Could Full Screen be BETTER for these movies? (1 Viewer)

[AlbertH]

At the time of release, THX CERTIFIED movies were hardly ever released in the animorphic format because they felt that in player letterboxing hurt the picture quality to a certain point, and they felt that since the masses had 4x3 displays an animorphic transfer wouldn't give Joe Six Pack the best presentation of the widescreen version of the movie.

 

[Mark-W]

Just to add to Albert's comment,
they called it "downconversion artifacting."
As an owner of a near ancient 4:3 television,
(which is the only thing this poor college student
has at the moment)
I STILL call it a bunch of BS.
mark

 

[Jonathan Burk]

If I remember correctly, according to Paramount, JC insisted on a non-anamorphic Titanic DVD due to the facts that:

• The vast majority of DVD owners watched movies on a 4:3 screen.
• The vast majority of DVD players introduced objectionable artifacts when down converting 16:9 material to 4:3.

Since I currently watch my movies on a 4:3 set, I agree with the decision. Since I plan to one day get a 16:9 set, I hate the decision.
Of course, this all begs the question as to why JC just didn't release a 1.33:1 DVD of Titanic for all of us with 4:3 sets. I wish I had thought to ask...

 

[Joe McKeown]

The downconversion artifacting is annoying, but I really only noticed it in my first player. Since a new player will fix most artifacting, and a wide screen TV will eliminate the artifacting altogether. I found the "Current State" of home video to be a short-sighted basis for his decision. (And he wasn't alone in thinking that way...)

 

[HenrikTull]

The view on the Director's/Cinematographer's monitor can not be relied on as an indicator of the type of film or process used. Those monitors are basically showing a video feed from a video camera that is synched with the film camera and shoots what the camera is seeing. You may be able to see the aspect ratio but even if it shows a full 1:33 image with crop marks the camera could be shooting anamorphic.

This is not true. When a movie is shot anamorphic the monitor has the 2.35:1 composition in the middle of the screen with black bars above and beneath the frame.
------------------
A Little Slice of Heaven

 

[Jussi Tarvainen]

The pan & Scan version cuts image off the sides and does not add any extra information across the top and bottom.

I once compared a few scenes from the open matte (full frame) VHS tape and a widescreen version, and noticed that the open matter version did have extra information at the top and bottom of the frame.

 

[Ike]

I think the best answer to this is from David Fincher's commentary on The Game Criterion laserdisc. He says that the film was shot Super 35, and when the mattes are taking off for the full screen version, it becomes a different film. He says he finds it's tone shifts, from serious, to almost comical. He says he can't figure out why, but it does for him.
Composition, it can't be stressed enough, is very important. If it weren't, why would it matter if the sides of the frame are cut off? More is not always better. I'll draw again on another badly quoted story off of the Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures documentary. In it, for a shot in the The Killing, Kubrick drew out that a specific lens be used, and where the tracks for the camera be put. The cinematographer changed the lens, and therefor the tracks had to be moved. Kubrick asked him about the change in perspective. The cinematographer, thinking Kubrick didn't know what he was talking about, told him there wouldn't hardly be any. Kubrick told him to ship up or shape out, get the lens he told him to get, and move the tracks back. All for composition.
If you ever even briefly glance over composition books, it's a very detailed, and under appreciated process. There are specific rules of the frame-it should be divided into thirds, the character's eyes should come in the top third of the frame, the center of action of the frame is what is moving. This may not seem important, but, not only do you miss when the rules are being followed, you miss when they are being broken to un-nerve you.
I think it's a chant of OAR only because that is the way it was framed. It becomes pointless to only want the frame where you get more. I don't honestly realize why people can't just get used to the black bars-I don't like watching new films without them. It just feels like I'm watching TV. When I see those bars, it's like I'm getting something special.
Oh well....

 

[David Lambert]

I once compared a few scenes from the open matte (full frame) VHS tape and a widescreen version, and noticed that the open matte version did have extra information at the top and bottom of the frame.

SURE you get "extra information"! Like the fact that a supposedly-naked John Cleese is actually wearing his pants. See my long-ish post on Page 1 of this thread, complete with example pictures.
"More" is not always "better"!
------------------
DAVE/Memphis

MORE TV ON DVD, PLEASE!

 

[george kaplan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pan & Scan version cuts image off the sides and does not add any extra information across the top and bottom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I once compared a few scenes from the open matte (full frame) VHS tape and a widescreen version, and noticed that the open matter version did have extra information at the top and bottom of the frame.

