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

Anamorphic might be the wrong choice. In this thread, we discuss why.


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

#1 of 81 OFFLINE   Javier_Huerta

Javier_Huerta

    Supporting Actor



  • 621 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2002

Posted October 29 2002 - 06:21 AM

First of all, NO. I am an enemy of non letterboxed editions of movies and films. I don't buy them. I recently returned my R4 edition of Monsters, Inc., because it was Pan and Scan. Or so I thought. And so the story goes. When I bought the R1, I realized the entire movie had been reformatted for TV, meaning that, instead of watching less of the picture, I was actually getting more of it. Interesting. Then I noticed how incredibly good my IMAX movies looked on my projector. Which got me thinking... And then, I saw the TV at my kitchen. If it was anamorphic, or widescreen, I would definitely need a smaller set in order to fit it in there. Which is not good. Maybe the solution is not less. Less as in "less height per width". Maybe the solution is more, as in "more image for your TV". Let movies be widescreen, with black bars on top and bottom of the TV. BUT... When HDTV comes, instead of a long, thin image, let's get a big one. We have the resolution now; let's now settle for less. Instead of watching a football match in widescreen, let's see a huge view of the field, showing exactly where the strikers and the goalie are. We now have the technology to make it happen! I guess I could sum it all up with "Say yes to OAR, NO to Widescreen sets!"
Quid, me anxius sum?

#2 of 81 OFFLINE   Rain

Rain

    Producer



  • 5,020 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2001

Posted October 29 2002 - 06:28 AM

I'm sorry, but what the heck are you talking about? Posted Image
"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." - Imagine by John Lennon

#3 of 81 OFFLINE   Ricky Hustle

Ricky Hustle

    Supporting Actor



  • 996 posts
  • Join Date: May 29 2000

Posted October 29 2002 - 06:32 AM

I stand behind Rain in the line that is designated 'Confused people, que up here' Posted Image

#4 of 81 OFFLINE   BrentPollard

BrentPollard

    Second Unit



  • 447 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 18 2001

Posted October 29 2002 - 06:33 AM

Huh?Posted Image

#5 of 81 OFFLINE   LukeB

LukeB

    Screenwriter



  • 2,179 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 26 2000

Posted October 29 2002 - 06:36 AM

Makes no sense to me. Posted Image

#6 of 81 OFFLINE   Rain

Rain

    Producer



  • 5,020 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2001

Posted October 29 2002 - 06:37 AM

I'm not entirely sure, but I think you may need a little tutorial on "open matte" vs. "pan and scan" and why neither one is a good option for DVD presentations of films.
"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." - Imagine by John Lennon

#7 of 81 OFFLINE   Jeff Kleist

Jeff Kleist

    Executive Producer



  • 11,286 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 1999

Posted October 29 2002 - 06:44 AM

I think what he's trying to say is that widescreen sets mean less vertical height compared to width so a "smaller" image Monsters Inc wsa literally RESHOT by Pixar for 4:3. You can do that with a CG movie. What you have to realize is that a widescreen TV does NOT mean less vertical space, it means you can more in the horizontal field

#8 of 81 OFFLINE   Javier_Huerta

Javier_Huerta

    Supporting Actor



  • 621 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2002

Posted October 29 2002 - 06:44 AM

Ok, here it goes again: The whole idea of my post is that it is esentially wrong for us to have widescreen TVs in our houses when HDTV is a reality. Instead of settling for less of an image (say, 1.78:1), we might want to stick with the 4:3 format, and use the extra resolution for added information, as is done in IMAX. That's the whole point of my "OAR is good" theory. If movies continue to be made in widescreen formats, they should be displayed in our TVs as such. Black bars on top and bottom of the screen. The point of my "Widescreen is bad" theory is that, at least for TVs in our houses, widescreen is not a good idea because of size issues, and mostly because HDTV will make the whole need for widescreen moot, since we could benefit by using the added resolution as an IMAX screen does: to display more information. As I see it now, the confusion started because of the title of my post. It should have read "Widescreen might be the wrong choice..." Sorry about that.
Quid, me anxius sum?

#9 of 81 OFFLINE   Randy A Salas

Randy A Salas

    Screenwriter



  • 1,348 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 25 2002

Posted October 29 2002 - 06:46 AM

The funny thing is that the perfect proportion to view your example of a soccer (or football) game is a long rectangle--say, about a ratio of 2.35:1--not the nearer-to-square proportions of a regular TV set.
Randy A. Salas
DVD Columnist & Feature Writer
Minneapolis Star Tribune daily newspaper

#10 of 81 OFFLINE   Sean Moon

Sean Moon

    Screenwriter



  • 2,045 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 25 2001

Posted October 29 2002 - 06:47 AM

confused I am. I do agree with Jeff in his observation though.
http://doctordoom.blogspot.com

We must stand in awe of the infinite capacity of the human mind to reject the introduction of useful knowledge.

#11 of 81 OFFLINE   Lew Crippen

Lew Crippen

    Executive Producer



  • 12,060 posts
  • Join Date: May 19 2002

Posted October 29 2002 - 06:47 AM

[quote] Instead of watching a football match in widescreen, let's see a huge view of the field, showing exactly where the strikers and the goalie are. We now have the technology to make it happen! [quote] Count me in with Rain and co. in mostly not understanding.

