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

[JohnRice]

And Rich Malloy, and Seth Paxton, and scores of others. The fact is, no matter how many of them joined in here, we would all be in agreement, for the first time, except for Ira, that is.

 

[Mary_P]

It comes up occasionally on, for example, "Buffy" threads. The show was composed for 4:3, with the 16:9 area protected (better protected in some eps than others) for European distributors who wanted the widescreen presentation. The sole exception is the musical episode "Once More With Feeling," which was shot as widescreen for both US and European distribution.

Some people were upset when the R1 DVDs came out that they weren't widescreen as they'd been shown in the UK, but they were never composed for widescreen. One example that's been talked about ad infinitum is in the season five episode "The Body":

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=8523

Check out the two shots from the episode about 2/3 down the page. The widescreen shot provides additional "information" that is not only unnecessary, but ruins the claustrophobic feeling that the 4:3 achieves.

Mostly I've seen the problem going the other way -- things that were composed for widescreen television (such as "Angel" and "Firefly") having the sides of the image hacked off when re-broadcast in syndication.

 

[Ira Siegel]

No one is talking about changing rules. Is there something you fear about having both versions, widescreen (with its own controversial framing as discussed above) and full frame (no, not the pan & scan straw man)?

 

[JohnRice]

Thanks for the info Mary. That example from The Body is indeed a good one, and a wonderful example of how "protected" doesn't mean effective. I think the point here is that just because the series was released 16:9 somewhere in the world, was shot with the capability to be released that way, and some people are upset it wasn't released that way in R1, does not in any way mean it should be released that way.

Ira, you are spinning to a degree I don't think I have ever seen before. The simple fact is, the entire group of people who create movies (the entire creative and financial chain) are choosing to release 90% or more of movies on video in OAR and OAR only. By your own argument, that should be the end of it. In a handful of cases, it is decided by the people who have the right to decide, to release separate versions, and periodically combo versions (both versions on one release), as is their right. This forum, despite its destinct pro-OAR stance, has given up the view that movies should be released in OAR only and is content so long as they are at least offered in OAR. What you are actually attempting to do is say all movies should be released full screen, when it is possible, because you want it that way and are trying to imply through some extremely obscure logic, that the creators must also want it that way.

Like I said some time ago, you have expressed your views and tried to support them, but you will find incredibly few people here who will ever agree with you, no matter how much spin you apply. You have actually found the single issue of agreement between several people who never seem to agree on anyting. You are barking up the wrong tree. I suspect another forum might be more receptive to your arguments, because touting the benefits of full screen is expressly against the very foundation of HTF. Technically, you are violating the rules of the forum.

 

[Ira Siegel]

1. John, I think your accusing me of spinning is the pot calling the kettle black.

2. You write,
I have no fear of being in the minority, and I am confident that my views (as expressed by me, not as spun by you) will, in time, be shared by at least a few more people.

[edited to correct quotation format]

 

[Patrick McCart]

For films intended for matted widescreen, the incorrect framing can harm the performances of actors, not to mention the mood.

Think of all those awesome close-ups in Sergio Leone films. What if Leone shot his films in Super-35 instead of Techniscope (which is 2.35:1 without any matting involved). You take one of those close-ups and reveal all that space. It's not a tight closeup anymore. You've taken away the suspense of the shot.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I’m interested in your use of words like ‘hate’ and ‘fear’. After I had already written that ‘hate’ was not really an issue, you choose to use another emotive word.

When something is changed as drastically as widescreen to fullscreen, I think that a rule change analogy is quite a bit closer than bread.

And there are in fact many, many DVDs that have been released with approval of either the DP or director of both., so I think that it is not quite accurate to write that we don’t know their intent. I am sure that there are a few that were released in fullscreen with their approval, but other than the aforementioned Stanley Kubrick, their existence is not know to me.

I would have to posit that unless a DP or director approves a change, we should consider that their artistic intent is what they presented the first time around.

 

[JohnRice]

One thing I would like to point out. I do tend to use the terms "full frame" and "full screen" interchangeably, as meaning that extra image has been added (or unmatted) at the top and bottom of the frame in order to fill a 4:3 TV screen. This is as opposed to pan and scan, which crops and moves the image horizontally to fill a 4:3 screen. When I mean pan and scan, I say pan and scan and venture to say that the majority of others participating here do as well. Most of the more active contributors in the movies section are completely well aware of the difference, even George.

I'll also say that about 20 years ago, when I first learned that widescreen movies were typically matted, and learned that the LD of Mean Streets was actually unmatted, not P&S, I thought, "hey, that's a good solution". Since then, I have learned otherwise. In fact, I'm not sure it is even much better than P&S. It's just bad in a different way.

Resorting to saying anyone who disagrees with you is simply fearful and then turning around my accusations of "spin" back on me seems to be like someone who responds with "I'm rubber, you're glue" or "I know you are, but what am I?" This can't go anywhere but in an endless circle.

