Aspect Ratios-what's correct? (1 Viewer)

[Joseph DeMartino]

While this is true of some films, with others it is an illusion created by overscan. The "black bars" are still there on the disc, but are not in the displayed image because they are "pushed off" the screen.

(For that matter overscan makes it almost impossible to "measure" aspect ratio on many sets. Just grabbing a ruler and checking the displayed image doesn't necessarily tell you what's encoded on the disc.)

Regards,

Joe

 

[cafink]

Whether exhibited theatrically or transferred to DVD, the aspect ratio of a movie will virtually never be exactly on the nose. Directors and cinematographers are aware of this, and frame accordingly. The difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1, is slight, and falls within this "wiggle-room." It's a non-issue, in my opinion. As Joseph alludes to, the overscan of one's monitor is likely to alter the aspect ratio by at least this much.

 

[JulianK]

Going back to the original post, the MGM and Criterion transfers of Silence of the Lambs are so different that they can't both have been approved by the film's cinematographer.

Criterion explicitly state that their transfer was made "in consultation with cinematographer Tak Fujimoto" (per their website). To my knowledge, MGM has made no such claim about their version. It's reasonable, then, to suggest that the Criterion transfer is "correct", and the MGM version is not.

 

[Bryan^H]

John,
My mistake. You are correct. The widescreen version of the Karate Kid on dvd is definately different than the vhs. It is missing about 20% of the picture on the top, and bottom. Other than that, there is no additional image on the left, or right. Granted that 20% of image was never meant to be seen in the first place, as it is junk footage. That is a fact I've never known about until reading this thread. I'm not trying to start an argument about widescreen vs. full screen, I'm just relating the facts. I only buy widescreen dvd's.

 

[DeeF]

There is no overscan on my plasma. Whatever the aspect ratio is on the disk -- that's what I'm seeing.

 

[Bryan^H]

I picked up Fortress(1985, Rachel Ward) on dvd today. This was never shown in theaters. it was made for tv,(HBO) so why is this widescreen? Shouldn't it remain as it was originally aired on tv?

This is a big pet peeve of mine, Warner Brothers did the exact same thing with Kung Fu season 1. Why do studios make shows, and programs that are made for tv widescreen? It just doesn't add up.

 

[JohnRice]

Since Fortress is an Australian movie, it is unlikely it was made for HBO, though they are listed as a distributor in the US. A simple check of the technical page at imdb indicates it was, in fact, shot for 1.85:1. It may have been originally intended for theatrical release, but didn't end up going that route, which is not unheard of.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Here's an interesting example I came across recently of a film shot in Super 35 for both widescreen and full-frame:





Now, notice the effect of this. The widescreen version is basically a close-up - you're right there, in their face, so close to the acton. By opening up to the full frame, the effect of the shot is lost - instead, you're standing some distance away watching the event.

So even in this example, where you're gaining information (rather than losing information, as in P&S), even though the new information doesn't reveal any unwanted information (such as boom mikes or John Cleese's not-maked boxer short), the effect of the scene is damaged.

 

[JohnRice]

That is exactly why it annoys me to see image content constantly referred to as "information". What do you mean "the new information doesn't reveal any unwanted information"? It's ALL unwanted, because it destroys the composition and purpose of the shot. How is that not unwanted?

 

[Lew Crippen]

John I think that Matthew means that there is nothing like a boom mike showing up in the background.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Which was my point. An intense close-up in a moment of tension and pressure turns into an observation of an event occuring some distance away.

 

[JohnRice]

Except, it does completely destroy the illusion, by so severely altering the composition of the image. This is exactly what I mean by the hazards of thinking of images as "information". You have demonstrated my point perfectly.

 

[Travis Brashear]

Except for this: http://www.dvdverdict.com/interviews/silence

Pay particular attention to this exchange at the end of the interview:

"MJ: What work went into producing the new video transfer?

JS: I'm not generally involved in the video transfer, but we were able to make sure that the filmmakers got a chance to approve it. I know [cinematographer] Tak Fujimoto was involved with the new telecine, and [sound designer] Skip Lievsay approved the 5.1 mix. I think MGM did a great job with the transfer, and the movie looks better than ever."

 

[JulianK]

Thanks, Travis. That's interesting - the first time I've heard that Fujimoto was involved with the MGM version.

