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

[Bruce Hedtke]

Does anyone know of a shot in a movie that, when panned and scanned to 1.33:1 actually ruins the plot of the film - it leaves out an essential detail?

Well, I don't know about essential, but it's usually the small things that add up. A great example of this is in Pulp Fiction. During the infamous "Ezekiel 25:17" speech, as Jules is winding it up and they are about to shoot Brett, in the widescreen edition, you can see Vincent moving behind Brett, cocking his gun. You can't see this in the Pan-n-Scan version. As I said, I don't know how "essential" that might be, but it is a great detail that would otherwise be missing.
Bruce

 

[Chad R]

I can think of several examples, that might not destroy the plot but do ruin scenes.

In "Raiders of the Lost Ark" during the bar scene with Belloq (when the Egyptians all pull guns on Indy) in widescreen you can see the Egyptians passing the guns, but in Pan & Scan it's chopped off.

In "Conan the Barbarian" Conan is sneaking down a tunnel and you can see the witch waiting to jump out at him, but she's not there in "Full Frame."

And in "Scream 2" when Courtney Cox is being stalked through the sound room she sees Ghost Face behind glass in another room and jumps back to hide. In the "Full Frame" version she just jumps for no good reason.

I would think that if any given visual is integral to the plot they will scan to that image, but ruining a scene by the insipid process is just as bad in my book. After all it's a combination of scenes that makes a movie.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Can someone please tell me a bit about how widescreen is actually not as high in resolution as Full-frame? I always thought it was higher in resolution coz it damn well looks more detailed and better to me than Full frame

Well, for 2.35:1 films at least. In theory, a 1.78:1 film on an anamorphic DVD will have exactly the same resolution as a full frame presentation... just stretched out more. But a 2.35:1 has resolution wasted in the transfer for the black bars which preserve the ratio. The difference is much worse on a 4x3 television that can't do the squeeze, as the DVD player easily throws away every forth line of resolution on an anamorphic title to restore the proper shape to the picture (as opposed to stretching it on widescreen televisions).

 

[Jean-Michel]

Let's not forget the infamous full-frame version of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure where you can see the "endless" chain lock being fed through the bottom of the bike compartment.

 

[Scott H]

I always thought it was higher in resolution coz it damn well looks more detailed and better to me than Full frame

Well, in regards to grain, full aperture Super35 exceeds all other conventional 35mm methodology in resolution capability. And that would be a 1.33:1 AR.

 

[Brenton]

Scott H gets a sticker on the Sticker Chart.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Lucas and McCallum recently met with Sony to check on the progress of the first 10-megapixel digital camera, which is being built for Episode III of the Star Wars saga. Lucas is convinced that the new camera will produce such high quality that others in Hollywood will be forced to follow suit.

*Note that the second article incorrectly asserts that the new Sony camera would be the first 10-megapixel camera... As Scott H mentioned, the Viper FilmStream can already resolve 10 megapixels. But it does imply that Sony is developing one.

 

[Brenton]

And is 10 megapixels higher or lower in resolution than 35mm film?

 

[Scott H]

Adam, the question referenced Panavision lenses, to which I replied that none are being made. Though Panavision may make them in the future. That wasn't clear with my quoting the two sentences separated.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Well, actually, according to this article:

Adam: those articles don't seem to me to imply that anamorphic lenses are being developed (which is what I took Scott to be referring to, since Sean was talking about "panavision lenses for 2.35").
edit: jinx.
DJ

 

[Scott H]

And is 10 megapixels higher or lower in resolution than 35mm film?

Again, there are many variables that effect resolution and fair comparisons, but 10MP video would be lower than what Kodak references as a film pixel resolution equivalency for 35mm motion picture films.
Btw, Kodak announced a 16 million pixel CCD back in February.
Though generic, here is a Super35/HD resolution comparison page:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/rese.../dCinema.shtml
They did not use a fine grain stock by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Rob T]

I just converted my mother with the pics from the article!

 

[Brenton]

Good job. Now print it for her so she can show all of her friends at the salon.

 

[Terrell]

Well, the article is from Kodak. So of course they're going to present film in the best light. The problem is, are the HDTV cameras they used even close to being a fair representation of the image quality that Lucas' 10 megapixel digital film cameras will provide?
Well, at least we know there will be a stunning clarity, lack of grain, and the print will remain pristine no matter how many times you show it. Blacks will still be better with film, and the resolution will still be a bit higher. But it's to the point where it's gettin extremely close in resolution. We've gone from 2.2 megapixel cameras to 10 megapixel cameras in a mere 3 years. What will the comparison be like in real world terms when they come up with a digital camera that has a 20 megapixel resolution? Digital is advancing rapidly.
How long can film advocates tout the few advantages of film over digital. I'm not anti-film. I'll support film as long as it truly offers an advantage in image quality over digital, which is one of films few advantages at this point. But digital seems to be the future. At the least, I think it's safe to say Episode III's image quality will blow AOTC out of the water.

 

[Scott H]

Terrell, that article seems to be a most basic comparison. If Kodak was trying to blow you away with film in that example, they wouldn't be using 500 speed film. More like 50. So the model of video camera isn't that relevant there.

And note that Kodak is in the digital cinema business as well.

Btw, it's not a film or video thing. Really. Video isn't replacing film anytime soon. They are unique animals, each with it's own advantages and disadvantages. I make my living with both, and treat each differently. And resolution is hardly a primary concern for me with either.

And one more thing regarding resolution. With either film or video, I put far more relevance on lenses than cameras when it comes to this.

 

[Terrell]

I put far more relevance on lenses than cameras when it comes to this.

Agreed! All the resolution in the world is useless with garbage, low-quality lenses.

 

[oscar_merkx]

at last dvdfile have the article up, unusual for them o be so late