The fact is (or at least used to be, but I would leave it to Ron or a mod to come in and confirm) that touting or promoting the reproduction of widescreen movies in full frame, like discussions of religion and politics, is not permitted here. Maybe that has changed, but posts along those lines were not allowed in years past. Maybe someone with the proper authority can confirm or deny this. BTW, this is not out of fear, but out of interest in the artistic integrity of the creators and in studios not overriding them in the name of marketability.

 

[Anthony_H]

Here is seconding the notion that you cant even trust theatrical presentation to form an opinion on correct ratio. My gal and I recently got a chuckle when going to see LADY IN THE WATER . Nothing in the plot caused the response..... what did were the various boom mikes we saw throughout the film. I suppose this was a lapse on the part of the projectionist.. or should I rethink my opinion on M. Night Shyamalan?

 

[Ira Siegel]

 

[Patrick McCart]

The issues Kubrick and Cameron had on open matte had more to do with the low resolution of video at the time (laserdisc). Kubrick had the great idea to protect his last three films for open matte in order to avoid having off-kilter compositions and visible "junk" artifacts. It's pretty skillful to be able to make a film look great in terms of composition for two aspect ratios.

However, besides some "HiVision" 16x9 laserdiscs near the end of its era, letterboxing meant that a huge amount of video resolution was being thrown out in favor of blank space. If there's extra information available and the filmmaker(s) can fine tune it, why not adapt? James Cameron didn't just take off the mattes for his 2.35:1 Super-35 films, but carefully reframed shots to preserve the intended effects of shots.

Martin Scorsese has always made his films use every inch of the intended framing to great effect. That wonderful shot in Goodfellas of Joe Pesci firing his gun in slow motion (after he "visits" Stacks) is perfectly composed for 1.85:1. If you take off the mattes, you throw away the diagonal composition of Pesci.



My point is that when you take off the mattes, it's more than a matter of taking them off... you have to adjust further to get the right composition. This is most obvious on films that were simple centered within 1.33:1 without mattes. You have to do more than take them off in order to get compositions balanced again.

 

[george kaplan]

Rather than continuing to beat a straw dog , I'll just suggest Ira, that if, as it appears, by "full frame", you mean "open-matte", then that would be a better term to use, since "full frame" and "full screen" are hardly clear and widely used terms with separate meanings as you want to impart to them. Some dvds, refer to 1.33 films as "full screen", and others, such as Rope, refer to them as "full frame". Both are commonly meant to imply 1.33, which might be the OAR of an older film, a pan & scan version of a widescreen film, or an open-matte presentation, but certainly "full frame" doesn't some universally accepted meaning the way you're using it.

 

[JohnRice]

Sounds like a complete contradiction to me. The reason why an open matte version should not be made available is clearly stated in the original quote, which was agreed with, then disagreed with.

I've always thought Michelangelo's David should be cut off at the knees. As it is, it's just tooo damn tall. People have to crane their necks to see it, and it's so big, it's not practical to transport it around the world for viewing in other museums. Wouldn't it be worth it to make it more accessible for anyone to see in person?

 

[JeremyErwin]

It's all about reference.
The reason we calibrate our colors.
The reason we calibrate our volume control
The reason we have widescreen sets.
They all set a standard from which we can base our discussions, without having to worry about whether "65" on one amplifier is as loud as "11" on another, or worrying whether someone's inspired essay on "colors" in "Gladiator" was itself inspired by a mismanaged "tint control", or wondering if someone's comments on the interplay between Ned Beatty and Burt Reynolds came from Zsigmond's camera or from the panner/scanner. And because we believe our comments and observations should mean something, these references are biased towards the original-- original color balance, original aspect ratio, etc.

 

[Mary_P]

I vote projectionist. Probably didn't put in the right aperture plate. It happens. Unfortunately.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

If you saw mics in a 1.85 presentation, then the projectionist mis-framed the film, the image should have been pulled up slightly. Here's a hint to tell if the theatre is at fault - virtually all pre-title studio logos (Warner, MGM, Sony, Universal, Fox, Buena Vista, Paramount, et al) should be perfectly centered on the screen. If the logo is high or low, then the film has been mis-framed and the projectionist should correct it.

 

[ScottR]

What about the cropping of 1.37 films? For example, the otherwise beautiful SE of Casablanca is cropped further than the original disc. In one shot, you see Rick signing a check. On the old dvd, the framing shows the year as '41. But the 1 is cut off on the new edition. If it were important info, I don't know why Curtiz would have put it so close to the edge of the frame. How did WB know where to crop the frame without harming the intent? All four sides are cropped down. How much cropping would have been done at the theatre in those days? I'm very much interested in this topic.

 

[Ira Siegel]

I've corresponded with Gary Tooze since he posted that comment and he told me that he never obtained an answer from anyone. (If I remember correctly, he inquired of Warner Bros. also.)

In this case the cropping of "merely" the date does remove an important set of facts (that the movie takes place AFTER Germany had defeated and demoralized France, AFTER most of the European part of the Soviet Union had been conquered by Germany, and BEFORE the USA was an actual participant in WW II), particularly for those of us watching this movie years after the events being depicted. The scene Scott refers to occurs right near the beginning of the movie, when we first meet Rick. Later in the movie the date is made absolutely clear, but it is something which I think one should know from the time Rick is introduced to us.