DVDizzy Forum

Luke wrote:Back to the Future is mostly open matte, yes. Except for effects shots and ones where unsightly equipment would have crept into the 4x3 frame. But I wouldn't waste money on a reformatted Fullscreen edition for any reason. You're seeing more, but that's not what the director intended, it was framed for 1.85:1 exhibition in theaters. As is the case with any reformatted open-matte 4x3 transfer.

Ahh, okay. I already have the widescreen one so I don't need to double-dip anymore for the sake of more picture.

Another example of that is Titanic. In fullscreen the sides are chopped off but you get extra picture on the top and bottom so that not as much of the wide view has to be sacrificed to fit in the tv screen.

Titanic was 1.85 as well? Hmm...I haven't seen it in awhile, but I always thought that it was 2.35, what with being such an epic movie. When's Paramount gonna get around to releasing a better DVD for this movie anyway? I wouldn't mind seeing the 2+ hours that was removed, along with at least a documentary.

Escapay

Escapay wrote:Titanic was 1.85 as well? Hmm...I haven't seen it in awhile, but I always thought that it was 2.35, what with being such an epic movie. When's Paramount gonna get around to releasing a better DVD for this movie anyway? I wouldn't mind seeing the 2+ hours that was removed, along with at least a documentary.

Escapay

The widescreen version of Titanic is 2.35:1, but like some other James Cameron films (The Abyss, Terminator 2), it was shot Super 35. In this case it is shot in 1.33:1, and framed for 2.35:1. But it is shot at a resolution that allows a director to choose compositions for 2.35:1 and also 1.33:1 within the frame that provide satisfactory framing. So, rather than just crop the whole thing and have a "fullscreen" version that loses over 40% of the picture, you'll have something that may lose 20% of the sides, and gain some atop and bottom. Still, as usual, the widescreen theatrical framing is preferred.

Couldn't find any "Titanic" screencaps to illustrate the point visually, which is really necessary when dealing in theoretical aspect ratio talk. But Widescreen.org has examples from Lord of the Rings, which uses the same Super 35 process, albeit in its own way:

http://www.widescreen.org/examples/lord ... ndex.shtml

Most shots are heavily cropped, but there is a gain in picture above and below. Clearly, the fullscreen version isn't rendered as effective as widescreen, but it's slightly better composed than a pan & scan. Choosing Super 35 or a scope filming process for a 2.35:1 widescreen film is a stylistic decision that directors will make on what they feel best serves the film.

In any event, since effects shots cost money, and effects are added only to the part that will be seen in theaters, almost all effects shots are cropped via pan-scan for the fullscreen home video versions.

Probably more than you cared to know, and I'm sure I've butchered some technical details, but I think that's the gist of it. And that is on a fullscreen version of a Super 35 film like Titanic, there is both loss and gain of picture, and slightly more freedom in picking out a reformatted shot.

Its also worth pointing out that on true simple OPEN MATTE films, like for example a lot of Warners early comedy releases (the first Vacation DVDs, The Man with Two Brains, The first Caddyshack DVD etc) the actual size of the images is the same too.

It's literally the widescreen with the black bars removed - so there's no advantage to seeing it without the black bars (ie, it may "fill the screen", but the detail is just as small). All the text, character etc are the same size.

another disadvantage of watching films with the matte opened, as i've mentioned 48.3 times is that the film looses it's dramatic strength cus you're seeing 33% more estraneous background surrounding the composed and framed image.
So instead of a dramaticaly shot close up when some lover is crying to your face and it fills 100% of the frame and therefore your attention, as it dramatically should, you get a head and shoulder shot where the face occupies only 75% of your attention and field o vision and you see some neck and maybe some trees or clouds or a window and err.. you're distracted

So when watching open matte films on 4:3 full frame you see image youre not suppossed to see and it looses impact, and when watching hard matted films on 4:3 full frame (pan/scaned) you see less image than the one youre supposed to see and you loose part of the visual story, scope, characters, art design beauty, etc.

