Widescreen/Letterbox VS Fullscreen

[MCMLXXXVIII]

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.

That is what I suspect, that it isn't a cropped pan & scan like is claimed. The DVD is widescreen, that is, a 1.33 image with the mattes correctly placed to create the intended 1.85 ratio. The framing seems correct throughout, in fact a few scenes still have quite a bit of space above actor's heads.

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.

I'm confused by what you are saying. Leaving the top and bottom visible means a 4:3 image, do you mean you prefer that ratio?

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.

Pan & scan movies remove picture information from the side, not the top and bottom. The giveaway is a blurriness as the 4:3 frame pans across the widescreen frame. Also it is normal for movies to be framed so that the very top of an actor's head is beyond the top of the frame. Some directors like their shots framed very tightly like that.

I'm not defending MGM, certainly not if this turns out to be true (I remember when Redemption UK did this with the VHS of The Crazies), I'm just saying that someone may have been mistaken. I don't expect the average DVD buyer to know about movie ratios and the many types of widescreen and how they should be correctly displayed, but if you're going to serve a lawsuit you really need to do your homework!

It's easy to imagine someone comparing their widescreen copy with someone else's unmatted 4:3 copy and thinking they are being swindled out of so much picture.

[spudthedestroyer]

Pan & scan movies remove picture information from the side, not the top and bottom

Wrong, that's a generalisation. They can, and very often do remove vertical information by placing it inside the original.

It really all depends on how much the editor wants to disrespect the film, they very often only have the non-open matte OAR negative to work from, and then use a viewfinder within that frame to mark out 4:3... so to the contrary, PAN/SCAN very often misses off information from all sides.

Of course, Pan/scanning from the original open matte negative normally means they just get their view finder and move it around, but I don't think these DVD companies do this. Its cheaper to get a more readily available negative and these are already diced.

I'm speculating, but given what I know about how the treatement of movie negatives is (notice how they find negatives in a box somewhere after 20 years? ), what MGM has done is hired a crap DVD company to do most of their disks (or in house). These numpties will have then gone out to get the movies, and acquired the 4:3 PAN/SCAN from the original open matte, and then from there, taken the original ratio and super imposed it onto the pan/scan as if it were the original open matte. Does this not sound like a likely scenario? I know it does to me...

This is why these companies need to keep master prints and schematics of exactly where in the matte the frame viewfinder needs to be positioned, else you get these f*cking MGM editing cowboys that hack the negatives to pieces willy nilly.

Look at STR's empire of ants release, its really zoomed in far in places, and this explains that a lot.

[MCMLXXXVIII]

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.

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.

This page: Widescreen.org , especially the Fish Called Wanda example, shows how someone could make a mistake in thinking they are being ripped off.

What I suspect here is that people are thinking that a widescreen DVD is actually showing an image, like you suggest, with information cropped from all sides. They think this because they are comparing it with a fullscreen edition of the same movie, which will show all the width of the widescreen image and the height of the unmatted print (if done correctly).

Also, the image on the DVDs would be abysmally framed (heads half cut off etc.), unless they took the time to move the focus of the frame up and down and left and right according to each shot (the time and money this would take would negate any gains from doing this for the DVD company). It would just be simpler to start with an unmatted print (which a company like MGM would surely have) and crop the image top and bottom at a constant height like normal.

Someone would have noticed this by now surely? These DVDs have been out for years, and reviewed countless times. Okay, not all DVD reviewers are ratio experts, but some can be very meticulous.

Of course, I could be wrong...

And, yes, pan and scan prints of 2.35 ratio movies are pretty abysmal. The only place we see these nowadays is when TV stations use very old (pre-widescreen broadcast) prints to show films.

[MCMLXXXVIII]

Pan & scan movies remove picture information from the side, not the top and bottom

Wrong, that's a generalisation. They can, and very often do remove vertical information by placing it inside the original.

It really all depends on how much the editor wants to disrespect the film, they very often only have the non-open matte OAR negative to work from, and then use a viewfinder within that frame to mark out 4:3... so to the contrary, PAN/SCAN very often misses off information from all sides.

I know this happens, but not often. Sometimes it is done with a 4:3 end product out of ineptitude (like the Crazies VHS I mentioned above), but usually only with movies that are shot hard-matted (Aliens is one) or have hard-matted scenes within them (like the FX shots in various Super35 movies).

Of course, Pan/scanning from the original open matte negative normally means they just get their view finder and move it around, but I don't think these DVD companies do this. Its cheaper to get a more readily available negative and these are already diced.