I wonder, then, how it's possible to reconcile the two transfers, since they are so radically different in places. They can't both be right, can they?

My instinct is to go with the Criterion, since it was produced sooner after the film was shot. There's also the small issue of the (R2) MGM version having computer-generated captions. It's also missing some credit captions - not something you'd associate with a presentation that was made with attention to detail.

 

[JohnRice]

The problem seems to be the assumption there is one, definitive "RIGHT". This is a creative process. There is no single "RIGHT". If Fujimoto accepts it, I'm not sure why someone who has nothing to do with the film should say he is wrong. If Demme comes in and disagrees, then maybe there is a conflict. But certainly people who had no part in the movie are in no positiion to decide what is the proper presentation and what is not.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

I'm sorry, John, I really do not understand what your problem is with what I say. I agree with you - adding the additional picture information does destroy the composition and intended effect of the shot. And I was making that point. But instead of agreeing with me, you start arguing some point that makes no sense.

There is additional picture information there. End of story. You can't deny that, because it is a fact.

All you can do is argue whether it should be there or not, and in this case (and most cases), it should not be there because it does affect the intended composition.

 

[JohnRice]

Matthew, I'm sorry I'm coming off more argumentative than I intend, but now you are contradicting myself. First you say, and this is a direct quote...

Which is really just a fancier way of saying "it destroys the illusion". I am just trying to move beyond the obvious, that having booms or other behind-the-scenes items is a bad thing. When "An intense close-up in a moment of tension and pressure turns into an observation of an event occuring some distance away." that also destroys the illusion. Admittedly, not as obviously as booms in the shot, but it may actually be more damaging in one way, because the audience is no so clearly aware of the mistake.

Believe me, I am completely aware of what you are saying, I just disagree with what you seem to be passing off as not as big a deal when you say "There's nothing in the picture from Air Force One that destroys the illusion - such as you would have when you see a boom mike or see John Cleese's shorts."

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Believe me, I'm not passing it off as "not a big deal" - I agree that it's a big deal.

Here is what I was trying to say:

Often when you get people pointing to examples of why widescreen movies should not be presented in full-frame versions, they point to picture information that is cut off-screen by P&S, or by pointing to additional information that destroys the illusion of filmmaking - such as the boxer shorts or boom mikes.
I pointed to Air Force One precisely because it is an example where there is no such problems, and yet it is very clear that the effect of the additional picture information negatively affects the picture composition.

Does that clarify what I was trying to say?

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

John and Matthew:

At this point you're just talking past one another. I raised an example where the full frame destroyed the specific illusion that John Cleese was naked because it showed his boxer shorts whereas the theatrical preserved the illusion.

Matthew then raised an scene from Air Force One as an example of a scene where there was no such illusion to be protected and where the full frame version didn't do the same kind of violence to the theatrical image.

John then jumped all over Matthew because Matthew wasn't using "illusion" in the same broad (and to my mind, confusing) sense in which John is using it. (To encompass the entire sense of being lost in the film and the whole aesthetic of the film.)

BTW, Air Force One was an especially inapt example to drag into this discussion since it is a Super35 film that was exhibited theatrically at 2.35:1. The director and DP on a Super35 shoot will usually frame for both 4:3 and the theatrical ratio on set.

The "composition and intended effect" are NOT the same thing as "the illusion [that John Cleese is naked]" - which is what Matthew was talking about. You can't say he's being inconsistent when he's using the word consistently, but in a way that doesn't agree with your (frankly idiosyncratic) use of it.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Bryan^H]

Here is something very strange:

I own Ferris Bueller's Day Off on laserdisc, and it's widescreen 1:85

I bought the dvd quite a few years back and it's 2:35.

When I compared the 2, I much preferred the 1:85 version. So my only question is how in hell am I supposed to know how it was shown in theaters?
Does widescreen vary from theater to theater?

And another:

I watched Star Wars ep.1 the Phantom Menace 4 times in the theater.
Pretty much memorized the fight sequence w/ Darth Maul, and the 2 Jedi toward the end.
Darth Maul uses his force power to make an object fly into a control panel(smashing it) when being backed up by the jedi.
On the widescreen dvd you see the object fly through the air, but you don't see the control panel being smashed. IS the dvd missing information, or was the theater showing more than needed?

These are my two biggest questions about the difference in widescreen. If anyone has an answer, it would be much appreciated.