unmatted vs. pan and scan (1 Viewer)

[Qui-Gon John]

In all this discussion it was mentioned who "widescreen" or "letterboxing" has become somewhat of a fad. Well one thing that really irks me is that so many commercials are being put out this way. Why? It's not like some epic like LOTR's or SW's, it's just a frickin' commercial that most people will ignore anyways.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Mike DB,

I submit to you that IMO, there is no acceptable or unacceptable, better or worse, or "preferred" way of modifying a films OAR. There are only two ways to display a film (again, Kubrickian eccentricities aside) - the right way and the wrong way. The right way preserves the OAR and the wrong way does not, period. All manner of "X method is not as bad as Z method" or "A might not be preferable, but it's better than B" is just dancing with the devil and making excuses for the release of MAR'd films. A film must be taken as a whole, nothing added to the frame and nothing taken away and no, adding is not "preferable to" or "not as bad as" subtracting. Again, JMHO, but I think the HTF's mission statement agrees with my opinion.

 

[Jim*F]

After reading the forum for a while, this is my first post, so I'll try not to ramble.

This discussion made me think of LOTR (obviously only #1 is on DVD, but #2 is out Tuesday) and questions arose:

1. The original film aspect is 2.35. Is the 1.33 DVD version "pan & scan" or open matte? And is it "approved" by Peter Jackson? (If so, then it might be considered an alternate "acceptable" version of the film that maintains the integrity of the original.)

2. I ask question #1 above only because I recently saw a TV commercial for Two Towers and the clip appeared 1.85 (or possibly 1.78, which is the HDTV ratio, correct?). If the original film is not open matte, does this mean the commercial-makers cut the sides off the 2.35 print to make the image 1.85?? And why?

And while I'm typing about aspect ratios, while I understand everyone will have 1.78 HDTV sets in a few years, I cannot believe that at least one old TV show (Kung Fu) would be matted (or really butchered) from 1.33 to 1.78 just to fit the HDTV screen! Why on earth would they do this? (I have a widescreen laptop with a DVD player that lets you do this to 1.33 DVDs to fill up the screen. I tried it on The Prisoner, and it looks OK, but you can tell it's not the way it was meant to be shown on TV.)

Well, I guess I rambled, but I stayed on topic!

 

[Stephen_J_H]

The LOTR films are shot in Super 35, which is why it is relatively easy to generate a 1.85:1 version or a 1.33:1 version. It's a concession Jackson made to New Line, since the budget for the three films is the most NL has ever spent on a single project.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The original film aspect is 2.35. Is the 1.33 DVD version "pan & scan" or open matte?

Both. Or neither. The LOTR films were shot in a format called Super35, which is a giant can of worms that gets opened periodically on HTF. You can see some of the prior examples in the Software Archive; those threads contain a lot of good information (and a lot of misinformation as well).

There's already been some reference to Super35 in this thread in the discussions of The Abyss and Terminator 2, both of which were shot in that format. In fact, the T2:Ultimate Edition has what is still one of the best demonstrations of how Super35 is reframed for video. For present purposes, it's enough to note that video presentations of such Super35 films involve cropping, though often not as severe as with "scope" films, and they also involve exposing image that wasn't seen in theaters. In essence, every shot gets reframed, which is what the T2:UE demonstration illustrates very nicely.

This also answers your question 2. I haven't seen the commercial in question, but it's just as feasible to create a 1.85:1 variant from a Super35 negative as a 1:33:1. I assume it was done that way for television so that the image wouldn't appear shrunken on smaller screens.

M.

 

[Michael Reuben]

It's a concession Jackson made to New Line, since the budget for the three films is the most NL has ever spent on a single project.

According to one of the Jackson commentaries on LOTR:FOTR (I forget which one), he chose Super35 for technical reasons. Directors and DPs usually do.

M.

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

There are a lot of ignorant people who whine about black bars on their standard-definition TVs. If those people upgrade to HDTVs, they will probably whine about the black bars on the side of the screen when watching old TV shows. That is the only reason I can think of.

 

[WillG]

"The original film aspect is 2.35. Is the 1.33 DVD version "pan & scan" or open matte?"

It's a bit of both, but there are many shots in FOTR that are panned and scanned almost as much as an anamorphic film would be. www.widescreen.org has some good examples of FOTR WS vs P&S. I recently saw the FF version of "Panic Room" on cable which is another Super 35 film and the FF version definately has some heavy P&S shots in spite of being filmed Super 35. There is really no standard for how a Super 35 film is recomposed for 1.33:1 so you could get a lot of open matte and alot of P&S shot for shot. It all depends on how the director decides to reframe

 

[Brian W.]

"The original film aspect is 2.35. Is the 1.33 DVD version "pan & scan" or open matte?"

It is a bit of both. I own both versions. As is evident from the editing demonstration on FOTR:EE, the film was shot open matte 1.33, and the opticals were hard matted to either 1.85 or 1.66.

In the thumbnails on the editing demo, the full 1.33 image is shown, but when you click on the thumbnails to get a larger image, it switches to 1.85. (That's how I know the opticals were hard matted -- the thumbnails show black bars in those shots.)

But even at 1.85, LIGHTS are visible on-camera is some shots. For example, in the optical shot of the company, where Boromir walks into the frame, just after Gimli's line, "and my axe" -- there is a light plainly visible in the upper left of the frame.