I'm not sure what you mean here, an open matte negative is (more or less) a 4:3 image, so there is no need to move the viewfinder around. What you see in the fullscreen version is the full height negative.

[spudthedestroyer]

I'm not sure what you mean here, an open matte negative is (more or less) a 4:3 image, so there is no need to move the viewfinder around. What you see in the fullscreen version is the full height negative.

They do, because its not correctly sized, and the open matted area very often contains boom mikes and off set locations that shouldn't be in the picture. They use a view finder and crop. See the image on the previous page of this thread.

That's why its called pan/scan.

Are you referring to Open Matte as 4:3 because the vast majority of 4:3 prints are not open matte. Only a handful of releases are ever open matte.

Secondly, I think your talking about what should happen. I agree, if they want to release 4:3 it should always be open matte... pan/scan should be burnt and all editors using it lined up and shot.... but they don't do this, nearly all 4:3 prints i've ever owned are PAN/SCAN, its the way they work.

Thirdly, I also think it would be very silly to launch a class action lawsuit (!!!) if they hadn't researched the accusations they are making properally, so I'm willing to assume your thinking of a best case scenario in MGMs defence, and I'm really skeptical to whether that's true, although its what they should do if they are working with open matte.

However, I refer you to that previous image, I think that is what's happened here. The website is unfortunately slim on details. Although I hope for the sake of the dvds I own and MGMs wallet, that they aren't retarded and were working from Open Matte sources. I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't true though

[dinky]

I have to agree. I mean...I notice when I'm looking at faces with foreheads chopped off. apparently, Peter Jackson likes that look, cuz that's his theatrical lotr release right there. but anyway....if movies are often zoomed in already, wouldn't my dog be able to tell if it's cropped vertically from the Pan & scan that was cropped vertically from the widescreen that was already cropped vertically from the open matte?

you'd be listening to people talk while staring at their adam's apple.

iunno. the only mgm discs I have are spaceballs, stargate (the shit original release where you have to flip the disc over to watch the entire fecking movie), robocop and malice. oh! and princess bride, but that appears to have been dealt with differently than the others. it's 16:9 anamorphic, for one thing. haven't even watched the robocop disc, but dude! robocop. had to get it. anyway, of the 3 possible suspects, spaceballs is the only one I've watched a lot, and I like to think I'd have noticed the camera centered on the guy's neck.

[MCMLXXXVIII]

Are you referring to Open Matte as 4:3 because the vast majority of 4:3 prints are not open matte. Only a handful of releases are ever open matte.

Not so, take just about any 4:3 version of a soft matted 1.85 widescreen film and block off an equal amount of information top and bottom. You won't be losing any vital information, and the image will be better framed.

I'll post an example if I can find a DVD with both wide and fullscreen versions on it.

[spudthedestroyer]

you'd be listening to people talk while staring at their adam's apple.

You can scan around the picture with the viewfinder ala. PAN/SCAN but yes.

But it all depends on a lot of factors, 1) director's placement of action with the camera ie. how big the faces are, how wide the lense was 2) where the pan/scan view finder was in respect to the matting 3) where the view finder for the re-hash cut was, etc.

I have Child's Play on VHS and the DVD, although I can't recall if the Child's Play I have is pan/scan or not.

There were screenshots of Phantasm IV: Oblivion, and someone posted saying, "this is the cropped pan scan", and like a know it all, I made my assumption and said "oh no yours is open matte", and this must be the original aspect ratio. However, reading this, its does make me reconsider my viewpoint. The images I posted have died But here's the thread:
http://forum.dead-donkey.com/viewtopic.php?t=3344

[Jim123]

MCMLXXXVIII I think you don't want to believe that this actually happened,,

If you read my entire post I think you will answer your questions.

The point is what are you comparing if you yourself or anyone for that matter can not get the correct aspect ratio.

The whole point of the litigation is that they were caught selling a cropped version of the Pan Scan when they were marketing it as the letterbox version, seems very crooked to me.

[spudthedestroyer]

Just posted at hhah concerning the matter, and I think there's 'proof' in the absense of the available matte, this is using Phantasm IV as evidence.

Very true,
but then there's this
http://forum.dead-donkey.com/viewtopic.php?t=3344
Given that the Mosaic R2 release is actually pan/scan and not open matte, or at least it would be extremely different to the rest of their catalogue:
http://www.imdb.com/Sections/DVDs/Labels/Mosaic_Movies/

and here its confirmed to be pan/scan:
http://www.totaldvd.net/cgi-bin/dvdrevi ... tleid=1694

but is let down by being trimmed from its original ratio to the 4:3 image provided on the disc.

