StarWars.Com - Widescreen Vs. Fullscreen (1 Viewer)

[Win Joy Jr]

I hate to go against the tide, but I think that the presented caps would make people like the full screen better...
Put down the rope and hear me out...
The "filling up the screen" is really demonstrated in these shots. My first reaction was "eveyone looks so small in the widescreen pics". And this from a guy who only buys widescreen stuff, even for the kids...
I am not sure how many converts this will bring. Yeah, Obi-Wan is cut out of the shot, but he was in the preceding shot, so the viewer knows who the Fetts are talking to....
And for that specific segment of the viewership, they would go for the larger image of Padme'...

 

[Lee L]

Holy croppage!!!

For anyone who was wondering, I guess this gives us a good idea of what the IMAX version might look like.

 

[todd s]

Walt, I was thinking the same thing. They should produce a header card that shows those 2 pictures and put it above the display selling the discs. You might just convert a few people with it.

 

[Jay Mitchosky]

We all know that George is anti P&S, but faces the realities of Wal-Mart...

I disagree. Reality is what you create. George could say: "The reality is this folks. If you want Episode II on DVD than you're getting it in widescreen, the way I imagined it." And how many Star Wars fans, full screen lovers or not, are going to turn down Episode II? What is the likelihood Wal-Mart's purchasing managers will pass on one of the largest movie franchises on the planet just because it doesn't appeal to the J6P mentality of filling the screen? Did Episode I's sales suffer because it was released widescreen only? Someone with George Lucas' power (he owns the franchise) should make this assertion.

Is this article just online? This is PRECISELY the kind of stuff studios should be including in their promotion materials at the retail level, as well as on the discs themselves (and not tucked away like in Pearl Harbour D.C. - it should be front and center).

 

[Matthew Brown]

The STAR WARS movies are the best example to use when promoting widescreen. I remember the first VHS release of STAR WARS and Chewbacca was always the one not in the picture due to the panning. His significance in the movie was diminished.
Just think of all the secondary and background characters in AOTC that will barely make an appearence in the p+s version. What if one of these characters play an important role in the next movie? This is altering the story.

Matt

 

[John_Berger]

http://www.widescreen.org/examples/starwars/index.shtml

 

[Damin J Toell]

Lars von Trier directed Dancer in the Dark, which was shot entirely on digital video and framed at 2.35:1. Want to know how he did it? He used standard mini-DV cameras fitted with 1.766:1 anamorphic lenses! No loss of resolution there

Actually, those custom anamorphic lenses were only used on the stationary cameras during the dance numbers. For the rest of the film, the acquisition AR was matted down to 2.4:1. This is one of the reasons why the visuals look strikingly different between the dance numbers and everything else.

DJ

 

[Dan Brecher]

So what will the consumer think when they see the example on the right in IMAX come november?
Dan

 

[Adam_WM]

I thought it was a great article. I wish I could print it out and post it at work to convince all the Full-framers.

 

[John J Nelson]

Actually, those custom anamorphic lenses were only used on the stationary cameras during the dance numbers. For the rest of the film, the acquisition AR was matted down to 2.4:1. This is one of the reasons why the visuals look strikingly different between the dance numbers and everything else.

Whooops, my mistake
It begs the question, why didn't he want to shoot the whole film with these anamorphic lenses? Unless he wanted to lose 44% of the available lines of resolution!
Come to think of it, the dance numbers almost looked like they were shot on conventional film...
I wonder if these lenses will ever be made available as an off-the-shelf item? If it ever happens, expect a whole slew of low-budget scope films
-- J.

 

[Sean Moon]

The panavision lenses for 2.35 were not ready in time for Episode II if I remember correctly. Lucas got the final camera just days before shooting began I think. The new lenses and cameras should be in place for Episode III.

 

[Frank Anderson]

John,
I have used examples like the ones on the Widescreen Advocacy Page for a long time. I like these new ones much better because they show both images within the same size shape (4:3 TV screen) which also shows the reason for those "black bars". In some ways the images on the Widescreen Advocacy Page are a little misleading because it shows the widescreen image the same height as the pan and scan image thereby making it look larger because it's wider. For us we understand completely what's going on but for someone who does not know...

 

[AaronMK]

I disagree. Reality is what you create. George could say: "The reality is this folks. If you want Episode II on DVD than you're getting it in widescreen, the way I imagined it."

I agree that the first quote does not sound like George. Consider his attitude towards releasing the pre-Special Edition original trilogy, and his attitude towards releasing any form of the original trilogy on DVD, even when facing the relities of what Star Wars fans are begging for.

I guess the reality is that Wal-Mart is a big enough force to get George to stray from his master plan, but Star Wars fans are not.

 

[Tom Ryan]

I don't know why Episode II is getting a pan-and-scan release in the first place. Episode I was widescreen only, and I don't seem to remember any kind of an outcry (from the J6Pers) over that.

 

[Damin J Toell]

It begs the question, why didn't he want to shoot the whole film with these anamorphic lenses? Unless he wanted to lose 44% of the available lines of resolution!

Apparently, the anamorphic lenses horribly distorted the image if the cameras were moved in any way. As it is in the movie, you can see vibrations causing a fair degree of distortion. Von Trier apparently felt that the process was simply too unstable to attempt shooting an entire movie with it.

DJ

 

[Matt Bloxham]

I work at a WMT and I am a big OAR fan, I have printed a page out from the Widescreen Advocacy Page and have it placed above the New Release section of our DVD section. I will do the same for this (Im a huge Star Wars fan) and that way the customers can see what they are missing

If they decide to buy the P/S version, then that is their loss, at least I did my part.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I think it's more like George has no wish to punish Fox. He won't be punished for no P&S Star Wars, but they will

 

[John_Berger]

And that Episode 2 was NOT shot anamorphic, instead they matted an already low-res source. Really hurt the theatrical presentation.

According to IMDB, it was filmed in HDTV. Yes, that certainly would make it easier (I would think) for post-production and so forth, but HDTV is just that - high-definition TELEVISION. Am I missing something? Isn't HDTV of an even LOWER resolution than a 35mm frame? So, wouldn't that make the pan-and-scan versions just that much worse?

 

[John_Berger]

I like these new ones much better because they show both images within the same size shape (4:3 TV screen) which also shows the reason for those "black bars".

I'm glad you think that it's better; but, frankly, I don't care. I'm not trying to be rude when I say that, although I'm sure that the 2D nature of text messages will make it seem that way. My intention is to show the portion of the image that is lost since that is what's important and that is what we're trying to fight against.
I've noticed, however, that as much as people complain about my comparisons, they always - remarkably - forget or ignore the ability to click on the "What will this look like on your TV" functions that I've been adding which shows the black bars in all of their glory, not only on regular TVs but also on 16:9 TV. Intriguing.
Like it or not, agree with it or not - my format is staying.
Thank you for playing. This has been a recording.

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

I also prefer how Mr. Berger shows the difference on his website. For once it is a site that keeps the value of 1 constant in 2.35:1 vs 1.85:1 vs 1.33:1 comparisons. I think showing it in a 4x3 window can be considered just as misleading since it doesn't show the black bars that would appear on the side of a 16x9 tv if they played the fullscreen version.