Widescreen/Letterbox VS Fullscreen

[dinky]

wow. that was actually fun to read. and I know you're just responding to the previous post, but I can't help asking: do you just like to hit the board with this every so often in a vain attempt to convert FS addicts to WS?

[Jim123]

My mistake, I meant for the theatre I also prefer widescreen.

I don't like cropped heads they bother me. I would guess they are doing that to fit a certain aspect ratio. When there is an action shot widescreen is the way to go. Assuming they are not just matting it to look like it was shot that way.

My point is if it is made in 4:3 does it not sound silly to put a matt on the vertical part and call it widescreen

[d0c]

Widescreen it is then

[spudthedestroyer]

@dink, yup, just incase there are some TV editors or film makers browsing that go round doing this crap

My point is if it is made in 4:3 does it not sound silly to put a matt on the vertical part and call it widescreen

IMO I don't like that, not when that is redundant data and using widescreen increases viewing comfort. Maybe its just me, but when you look at 4:3, given that its an unnatural AR, doesn't it always bug the crap out of you that it seems like your missing what's happening to the left and right of the picture. Having that running through my mind all the time spoils the movie.

There should be a l

[Jim123]

I don't think we really know how they are making the movie, I guess you have to enjoy the movie and accept that the format given is the best they feel we should see.

Many years ago I had seen a book describing the filming aspect ratios of movies. I have looked for it but no luck. It would be nice if anyone has information to due with this.

[spudthedestroyer]

Watch the documentries and listen to the commentries, they tell you a hell of a lot about what they're doing.

You can sometimes see the monitors they have for the cameras, and you'll see boarders at where they intend to crop In the bad old days, they just put cardboard on the monitor... and even further back than that, they didn't have monitors, so it was something they really had to be careful about.

I think camera side monitors appeared during the 80s. I think Ridley Scott mentions it on the Alien: Director's Cut documentries (event though that was 70s )... or it might Jim Cameron on Aliens. I'm sure it was one of those two.

I'd like to see that book. I'll have a look see for that myself. I'd imagine any camera book should cover it though, definitely books on cinematography/filmography.

[Jim123]

That book was many years ago, I saw it at a local video store and I did not buy it, I later returned to buy it and it was sold. The owner never purchased it again and I have had no luck finding it. I thought of looking at the cinematography school in town, if I have any luck I will let you know.

[spudthedestroyer]

okay much appreciated

I only have the odd technical book on film, normally to do with SFX and pretty basic.

I got this ace one that goes for ages in great detail on all the methods and then has two pages on CGI that always makes me laugh, since everything is done in CGI these days An 80s book as you can imagine

[Jim123]

I made an error when I said that they don't have a lense in the WS format. I forgot about the Panoramic format cameras at 24mm x 56mm for 35 mm film. I guess it's just the shutter size that can be changed to accomomodate different aspect ratios.

[Jim123]

A major legal controversy is swirling around MGM DVD copies with over 300 titles being affected by an aspect ratio problem. According to CHUD, claims have gone up that state MGM Home Video has been misleading about the films they're marketing as widescreen, rather cutting the top and bottom off of pan and scan transfers and billing it as widescreen, as the aspect ratio is still correct.

Amongst the titles that may have been affected are "1984", "24 Hour Party People", "The Amityville Horror", "Annie Hall", "Barbershop", "The Birdcage", "City Slickers", "The Dark Half", "Dead Man Walking", "Desperately Seeking Susan", "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels", "Dr. No", "Four Weddings & A Funeral", "From Russia With Love", "Goldfinger", "Gorky Park", "Hannibal", "The Hound of the Baskervilles", "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", "The Island of Dr. Moreau", "Jeepers Creepers", "Mannequin", "Man in the Moon", "The Man with the Golden Gun", "Midnight Cowboy", "Mississippi Burning", "Mystic Pizza", "Phantasm", "Platoon", "Raging Bull", "Rain Man", "Scanners", "Shallow Grave", "Some Like it Hot", "Spaceballs", "The Terminator", "Wargames" and "Y Tu Mama Tambien".


http://www.mgmdvdsettlement.com/

List to the movies:
http://mgmdvdsettlement.com/eligible.php3

Has anyone noticed that their movies are just cropped?

[spudthedestroyer]

I don't have any I don't think, are they referring to R1 releases, I don't see an offer for refunding uk people, but that's just appauling. Shocking


btw. just listened to the Aliens audio commentry, and as well as being a must hear track, James Cameron makes several comments regarding his choice, and strong dislike of certain aspect ratios.