But Javier, I watched the whole world cup, wishing that it were telecast in a widescreen format, so that I could see (on my widescreen set) the strikers move to the goal at the same time a mid-fielder made that pass…

Maybe it is just me, but I love it when sports are telecast in widescreen format. Even better when its in HD as well.
¡Time is not my master!

#12 of 81 OFFLINE   Paul McElligott

Paul McElligott

    Screenwriter



  • 2,598 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 02 2002

Posted October 29 2002 - 06:48 AM

Reading that gave me a headache.
R.I.P. DVDSpot

#13 of 81 OFFLINE   Jeff Kleist

Jeff Kleist

    Executive Producer



  • 11,286 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 1999

Posted October 29 2002 - 06:49 AM

OK, now I'm confused too What you don't seem to understand is that you're talking apples and oranges. With IMAX, the negative is roughly 1.44:1, and so is the OAR. But widescreen has a different aspect ratio. The point of widescreen televisions is to let you use MORE of the screen real estate WITHOUT sacrificing the picture. If you're saying that people should start shooting 1.33:1, well that's not going to happen. WHy do you think so many shows are beginning to be shot in widesceen ONLY?

#14 of 81 OFFLINE   Lew Crippen

Lew Crippen

    Executive Producer



  • 12,060 posts
  • Join Date: May 19 2002

Posted October 29 2002 - 06:51 AM

[quote] As I see it now, the confusion started because of the title of my post. It should have read "Widescreen might be the wrong choice..." [quote] Trust me on this, Javier, you will love football (or soccer, as I say when up here) when its telecast in widescreen. It’s the real deal.
¡Time is not my master!

#15 of 81 OFFLINE   Javier_Huerta

Javier_Huerta

    Supporting Actor



  • 621 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2002

Posted October 29 2002 - 06:55 AM

Hmmm... my point is *still* not getting across Posted Image

OK Lew, imagine the football transmission in widescreen. Now imagine it with added content on top and on the bottom. That's what I'm talking about. Forget about the IMAX analogies, et al - it's hard enough to try to be understood in a language such as english to now be discussing the technical merits of the format.

Point is, if HDTV can do widescreen with black bars on top and bottom, and look good while doing it, maybe we could use the extra space on top and on bottom to add extra info (just as widescreen added extra info on the sides).

I find widescreen TVs to be as cumbersome as they come, and I have figured out by now that if I want to buy a TV set on widescreen, it'll have to be the same width as my current TV. Which will mean my TV will actually be *smaller*, since it won't be as tall.

Again - I support OAR, but I feel widescreen TV's are not the best solution from a consumer point of view. So I'll stick with watching black bars on top and bottom (whatever that is called - masked image?) of the image for the time being Posted Image

Quid, me anxius sum?

#16 of 81 OFFLINE   Rain

Rain

    Producer



  • 5,020 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2001

Posted October 29 2002 - 07:00 AM

Javier, I'm beginning to think you have some lack of understanding as to how images are composed. If something is shot flat (1.37:1) but intended to be matted to 1.78:1 or 1.85:1, this is taken into account in the composition. Anything that is matted over is never intended to be seen. Anything shot in a "scope" aspect ratio via Panvision or CinemaScope, etc. will not result in "more picture" when reformatting to 4:3. The only way to show these in 4:3 is to lop off the sides. And then there is Super 35 which is likely going to confuse things even further... I'm not sure how to explain this to you exactly without diagrams. I would suggest you do a bit more research on this issue as I think much of what you're saying is based on misunderstanding.
"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." - Imagine by John Lennon

#17 of 81 OFFLINE   Paul McElligott

Paul McElligott

    Screenwriter



  • 2,598 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 02 2002

Posted October 29 2002 - 07:05 AM

[quote] I find widescreen TVs to be as cumbersome as they come, and I have figured out by now that if I want to buy a TV set on widescreen, it'll have to be the same width as my current TV. Which will mean my TV will actually be *smaller*, since it won't be as tall. [quote]

However, an HD screen will still have more lines and better resolution, so you will probably still see more.
R.I.P. DVDSpot

#18 of 81 OFFLINE   Vince Maskeeper

Vince Maskeeper

    Lead Actor



  • 6,504 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 18 1999

Posted October 29 2002 - 07:09 AM

I believe Javier says, instead of widescreen- just zoom out and give the width of widescreen with more info at top and bottom.
Need an introduction to home theater? Check out our FAQ and Primer!!

#19 of 81 OFFLINE   Javier_Huerta

Javier_Huerta

    Supporting Actor



  • 621 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2002

Posted October 29 2002 - 07:30 AM

Vince:

THANKS!!!!! My entire posts can be summed up in your one paragraph sentence Posted Image Posted Image

Quid, me anxius sum?

#20 of 81 OFFLINE   Randy A Salas

Randy A Salas

    Screenwriter



  • 1,348 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 25 2002

Posted October 29 2002 - 07:55 AM

[quote] instead of widescreen- just zoom out and give the width of widescreen with more info at top and bottom. [quote]

Wouldn't that just be a 4:3 set?
Randy A. Salas
DVD Columnist & Feature Writer
Minneapolis Star Tribune daily newspaper




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users