OK, just to be clear. Pan & Scan takes a widescreen image and cuts off the sides to fill the screen. You will not see any appreciable extra info on the top or bottom with a pan & scan title. Open Matte removes matting on the top and bottom, and yes you will see more on the top and bottom (but often somewhat less on the sides due to framing error). However, as has been pointed out, this is essentially extraneous information not meant to be there, and occasionally very bad to see. Then there are tons of movies (mostly older ones) with an original aspect ratio of 1.33 (or 1.37).
The confusion comes in part because studios use the term full-frame or standard to mean both pan & scan or open-matte or OAR of 1.33. Very confusing.
However, the solution to the confusion is straightforward. Always support OAR. This will only be equated to full-frame when the movies OAR is 1.33.
------------------
13-time NBA world champion Lakers: 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2001

 

[Scott H]

I missed this thread and I simply must stir up some dust... Many comments here are correcting erroneous info with more erroneous info. I have posted quite a bit addressing the myths of Super35 at HTF and elsewhere, out of the same frustration that many of you have encountering those who are ignorant of letterboxing on DVDs. Though it sometimes seems that mostly folks who already understand the topic, like RAH, respond positively. Yet, here I go again...

Quote:

Yep. Contributing to the confusion are terms like fullscreen and widescreen. I hate the term widescreen, it has little to no meaning... A consumer marketing term. You hit the mark regarding OAR, it's the best reference mark.
Apologies for only addressing some errors, and not affirming some facts... I have found that most people on this forum have most if it right, but Super35 myths pervade.
Regards.
------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.
[Edited last by Scott H on October 21, 2001 at 08:04 PM]

 

[David Lambert]

Thanks for all the hard facts, Scott H of Los Angeles...even though some of them may be a bitter pill to some of us. It's always best to have the straight of it.
"Who was that masked man?"
------------------
DAVE/Memphis

MORE TV ON DVD, PLEASE!

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Geez, and you guys all pooh-pooh me when I say Super35 should be banned
Episode 1 was shot anamorphic, however, due to lack of anamorphic lenses appropriate for use with the new digital cameras, episode 2 has been shot on digital video with a CCD(imaging chip) ratio of 16:9, protected for 2.35:1 in composition. Not only will this degrade the theatrical presentation at it's base due to the slightly lower resolution of the video, but this image will be blown up, further introducing grain and blurriness. Look at the "blood testing" scene of Episode 1, notice how it's dark and murky compared to true anamorphic shots.
Right now, I'm confirming with a friend who has worked on Episode 2 what the effects are being composed at
Remember, say no to Super35!
Jeff Kleist

 

[Scott H]

Jeff is correct, as I have detailed in other threads here, that Lucas composed SWE2 at 2.40:1 on 1.78:1 CCD's (Panavision 24P HD cams/Digital Primo lenses - though only a few lenses were available when he was shooting).
However, if you "say no" to Super35 you have to "say no" to regular 35 and 16 and every single other image acquisition format that could ever be used diversely. Which is all of them, as the SWE2 helps to indicate. Jeff seems to think it's only used for what he perceives as an evil alternative to conventional anamorphic filming, thus he perpetuates a repetitive myth. It seems he chooses not to accept the many other creative and budgetary reasons why one would want to shoot 2.40:1 spherically on Super35 compared to anamorphically on regular 35, even if there was never to be a presentation other than that OAR. There are advantages and disadvantages for doing either, one is not a clear choice when being objectively critical. Of course, that's a moot point when condemning an entire filming method anyway, as an association of 2.40:1 anamorphic extraction with Super35 is no more valid than 2.40:1 anamorphic extraction from Super8... So, "say no" to Super8!
Apparently he knows better that all of us in cinematography, or filmmakers like Hitchcock and the makers of these films: Link Removed
Btw, of all the Super35 projects I've been associated with or privy too, only one used the method for an anamorphic extraction, "Gods and Monsters". All the other uses were for different AR's.
------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.

 

[AaronMK]

Scott,
Thanks for all of the info. I had always thought that soft matting was just something that gave more flexibility when it came time to make a P&S version, but I guess not.
I then find the fact that directors shoot for two ratios a little disturbing. This would suggest that they make compromises in composition so they get something that is acceptable in both ratios, as opposed to getting a composition that is optimal in a single ratio.
If this is the case, it is disturbing because it is as if the directors are compromising their compositions for viewers who do not care about those compositions in the first place.
Would this be an accurate perspective, or am I missing something?
------------------
My DVD's
If a movie is not available in OAR, than it might as well not be available at all.
[Edited last by AaronMK on October 21, 2001 at 11:46 PM]

 

[Michael St. Clair]

If Lucas is really shooting at 1920x825 (and probably less than 1920 effective horizontal resolution, realistically), he is stupid. Episode 2 is going to look pretty sad in the future compared to good transfers of well-shot film (and even compared to future HD video shooting).
Sheesh.