But i can understand many people prefering the full frame, it's not those damn black bars, it's that the image is smaller with letterboxing, be it by shrinking it or by covering it, and we tend to like images that fill our field of view (everyone would prefer to get a 8 x 10" photo of a subject we like than a 3 x 5 postcard) Widescreen movies in theater screens are larger. The wider they are, the bigger they are, the oppossite of what happens on most hometheater screens and TV's

Displays should be wide enough to make most formats the same height.
(That's one reason i don't like 16:9 displays much more than 4:3 ones. Batman bigger than STAR WARS? No way!) Home Theater Projectors with zoom lenses are good in that respect cus you can zoom the widest/letterboxed movies to be a tall as the 1.75 and 1.375 movies. But not everyone has projectors and the mayority have fixed size 4:3 and 16:9 displays. So to them a full frame open matte image may be more satisfying than a shrunken/covered up smaller one even if the larger image is compositionally "incorrect"

Cus you're trading one aspect of the movies (correct shape/visual presentation) for another equally essential one: size/detail.

(a 22:9 display would cover 99.9% of all movies btw)

___________________________
I want 25:9 displays

karlsen wrote:

MickeyMouseboy wrote:It's a fullscreen not a FOOLScreen!

You could not be more wrong. If a movie is shot in widescreen and it gets presented in any other ration on your DVD then it is FOOLScreen just because only FOOLS would accept to se a movie that has been destroid just to fit your TV.

Phew, for a second I worried that noone got the very simple true-joke.

Ciaobelli wrote:

karlsen wrote: You could not be more wrong. If a movie is shot in widescreen and it gets presented in any other ration on your DVD then it is FOOLScreen just because only FOOLS would accept to se a movie that has been destroid just to fit your TV.

Phew, for a second I worried that noone got the very simple true-joke.

no sense of humour

MickeyMouseboy wrote:

Ciaobelli wrote: Phew, for a second I worried that noone got the very simple true-joke.

no sense of humour

funny I thought the same of you.

I guess our senses of humor are different.


FOOLscreen should be illegal.

This is a little change of direction for this topic, but I thought it would fit in good. I bought widescreen Star Wars at Wal-Mart on Tuesday. Wednesday I was in there again and noticed they were completely out of widescreen (silver box) but had tons of fullscreen (gold box) sets still.

It's things like this that perpetuate the acceptance and production of pan and scan fullscreen. For the people who understand that a movie is not complete in pan and scan, they'll go somewhere else and find a widescreen set. But most people probably won't even think about it. "Oh, there's Star Wars! I've heard that was coming out on DVD! I'll buy it! Wow! What a cool GOLD box!!!" Here, people don't even get the choice to choose widescreen because it's not even there! So the studios think there is a greater demand for pan and scan than there really is.

Bill, you raise an interesting point. Very rarely, when two separate versions exist, are widescreen DVDs forced upon customers. Many places will stock just fullscreen, or not get an combination matching demand.

On the other hand, you do get some major releases only offered in widescreen. This isn't done as much anymore, and when it is, it's usually Disney. It's pretty commendable when you consider such high-profile titles as Pirates of the Caribbean, The Lion King, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Home on the Range, Mary Poppins are only available in widescreen on DVD. I think we can all accept the "family-friendly" talk as long as Disney continues to release the majority of their films to DVD in their original aspect ratios.

Sure, it's probably a decision made mostly to save the costs of having multiple SKUs. But it's a good decision, and when widescreen TVs become the norm, you won't have those who never paid attention to the aspect ratio issue needing to replace their Disney DVDs with 16x9 versions.

If or when 16:9 TV screens become the norm in the U.S. one will still have to deal with the fact that not all movies (with different OARs) are going to fit nicely into a single TV screen (be it 4:3 or 16:9).

Or maybe there'll be widescreen versions of Snow White and Fantasia in a few years...? Which would be the opposite of progress.

