What's new

HARRY POTTER -- comparison of WS v FS (merged thread) (2 Viewers)

MartinTeller

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 26, 2002
Messages
1,721
So the ones that don't compromise their vision aren't smart?
Not unless they have the power to stop the studio from altering the aspect ratio for the video release. If you

a) know your movie is going to be panned & scanned
b) care about people enjoying it at home
and c) know that some people prefer fullscreen video

... then the smart thing to do is to compose your picture so that P&S (or open matte) won't totally ruin it. Until P&S goes extinct, that's the way of the world.
 

Paul_D

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2001
Messages
2,048
If those that prefer Full-Frame don't mind films that don't look quite right - they clearly don't have a problem with awkward composition, or they'd be buying widescreen - so why bother to change it?
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
25,141
Real Name
Malcolm
I fail to see how those examples provide any evidence that in this case P&S might be equal or better than WS?

Characters are cut out in several scenes (Hedwig in one shot, a student in another, most of Ron in one, Professor McGonagall in one), the ends of the house names are cut off on the Quiddich scoreboard, half of one of Fluffy's heads is gone, several chess pieces are gone. There is a lot of information missing from the P&S version. And any of the information gained via "open matte" P&S is mostly redundant and does not add anything of note to the frames.

Personally, I think these examples only further prove the point that theater-projected OAR is better.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
I've merged the two threads in Software discussing this issue. As a result, there will be some degree of duplication among the various posts, for which the posters themselves should not be held responsible. :)
M.
 

David Lambert

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
11,377
There were two different scenes in the film, one of them with Fluffy's three heads going from edge-to-edge of the screen, which I turned to my wife and said "pan-and-scan THAT!". It is very telling that neither scene is depicted in this comparison!
Well, here's the screen I described above. We haven't watched the DVD yet, so I don't recall where the other one I was thinking of was (senility has set in, y'know):

It's not *quite* edge-to-edge, esp. on the left, but close enough to be concerned about, no?
Anyone have the FS version of this scene to compare to? It's at 1:02:42 into the show, in Chapter 16 ("Three-Headed Sentinal") of course.
 

MartinTeller

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 26, 2002
Messages
1,721
David, go here: http://plum.cream.org/HP/dvd.htm
They have that shot from both releases. About half of the head of the rightmost dog is cut off, and you gain a little space at the top and see more of the neck at the bottom. IMO, this particular shot is better in widescreen, with the three heads filling the frame being much more menacing.
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
25,141
Real Name
Malcolm
There's also the scene in the dark forest between Harry and Firenze the Centaur. They are on opposite sides of the WS image. I can't imagine they both made it into the P&S frame.
 

Rolando

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 19, 2001
Messages
1,338
I think this goes to show anyone using Super 35 is probably misguided Like we need more confusion! Chris Columbus should NOT be aplauded he should be SHOT!!!:angry:
Ok maybe not shot... but still...
POST EDITED BY WEARY ADMIN WHO HAD TO WORK LATE ONLINE. JB would be pleased if those who quoted the above post would edit their quotes to reflect the revised post. Thanks.
 

MartinTeller

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 26, 2002
Messages
1,721

Wow... so much for respecting and encouraging a director's vision. Sorry you're confused. Chris Columbus isn't confused. I assume he was familiar with the options available to him, and chose the one that suited his intentions the best.


BTW, I just now saw a TV ad for the Harry Potter home video release. The scenes they showed were displayed in widescreen.
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
I think this goes to show anyone using Super 35 is [probably misguided]. Like we need more confusion! Chris Columbus should NOT be aplauded he should be SHOT!!!
Why? How is this different than if Columbus had shot in standard spherical 35 for 1.85:1 acquisition, and then the studio fully rendered all special effects for the full exposed 1.37:1 negative? We would still be getting a widescreen theatrical AR DVD and a "fullscreen" 4x3 DVD with fully rendered effects that showed more of the exposed negative than the widescreen release. What pertinent difference would there be? What purpose is there to singling out Super35? Should everyone shooting for 1.85:1 also be shot? Should everyone you somehow dislike be shot? I'm utterly flabbergasted at the vitriol that Super35 gets from so many people on this forum. Oddly enough, those who have actually worked with it in the past tend to have a different viewpoint.

DJ
 

Dharmesh C

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
994
I think this goes to show anyone using Super 35 is probably misguided Like we need more confusion! Chris Columbus should NOT be aplauded he should be SHOT!!!
It's alarming that so many directors are choosing Super35, possibly studio interference???
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
possibly studio interference???
Because you don't like something, it must be the result of studio interference? Might it not be the case that very talented, knowledgeable, and aware directors and cinematographers are choosing Super35 out of their own free will and artistic desire?

DJ
 

Dharmesh C

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
994
Because you don't like something, it must be the result of studio interference? Might it not be the case that very talented, knowledgeable, and aware directors and cinematographers are choosing Super35 out of their own free will and artistic desire?
It's possible that some studios are forcing Super35 onto the crew so that the wide-screen issue on DVD becomes more blurred. Taking the cost factor aside, I think my theory is certainly worth considering. Of course, there are some directors who will prefer Super35, but it's becoming so common now that I feel that the original artistic intentions are compromised for home video on some films.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top