 Scott Weinberg

Scott Weinberg

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 7,482 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2000

Posted February 07 2002 - 09:21 AM

Very good point, Patrick, but my impetus for writing up this petition was the release of Follow that Bird, so I was in the Fullscreen mindset.

It just irriates me when ANY movie is presented in FS only. Several people I've talked to say "So what? It's a Sesame Street movie!"

I simply canot understand this logic. I have friends who consider this one as beloved a film as The Muppet Movie.


#4 of 30 Jonathan

Jonathan

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 17 1998

Posted February 07 2002 - 01:02 PM

When a person says that a movie is in full screen I consider that to mean Pan & Scan. When I am talking about movies Like Gone With The Wind & Wizard of Oz I say Full Frame, because the Full Frame that was filmed is being seen. Where as to me Full Screen just means the screen is filled with picture. Or maybe I'm just weird?Posted Image
"It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care."
- Office Space

---------------------------------------
My DVD Collection

#5 of 30 Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 7,418 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationBlairsville, GA, USA

Posted February 07 2002 - 01:31 PM

Of course, but we need to show the difference.

There's people who want widescreen, but they don't realize that 99.9% of the movies made before 1952 are 1.33:1 or lower and meant to be seen that way.

#6 of 30 Scott H

Scott H

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2000

Posted February 07 2002 - 05:22 PM

Fullscreen means nothing to me. There is no negative connotation there. Fullscreen is often ideal, depending on the screen. Patrick's first post was right on, though I would add that in regards to TV fullscreen may also equal 1.78:1 (and 1.85:1) on 16:9 TVs.

Jonathan, for a 4:3 TV fullscreen means either P&S, open-matte, or OAR. Bad, still bad, or just right.
we quote each other only when we're wrong
Uncle Tupelo

#7 of 30 RobR

RobR

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 24 2000

Posted February 07 2002 - 05:33 PM

Quote:
....open-matte = still bad,....

Not if that's what the director intended.

#8 of 30 Jeff Ulmer

Jeff Ulmer

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 5,593 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 23 1998

Posted February 07 2002 - 05:55 PM

I want TAR, Theatrical Aspect Ratio. That can be anything from 1.33 to 2.5:1. However it was shown theatrically is what I want to see, and anamorphic at 1.66:1 or wider.

#9 of 30 Scott H

Scott H

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2000

Posted February 07 2002 - 05:57 PM

Quote:
...open-matte = still bad,.... Not if that's what the director intended.

Then it wouldn't be open-matte, it would be OAR. OAR can't equal open-matte since there would be no mattes to open.

Sure, to confuse matters, if the film was matted for theatrical exhibition but presented without those mattes on video, ala Kubrick, that is still OAR not really open-matte. We use open-matte in that instance to technically differentiate between the two presentations.
we quote each other only when we're wrong
Uncle Tupelo

#10 of 30 Scott H

Scott H

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2000

Posted February 07 2002 - 06:04 PM

Quote:
I want TAR, Theatrical Aspect Ratio. That can be anything from 1.33 to 2.5:1. However it was shown theatrically is what I want to see, and anamorphic at 1.66:1 or wider.

I don't. Take the two ARs you used as examples, neither can be projected on 35mm in the U.S. Per SMPTE 195 only the following ARs in U.S. 35mm projection: 1.37; 1.66; 1.85; and 2.39:1. I want OAR, which is how the film was composed.
we quote each other only when we're wrong
Uncle Tupelo

#11 of 30 Jeff Ulmer

Jeff Ulmer

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 5,593 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 23 1998

Posted February 07 2002 - 07:40 PM

There is no such thing as "can't be projected". I could project 1:1 if I wanted to or 10:1 on 35mm film. It would involve matting or windowboxing the image, but it still could be projected. My wish is for the ratio (or ratios) that was used theatrically to be represented on home video.

#12 of 30 Scott H

Scott H

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2000

Posted February 07 2002 - 08:16 PM

Quote:
There is no such thing as "can't be projected". I could project 1:1 if I wanted to or 10:1 on 35mm film.

Of course there is, in regards to commercial theatrical exhibition. I can compose a film with an OAR of whatever I wish. But it can only be projected at your AMC (or whatever chain) theater in one of the four aspect ratios I stated above because SMPTE has specified the standards for 35mm theatrical projection in the U.S. as such. Therefore, you may not have your film projected at 1.0:1 or 10.0:1 on 35mm at commercial theaters.

http://www.kodak.com..../pytlak2.shtml
http://www.thx.com/p.../guidelines.pdf
we quote each other only when we're wrong
Uncle Tupelo

#13 of 30 Scott H

Scott H

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2000

Posted February 07 2002 - 08:43 PM

Quote:
It would involve matting or windowboxing the image, but it still could be projected

Okay, sorry I didn't digest your entire post before the above response, but I would not consider this theatrical presentation to represent the OAR. In this instance the AR being projected is not the OAR of the project. It would be a way to have your particular OAR theatrically distributed and retain it's entire frame, but it is analogous to letterboxing on a TV. Anyway, considering this point, you are correct.