Lars Vermundsberget wrote:Or maybe there'll be widescreen versions of Snow White and Fantasia in a few years...? Which would be the opposite of progress.

What would they do to make it widescreen? Draw extras on the sides to make it 1.66:1?

Escapay

Lars Vermundsberget wrote:Or maybe there'll be widescreen versions of Snow White and Fantasia in a few years...? Which would be the opposite of progress.

and Escapay asked:

What would they do to make it widescreen? Draw extras on the sides to make it 1.66:1?

No, crop the top and bottom, as they've already done to the Kung Fu TV series and to Gone With The Wind in it's 1954 Widescreen release.

Lars Vermundsberget wrote:If or when 16:9 TV screens become the norm in the U.S. one will still have to deal with the fact that not all movies (with different OARs) are going to fit nicely into a single TV screen (be it 4:3 or 16:9).

And same as many Academy 1.375 movies will be vertically pan scaned to make them 1.78,
wider than 1.78 movies will be either horizontally pan scanned or verticaly open matted (depending on the negative format) to fill the 1.78 screens too.

As it is already being done on several HDTV feeds (i've seen 1.85 versions of the Matrix and Terminator 2/3 movies) and on some DVDs like the 1.85 European Underworld DVD (All those movies are 2.39 Wide)

All in the name of the Fill The Screen god

deathie mouse wrote: All in the name of the Fill The Screen god

Ah yes. OpenMattia, the little known greek god. Sadly overlooked at the time being as there were very few screens for her to "fill". However, a small temple to OpenMattia was discovered in the 1950's and since then she's had a great time with her godly powers filling our screens for us. How nice of her. Her cult grows stronger day by day since her revival.

there i no reason to not buy a widescreen version of a movie ever. you can set your dvd player to play it in full frame mode if you want. but then again, the type of person who buys a non-oar full frame dvd is probably the type who can't set up their dvd player correctly anyway, or their vcr's clock for that matter.

Bill W wrote:This is a little change of direction for this topic, but I thought it would fit in good. I bought widescreen Star Wars at Wal-Mart on Tuesday. Wednesday I was in there again and noticed they were completely out of widescreen (silver box) but had tons of fullscreen (gold box) sets still.

It's things like this that perpetuate the acceptance and production of pan and scan fullscreen. For the people who understand that a movie is not complete in pan and scan, they'll go somewhere else and find a widescreen set. But most people probably won't even think about it. "Oh, there's Star Wars! I've heard that was coming out on DVD! I'll buy it! Wow! What a cool GOLD box!!!" Here, people don't even get the choice to choose widescreen because it's not even there! So the studios think there is a greater demand for pan and scan than there really is.

I didn't even know any countries sold fullscreen versions of Star Wars . I think it is many years since I've seen a dvd released in fullscreen in Denmark.
I'm constantly amazed that the country that creates almost all the big budget movies sell inferior versions of them to their population.

Palan wrote:I didn't even know any countries sold fullscreen versions of Star Wars . I think it is many years since I've seen a dvd released in fullscreen in Denmark.

I'm constantly amazed that the country that creates almost all the big budget movies sell inferior versions of them to their population

In the States there's always been pan scan versions of the Star Wars series, be it on VHS, Laserdisc , or DVD. One would think that a movie series thats so equated with widescreen entertainment (and THXation) would by this day and age, receive an only in widescreen release. That would have been an artistic statement. But...


In the USA many major "Scope" Projection format movies get simultaneous 4:3 Full Screen DVD releases, that I think are not released elsewhere, specially from films shot in the Super-35 format (Like Terminator 3, Matrixes, Underworld, LOR, etc) which by design can be open matted a little or a lot. But the original trilogy films were shot in anamorphic Panavision (except the SFX, that were done in VistaVision ) so that makes them "hard matted" films so it's full pan/scan with them on 4:3 (Unless Mr. L cgied-in a vertical open matte image!)