Are 2.35:1 Films The ONLY Type Pan-&-Scanned? (1 Viewer)

[David Von Pein]

I've never seen the answer to this inquiry spelled out (specifically) in other HTF threads, so I thought I'd put it out there.
Surely, a movie originally filmed in 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 or 1.66:1 ARs do not require the P&S method when transferring them to Full-Frame VHS or DVD. Do they?
I'm guessing that every ratio narrower than 2.35:1 is NOT P&S'ed....we just simply see less on the left and right of the screen, but without the P&S "shifting" process. Am I correct?
Along the same Pan-&-Scan lines ..... Can anyone tell me WHO is in charge of "directing" the Pan-&-Scan process when transferring a film to video? In other words, WHO makes the decisions of when to switch the panning from one side of the frame to the other? I suppose this "directing" process is not too difficult most of the time. The person speaking in most cases is the one in view. But what about other type scenes....the shots not dictated by conversation? How/Who decides on what side of a 2.35 frame we get to see? Just curious.
Thanks.
to P&S!

 

[Damin J Toell]

Along the same Pan-&-Scan lines ..... Can anyone tell me WHO is in charge of "directing" the Pan-&-Scan process when transferring a film to video? In other words, WHO makes the decisions of when to switch the panning from one side of the frame to the other? I suppose this "directing" process is not too difficult most of the time. The person speaking in most cases is the one in view. But what about other type scenes....the shots not dictated by conversation? How/Who decides on what side of a 2.35 frame we get to see? Just curious.

I read an article on this years ago (in Omni, perhaps? I can't recall). It would generally be the job of a video technician to do the P&S work and make the call as to what part of the frame gets shown when.

DJ

 

[David Von Pein]

Thanks Damin!
Very informative.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

To amplify Damin's comments, nowadays most directors (or the director of photography) prepare the pan-and-scan/unmatted version in conjunction with the video technicians. The creative team usually has to sign off on all of the transfers.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Surely, a movie originally filmed in 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 or 1.66:1 ARs do not require the P&S method when transferring them to Full-Frame VHS or DVD. Do they?

To add to Damin's list films that need P&S treatment: Most special-effects shots are hard-matted to the theatrical AR; any film with effects (and remember that digital FX work isn't just for big budget flicks these days) may well have significant panning and scanning in those scenes. Notable examples that spring to mind are Death Becomes Her and the second Back to the Future film.

And if you ever want to see an example of a hard-matted 1.85:1 film that was severely cropped in the transfer for 4:3, check out The Shadow.

M.

 

[John_Berger]

There have been a few movies that were hard-matted to a sub-2:1 aspect ratio.

* Monty Python and the Holy Grail
* Memphis Belle
* So I Married and Ax Murderer (I think)

All of these are 1.85:1 or below, but all of them are actually subjected to pan-and-scan, not open matte. I believe that the number of such movies are vastly outweighed by the number of open matte releases, however.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Not at all. Even 1.33:1 films are panned & scanned on video sometimes.

However, most flat films (1.66:1-1.85:1) are simply unmatted when shown fullframe. Willy Wonka and The Lord of the Rings (animated) are good examples.

Still non-OAR, but a different process. I've actually seen some Super-35 films transferred like Panavision films with full pan & scanning. The Cable Guy has enough digital pans to make you seasick.

 

[Nick_Scott]

Surely, a movie originally filmed in 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 or 1.66:1 ARs do not require the P&S method when transferring them to Full-Frame VHS or DVD. Do they?

Just to add-
If you have the T2 DVD, there is a fantastic section for how 1:85 movies are converted to 1:33. As mentioned above, usually all the FX shots have to be pan/scanned. Plus, alot cropping to avoid mikes, and help the transition from fx to non-fx shots. Plus, many directors use hard mattes for the entire movie, so they don't have to frame for 2 different ratios.

Nick

 

[Damin J Toell]

If you have the T2 DVD, there is a fantastic section for how 1:85 movies are converted to 1:33.

While I recall that the T2 DVD shows how James Cameron extracts various framings out of the film he shoots, T2 was 2.35:1. Was there additional information on the disc about 1.85:1 films that were unrelated to T2?
DJ

 

[Patrick McCart]

If you have the T2 DVD, there is a fantastic section for how 1:85 movies are converted to 1:33. As mentioned above, usually all the FX shots have to be pan/scanned. Plus, alot cropping to avoid mikes, and help the transition from fx to non-fx shots. Plus, many directors use hard mattes for the entire movie, so they don't have to frame for 2 different ratios.

That's NOT true.

That is how T-2 and how Cameron prefers the 1.33:1 versions of his films to be framed. That is NOT how most non-Super35 flat films are done. However, CGI shots are often truly panned & scanned due to them being hard-matted. A film S35 films have the effects done at 1.78:1 like LOTR and Harry Potter, which require less cropping.

First, the T2 featurette shows comparisons between the 2.35:1 and 1.33:1 versions. There is NOTHING on 1.85:1.

 

[James Bergeron]

Read Obi's review of "Spirit" just to see a HORRIBLE display of p&s and make you wonder if anyway signs off.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Not at all. Even 1.33:1 films are panned & scanned on video sometimes.

How the hell does this happen? WHY the hell does this happen? If you could provide more information, it would be very much appreciated. I can't get my head around it.