[spudthedestroyer]

Okay I really hope this isn't true for R2 releases. Child's Play I just bought (its got a brand new release in January in the uk). I have the VHS, which is pan scan I think, so I'll check.


I have the special edition of Silence of the Lambs too, can anyone shead any light if its uk dvds too?

[Jim123]

These Bastards deserve everything they get. Just another reason given to people to get movies from the internet. But what do you expect from a money hungry Bastard who only thinks of ways to screw people for a profit.

The game is make everyone buy it again by releasing that new version which is the directors cut or some bullshit name like that.

Money corrupts absolutely.

[dinky]

I'm not sure what's worse: this happening or me not having noticed in the dozen or so times I've watched Spaceballs.

anyway, is there a legal means to verify the content of this web site? it specifically says not to contact courts or anything. iunno dick about class action suits anyway (except a matt damon movie or 5) *duck* but I imagine there must be something on a government web site/archive that I can check it against.

[Jim123]

Dinky. I always knew it was going on, but it’s difficult to varify. As I explained earlier about Total Recall, the difference between the two is minimal on the width, and they cropped the top and bottom to fit the format which is not needed to be done, I prefer widescreen also but not stupid games like this.

Did you try the toll free number (800) 285-2168 (toll free) if you are in the U.S.?

I wonder how many other film studios are doing this also.

[spudthedestroyer]

can someone in the states phone up and ask if it applies to uk dvds please?

It will cost loads to phone up from here, and I want to know if child's play and Silence of the Lambs are effected

[MCMLXXXVIII]

Does anyone have more info on this or any visual examples?

I've just flicked through my R1 of Phantasm, and everything looks fine. Tops of heads aren't cut off, and shots like a view through binoculars look correctly horizontally framed.

Does the instigator of all this know about hard matting? Unmatted 4:3 releases are often errenously referred to as "Pan & Scan", and if that's what they are using as a comparison to the widescreen versions then they are totally misguided.

[Jim123]

My interpretation is that what we are being sold is a cropping of the Pan Scan version not a letterbox they are claiming.

So it is useless to compare because your copy is a Pan Scan to start, with a mat placed on the top and bottom to make it look like a different release. I have found in comparing movies is that they give you some on the sides (they can give more but they don't) and take away from the top and bottom. They could just leave the top and bottom alone without making any difference to the width they present us. It's a game they play to make profit.

If I have to guess why, it's probably cheaper to sell it that way by saving editing costs. Later down the road bring out that special release to get people to buy again. An example is the LORD of THE RINGS give me a break how many releases so far, what’s next my Grandmothers never before seen footage.

What you see in the movie theaters is the same bullshit. We all have wishful thinking that we are getting something special but this kind of bullshit happens all the time.

If you follow photography and you know about the rule of thirds that was originally developed by the ancient Greeks thousands of years ago, which sets the rules for all forms of art composition. The basic premise is that your center of interest should be placed at the 1/3 intersection of the top and sides of the canvas. Look at some movies that are well cropped and you will see this. Even the new Star Wars release II saw last night was well done, but they cropped the top and bottom WHY, WHY it will not make a f***ing difference to the sides so why F****ing do that and cropping heads sometimes too tight, well done compared to most but still stupid cropping

In Pan Scan movies I have noticed heads being cut off and the center of interest is centered on the screen, for me this is a dead giveaway.

My complaint is with unnecessary cropping not with cropping to make something fit certain aspect ratio because they have fooled the public into thinking that this is the correct way.

[dinky]

can someone in the states phone up and ask if it applies to uk dvds please?(

it's an automated "operator." you say the name of your movie and the computer verifies whether that title is eligible or not. there's no way to check regions or not though. just movie title. then they want you to leave you contact info and they'll mail you a form. so in other words, the help line is useless if you already have internet access.

oh yes, if you need to speak with someone about the settlement or have questions, "leave your contact information for someone to contact you." blah blah blah. sexy voice though. computers are getting better and better. wonder if she was naked when she.....

[spudthedestroyer]

This is how I interpret what MGM have done. Blue is what we should see, the OAR of 1.85 on the matte, then white is the PAN/SCAN (it will move around to suit the action), then the middle, the middle geen is where we've been screwed over. As you can see we are missing the left and right AND the top and bottom.

<div align="center"></div>

This is a best case scenario btw. very often the PAN/SCAN is done inside the outer blue, so its the same AR, but its height is inside the blue. That is extremely normal for pan/scan and why it should never, ever, ever be used IMO. You gain no vertical data, and you loose horizontal. And if that's the pan/scan they were working from on one of these prints, you loose even more, and its zoomed in even further to match the smaller PAN/SCAN.