So there is major validity behind the claims

Unfortunately the images in the original thread are dead (Thx, lycos you wankers! ), but I do recall the 'widescreen' one I have just being a cropped version of the one El M. posted, and if that is indeed the Mosaic print, it is pan/scanned.

So there we go, we'll just have to sit tight on the law suit, but it might be a good idea to sign up if its free. Either way there's no harm. You get a free dvd and/or money, or you get squat. Lucky buggers

[dinky]

? I've been using lycos since...since you mentioned in in a free web space thread. whatchootalkinboutfoo? it work good.

So there we go, we'll just have to sit tight on the law suit, but it might be a good idea to sign up if its free. Either way there's no harm. You get a free dvd and/or money, or you get squat. Lucky buggers

er...well...I'd still like some sort of reputable source that shows I'm not just opting-in to some elaborate spam scam. any ny times business articles or something? I could google, but that search bar is way up in the corner of my browser window.

[spudthedestroyer]

? I've been using lycos since...since you mentioned in in a free web space thread. whatchootalkinboutfoo? it work good.

the public hhah keep getting overloaded and deleted.

Good point anyway dink, about opting in. There no public archive of suits that have been filed in the states?

[MCMLXXXVIII]

Panic over, the DVDs are fine!

I've been doing some Googling and it seems that the lawsuit was over the packaging (which claimed the widescreen version shows more picture than the fullscreen) rather than the actual discs. Some people got miffed at being "lied to" seeing as how both editions showed just as much horizontal picture information and decided to sue.

Info at Slashdot.

MGM went for an out of court settlement.

So this begs the question, what have people been getting in return? Presumably the exact same DVD, just with packaging that doesn't claim the widescreen version is wider than the fullscreen!

[spudthedestroyer]

from forum.dead-donkey.com :

thank fuck for that! Now to go and shout at the editorial people who have been saying its double cropped

edit:
err sorry but that's another negatory on confirmation from what I read, a guy just posted a comment about an odd few 'flipper' discs and then links to a general description of open matter and how its cropped.

We already know all this, what we still don't know is that MGM has released as open matter or pan scan for all those titles listed. If it was open matte released previously on VHS/DVDs in other regions, all was hunky dorey, since this is correct, but its known to be not the case for a lot of them, and speculated for many others, and as such, this means they've cropped PAN/SCAN.

So unfortunately, that info doesn't prove or disprove anything

btw. MGM haven't gone for an out of court settlement, they're still at trial. It says in the last comment this too, so I guess that's that then.

Also shows that slashdot are full of shit. They didn't know what they were talking about with the original article, and then they jumped on a guess in one of their comments, and still even then got it wrong. That's just sloppy 'journalism' and obviously means its been done by a geek, rather than as a proper news site.

Shame the accuser doesn't have a website, else I'd go and post and ask what's really going on. As it stands, by MGM and the accuser not coming out and saying exactly why they are wrong/right, they're both doing wrong. As MGM are loosing face on this, an immediate statement with photographic wouldn't be hard to do at all, and the fact they haven't is suspicious to me. That would put a stop to it once and for all.

Shame though, what a confusing morning I'm having. This cropping pan/scan has happened before btw, I'll do some serious <s>drinking</s> researching later on.

The matting thing would only be applicable to films shot with 35mm anyway though, right?

[dinky]

Panic over, the DVDs are fine!

I've been doing some Googling and it seems that the lawsuit was over the packaging (which claimed the widescreen version shows more picture than the fullscreen) rather than the actual discs. Some people got miffed at being "lied to" seeing as how both editions showed just as much horizontal picture information and decided to sue.

Info at Slashdot.

MGM went for an out of court settlement.

So this begs the question, what have people been getting in return? Presumably the exact same DVD, just with packaging that doesn't claim the widescreen version is wider than the fullscreen!

cropping a pan & scan is</i> the problem. what the dvd packaging originally lied about should</i> have been accurate. if you crop a pan & scan, even though the frame moves around the open matte for optimal picture, you're losing info left/right and gaining it up/down (in comparison to the same procedure in widescreen). so to take that (already cropped) P & S and crop it again (top/bottom) to make it "widescreen" again cripples the presentation. it's like hitting the zoom on your dvd: nothing is framed properly anymore (as opposed to P&S OR WS that are directly cropped from OM). And if that's not bad enough, do yet another crop if the P&S version is cropped from the WS instead of OM.

so if MGM did in fact crop a P&S to make it look WS then letterbox it, then yes, there is very much something wrong with the discs. it's called they fecking suck ass, and you'd be better off recording the stuff off of cable tv. if their *faulty* claim on the original packaging is proved to have been false, then that means they did</i> double, maybe even triple crop for the result on the discs.

on the other hand, as I said about my copy of Spaceballs, I never noticed it. but then we're usually drinking and playing some games while the movie runs. but I don't see how the packaging claim can be right w/o directly impacting the cropping legitimacy issue.

