Question about Pan & Scan on the fly.

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Jeff, Nov 15, 2001.

  1. Jeff

    Jeff Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    947
    Likes Received:
    0
    First off, I'm 100% pro OAR. I think this is a good feature for joe six packs and I'm amazed on how well this works. The Canadian version of Ginger Snaps uses it and when the DVD player is set to 4x3 Pan & Scan, it full frames the movie.
    So, on to my question.
    Does encoding a DVD with P&S on the fly, take up a lot of space? If the space is minimal, why isn't every studio using it?
    Thanks,
    Jeff
     
  2. Neil Joseph

    Neil Joseph Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 1998
    Messages:
    8,332
    Likes Received:
    1
    Real Name:
    Neil Joseph
    I often wondered how much space this feature takes up as well. I would imagine cost had something to do with this feature not being on most disks. Perhaps if it was done on a mass basis it would come down in price. I would imagine it taking up around the same kind of space as a DD2.0 track but that is an educated (?) guess.
    ------------------
    http://webhome.idirect.com/~orange1
    ------------------
    My Favourite DVD's
     
  3. cafink

    cafink Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 1999
    Messages:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    37
    Real Name:
    Carl Fink
    It won't really work with a 2.35:1 movie. Since they're so much wider than the 16:9 frame of an anamorphic DVD, they still have black bars. Using pan and scan on the fly would zoom in a bit and reduce them, but they'd still be there.
    It works perfectly for a 1.85:1 movie, but most such films are shot soft matte, so a "true" full screen transfer would add picture to the top and bottom, which is a "better" solution than simply cropping the sides, as you'd have to do for pan and scan on the fly.
     
  4. Richard_Huntington

    Richard_Huntington Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2001
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joe Six Pack doesn't care about losing picture information, so I am all for 1.85:1 films being panned & scanned on the fly, so that we don't have to use a double sided disc, and therefore a lower bit rate for the 16x9 version and also, because there is no need for seperate "Ultimate" editions, like stupid MCA is doing. [​IMG]
    ------------------
    "My wife actually prefers widescreen"
     

Share This Page