The P&S version of the film varies in side-to-side aspect ratio, anywhere from 1.85 to 1.66 to 1.33. NEVER is the full width of the screen shown. You are getting more picture information at the top and/or bottom in most shots, including opticals, but you NEVER get the full width of the picture.

That said, they did an amazingly good job of panning and scanning on that particular title, but it's still a huge compromise.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Generally speaking, when it comes to effects shots in Super 35, these are done in roughly a 2:1 AR, since to do the effects in the full Super 35 frame isn't cost efficient. 2:1 gives some leeway in a 1.33:1 transfer, but not much.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Special effects companies prefer filmmakers use Super 35 for their widescreen "scope" films over anamorphic widescreen. Something to do with how they produce the special effects, resolution, etc., something I know enough of to understand but not something I'm qualified to lecture on just yet.

Another reason for using Super 35, I'm told by a DP pal of mine, is that there currently are far more Super 35 lenses around than there are anamorphic lenses. If you're a big budget Hollywood production, it doesn't necessarily matter as you'll get what you need, but if you're an indie or if you're shooting outside of Hollywood, especially with a LOTR size production where you need huge amounts of equipment far away from where big budget films are normally made, it's easier to get Super 35 lenses in quantity.

Skilled DPs can also use lenses for each format differently. In a recent issue of American Cinematographer, the DP of "Seabiscuit" said that part of the reason for shooting Super 35 was that he preferred the greater sense of movement a 25mm lens gave, which he could use to get the shots he wanted in the Super 35 format; had he shot the film anamorphically, he would have had to use a 50mm lens to get the same coverage, which would have given the film a different look.

Unmatting a Super 35 film for home video isn't the same as unmatting a flat (1.85:1) film. When films are shot Super 35, the effects work is usually only done within the 2.35:1 frame, not the full 1.33:1 frame, so those scenes have to be panned and scanned. Unmatting a flat film is usually simpler; often flat films are sent to theaters unmatted, and the projecters have the mattes that frame the image to 1.85:1. As I'm sure many people have noticed, sometimes the projectionist gets it wrong and you see boom mikes or other things that weren't meant to be in the frame. That's not because the filmmakers messed up; that's because the projectionist messed up by projecting part of the film that you weren't meant to see.

I see the bottom line as being this: unmatted transfers of flat films generally look better than panned and scanned transfers of scope films. Of course they would. In a pan and scan, you're losing vital information. For an unmatted 1.85:1 film, in theory you're not losing any information. To many directors and DPs, it's not an ideal way of seeing their work, but it is less offensive to them. But seeing a film unmatted will often destroy the carefully composed shots that the filmmakers labored to create.

 

[Michael Reuben]

far more Super 35 lenses around than there are anamorphic lenses

There's no such thing as a "Super35 lens". The Super35 process uses the same spherical lenses used for "flat" photography -- and that's the point.

The technical issues you've covered have been discussed very extensively on this forum. Some of the best threads are in the Software Archive. Look for posts by Scott H, who's a working cameraman.

M.

 

[Aaryn Chan]

Asia dont have this problem of P&S or FS thing. All their home release are widescreen intact. Even vhs.

 

[Kevin Korom]

One of the major technical reasons for the use of Super35 for wide aspect films is the lack of optical distortion. Anamorphic lenses distort objects that are out of focus; watch a background of an anamorphic film for round objects, like a light or the moon, etc. As the focal depth changes, the object will go from slightly oblong to round, and vise-versa.

The CGI artists would have to duplicate this effect if anamorphic lenses were used, greatly complicating an already difficult process.

 

[Mike DB]

this certainly has been an intersting thread for me. I did a search for my next question and i get either too little or too much. Can someone breifly expain the difference between 1.85 flat film and super 35?

Interesting to me because i get the impression that 1.85 flat implies a film that is hard matted to that AR. But every film I have seen in 1.85 on DVD, if it is also offered in full screen, the full screen appears to be an open matt ( i.e. showing more top and bottom image with only slight side cropping). If 1.85 flat film is a hard mat, wouldn't that mean the only way to obtain full screen would be the ol' P&S?

Can you name some films that were shot in 1.85 flat?

 

[Michael Reuben]

Can you name some films that were shot in 1.85 flat?

Almost any film that was shot to be projected at 1.85:1.

M.

 

[WillG]

Is there anything more about Super 35 on the T2:UE edition that just the comparisons of that one hospital scene?

 

[Michael Reuben]

Is there anything more about Super 35 on the T2:UE edition that just the comparisons of that one hospital scene?

There's also an informative textual explanation. But the hospital scene demonstrates the process much better in 60 seconds than thousands of pages of text ever could.

M.

 

[WillG]

I thought there was but I didn't find it

 

[Mike DB]

actually I pretty much understand what super 35 is. I am trying to understand what "1.85 flat" is.

I always figured 1.85 AR's were a cropped/matted format of 35 or super 35.

I assume this because as I said before, every film i have ever seen offered on DVD in 1.85, if the film was also available full screen ( on DVD or as presented on TV) it was shown open mat.

It's not simply an AR but a particular type of film or lense configuration? I don't recall the term applied to the way a movie was shot. ( For example I've never seen it used to describe a film type on the IMDB)

Can you name some movies that were shot with "1.85 flat" and explain it?