 

[Scott H]

I wanted to provide another counterpoint to Jeff's regular lamenting of Super35 2.40:1 anamorphic extractions and printing resulting in, in his opinion, a loss of resolution/increase in grain... Nevermind that flawed argument which I've addressed before this thread, but note that Super35 is used for many other reasons...
Consider the following two scenarios where the filmmakers could utilize Super35 for an increase in resolution/decrease in grain (for those unfamiliar, Super35 uses normal 35mm film and normal spherical lenses, but the camera is optically realigned so that the lens is centered on the camera negative and the resulting camera aperture can expose the full width of the negative):
For a feature film production with an OAR of 1.85:1 a Super35 cam is used with a 1.85:1 ground glass that covers almost the full width of the camera aperture. That results in a 1.85:1 exposure measuring .945" x .511". Had you shot 1.85:1 on conventional 35 the exposure would have measured .825" x .466". So, having shot this on Super35 you are printing a reduction a conventional 35 release.
Another example is filming a project, perhaps something like Band of Brothers, for broadcast and home video release with an OAR of 1.78:1 (16x9). Again a Super35 cam is used but with a 1.78:1 ground glass. When transferring the neg to video (telecine) you will be transferring a larger 1.78:1 exposure than had you shot 1.78:1 on conventional 35, in effect a comparative reduction - identically exposed same stocks would result in an apparent finer grain image from the Super35 transfer.
I would ground such contemplations with these thoughts though... When did reasonable grain become bad? It is, in fact, one of the attributes we appreciate about film, one of those things that we claim inherent to it's look. When did exacting sharpness and clarity become the goal? For decades filmmakers have been shooting through nets and filters to flatter their leading ladies, and as optics have become so sharp and stocks so fine grained that all manner of actions are used to take the edge of reality in todays cinematography. Most want realism, but not what the naked eye sees... Most want the entertainment and escapism and art of cinema, the vision of the filmmakers, not the most absolutely clinically sharpest and perfect and true to life image possible at any cost. The story, characters, visuals, and sounds together make the movie, not the presence or lack of an anamorphic extraction.
------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.
[Edited last by Scott H on October 22, 2001 at 12:48 AM]

 

[Michael Reuben]

Not so. If the Super35 project has an OAR of 1.33:1 or 1.78:1 there need be no cropping. And of course if it's any wider it can be letterboxed/anamorphically enhanced just like any other film. And for TV productions there is not an extraction step.

Scott, you've misinterpreted my comments, which were limited to the context in which they were raised (acquisition in Super35 format of films intended for 2.35:1 projection). I wasn't trying to address every variant of Super35 because, frankly, there's such a thing as too much information when answering a question posed by a newbie.
The reference to "letterboxed/anamorphically enhanced" is particularly inapt, since I was clearly talking about displaying images in a 4:3 ratio, not some other ratio displayed on a 4:3 screen. (Like you, I dislike the term "fullscreen".)
M.

 

[Scott H]

AaronMK, the practice of composing for multiple AR's simultaneously is not very common, but it does occur. It is also not a new thing. As such, I would not be too concerned about it. It is, in my experience, more common in TV production right now, where there is a clear movement to a new aspect ratio standard in the U.S and creators are trying to cover their asses, so to speak. Don't be surprised to see re-runs of sitcoms your watching today in 1.33:1 broadcast some years from now in 1.78:1.
I personally oppose the practice of simultaneously composing for multiple AR's in feature film production. The project should have a single primary frame in my estimation. I'm also unlikely to utilize Super35 for 2.40:1 as I'm generally not a great fan of that AR. Though of course it or any other AR may be the best choice for a particular project. None are inherently better than any others.
------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.

 

[Scott H]

Michael Reuben, I apologize if I missed your intention. It wasn't apparent to me that you were limiting your comments to single 2.40:1 Super35, and I took it as general statement.
So I guess I may have posted such a thing as too much info

------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.

 

[frank manrique]

ALIENS was indeed shot in spherical 1:85:1, the US standard widescreen film format. However, all special effects photographic shots were HARD matted...just like Jurassic Park, Gremlins 2, among others.
When projected at the cinema, the movies look normal thanks to aperture plates that provide the correct aspect ratio dimensions in most cases...
-THTS