[MCMLXXXVIII]

cropping a pan & scan is</i> the problem. what the dvd packaging originally lied about should</i> have been accurate.

No, a movie shot soft matted for a 1.85 ratio will show the same amount of information horizontally in both fullscreen and widescreen versions (if done correctly).

This technique was invented in the early 50s at the introduction of widescreen movies, the idea being that a 1.85 movie could be shown on TV without losing a lot of picture information.

So MGM's packaging claims were wrong in the case of almost all 1.85 ratio movies, but were correct in the case of 2.35 ratio anamorphically shot movies (which Spud errenously used as an example above) where a lot of horizontal information needs to be cropped at both sides to fill a 4:3 TV.

Are you confusing open matte and pan and scan as the same thing? It still isn't confirmed that pan and scan versions were cropped anyway, and like I said earlier, that doesn't seem to be the case with my Phantasm DVD.

[El Mariachi]

My copy of spaceballs has 2 sides, one 4:3 and one 16:9
I also saw the movie in theatres.

Funny thing I just remembered about another movie was Full Metal Jacket being open matte on DVD.
no widescreen versions available, which is weird

http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/dvd

[dinky]

cropping a pan & scan is</i> the problem. what the dvd packaging originally lied about should</i> have been accurate.

No, a movie shot soft matted for a 1.85 ratio will show the same amount of information horizontally in both fullscreen and widescreen versions (if done correctly).

you've lost me here. afaik, it's mathematically impossible for two different AR to show the same information without either wasting space in one of the two presentations or warping (e.g., stretching) the image.

ergo (this is my own special dink-logic), if any</i> WS presentation shows the same amount of data left-to-right as any</i> FS data, then one of the two must either (a) show black bar "letterbox" effects (an addition); (b) crop information that appears top & bottom of the FS pres (a subtraction); or (c) warp the image.

is there something vital that I'm missing?

about the open matte/pan & scan confusion. I understand that they're different and know what they are. I was just saying that the only way I can imagine having the same left-right data on a pan & scan as any</i> WS is to crop from the top/bottom of the pan & scan. even if it's actually a crop from the open matte, the viewable data would the exactly the same as cropping from pan & scan - this all pends on maintaining the same left-right data. it locks the WS frame into the PS frame.

or again, am I missing something really - painfully - important?

[MCMLXXXVIII]

you've lost me here. afaik, it's mathematically impossible for two different AR to show the same information without either wasting space in one of the two presentations

This is what happens in fullscreen versions of most 1.85 ratio movies. The top and bottom of the image is extra information (wasted space) that is removed to create the widescreen image.

In a shot of two people standing on a street where we see them top to bottom, for example, you will see empty space above the top of their heads (eg sky) and below their feet (eg more pavement). This information is cropped to create the intended 1.85 widescreen ratio.

Did you look at the Fish Called Wanda example in the link I posted earlier? That shows it pretty well.

ergo (this is my own special dink-logic), if any</i> WS presentation shows the same amount of data left-to-right as any</i> FS data, then one of the two must either (a) show black bar "letterbox" effects (an addition); (b) crop information that appears top & bottom of the FS pres (a subtraction); or (c) warp the image.

A and B are the same thing, both remove the extra information shown in a 4:3 presentation.

I think you'll probably understand what I'm getting at now, yes?

[dinky]

the example of A Fish Called Wanda compares Open Matte to "matted" or WS. Open Matte (i.e., mattes removed) is not Pan & Scan. Both Pan & Scan and Open Matte, however, are 4:3. Yes, I know/knew this.

options A and B are not the same. The end AR is the same. However, one is an addition to the canvas, the other a subtraction: cropping or "matting." now I realize these are theoretical maneuvers - I don't know that additions to the canvas are ever</i> made in practice. My point, however, was that it was one of three possible ways the desired AR could be acheived in theory (i.e., how to fit a rectangle into a square and vice versa).

that said, I think you're right. I think I'd have noticed if they cropped a Pan & Scan to WS - and I didn't. And I have been under the impression that most</i> FS formatted for my 4:3 tv was Pan & Scan not Open Matte. that page you linked to seems to imply otherwise. but I'm thinking you're right just cuz of my not noticing a severly cropped/zoomed picture in spaceballs.

/me shrugs