However, I was originally pointing out that many commercial films have an OAR that does not exactly match their theatrical presentation aspect ratio, thus I prefer films to be presented on DVD (at home) in their OAR, not necessarily as they were projected.
we quote each other only when we're wrong
Uncle Tupelo

#14 of 30 Jeff Ulmer

Jeff Ulmer

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 5,593 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 23 1998

Posted February 08 2002 - 02:50 AM

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't want unmatted transfers of films composed and theatrically exhibited at 1.85:1 (ala Kubrick), nor do I want 1.85 or 1.78 versions of films theatrically presented wider. I prefer the image area I was intended to see theatrically, which in some cases, will mean matting slightly to eliminate splices from the full aperature.
Posted Image

#15 of 30 George_Reis

George_Reis

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 09 2001

Posted February 08 2002 - 03:18 AM

It seems that a majority of American films of the past 30 years or so are released 1.85:1 when letterboxed on DVD. If a studio releases the DVDs like this, is that absolutely the way they were shot, rather than the "open matte" theory?

#16 of 30 Jeff Ulmer

Jeff Ulmer

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 5,593 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 23 1998

Posted February 08 2002 - 03:56 AM

If the film is presented at 1.85, then it is not open matte. 35mm film has an aspect ratio of 1.37:1. To achieve 1.85 requires "matting" the film to that aspect ratio, by blocking off portions that were not intended to be seen in the composition. "Open matte" means presenting films composed for a wider aspect ratio with the mattes removed, thereby showing image that was not intended to be seen, and changing the composition from the theatrical presentation.

#17 of 30 Scott H

Scott H

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2000

Posted February 08 2002 - 06:36 AM

Quote:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't want unmatted transfers of films composed and theatrically exhibited at 1.85:1 (ala Kubrick), nor do I want 1.85 or 1.78 versions of films theatrically presented wider. I prefer the image area I was intended to see theatrically, which in some cases, will mean matting slightly to eliminate splices from the full aperature.

I can respect your opinion here, your preferring to have a film as you saw it in a theater. But, your implication that that is how they were composed is simply not always so.

Granted, you prefer TAR, but you are attributing the filmmakers intent as the same. However, as you know, the filmmakers intent is delineated as OAR, and the only indicator of the OAR is the ground glass and the corresponding framing leader. If the theatrical presentation is not identical to that, or taking into account your earlier point including that entire frame, then it is incorrect. Now, you may still prefer the theatrical aspect ratio, but you can't claim that such was the filmmakers intent just because that is how it was shown. Playing devil's advocate, someone could say that they wan't the films to fill their 4:3 TV screens because that is how they are shown on TV, thus that must be the filmmakers intended composition.

I know it's dicey to reference Kubrick, but you suggest he composed for the theatrically exhibited 1.85:1 and you don't want the open-matte version. Well, there is much more evidence that he composed for 1.37 or 1.33:1 and it was matted for theatrical exhibition.

Posted Image
we quote each other only when we're wrong
Uncle Tupelo

#18 of 30 RobR

RobR

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 24 2000

Posted February 08 2002 - 06:46 AM

Quote:
Well, there is much more evidence that (Kubrick) composed for 1.37 or 1.33:1 and it was matted for theatrical exhibition.

That is correct. Should we let it stand that 1.33:1 is the OAR for The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut?

#19 of 30 cafink

cafink

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 2,996 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted February 08 2002 - 07:14 AM

Quote:
Well, there is much more evidence that he composed for 1.37 or 1.33:1 and it was matted for theatrical exhibition.

Could you provide some examples of this "evidence"?
 

 


#20 of 30 George_Reis

George_Reis

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 09 2001

Posted February 08 2002 - 07:16 AM

Jeff, thanks for answering my question. Your the second person who said the same thing, so I wanted to get another opinion from an expert like yourself.

I was mainly concerned with 1.85 films that show more information when they're shown in a standard TV format. But if that picture information is not supposed to be there, then I'm all for matting. Of course altering 2.35 to something less wide than that shouldn't be allowed.


Back to Archived Threads 2001-2004



Forum Nav Content I Follow