Cropping the Original Trilogy : 35mm vs dvd (gout)

i guess this would apply to the SE versions too,

i haven't checked those yet.. but harmy, and catbus

have pointed out a lot of good thoughts about the

croppings in the movie..

it turns out, they are probably cropped even

more in the theaters!

if you've seen some of the recent sample frames,

you'll notice there is more information in the frame.

that was not supposed to be seen by the audience

when projected.

the top pictures are slightly corrected from an entirely

red reel, so they are still muted, and not accurate to

the true colors, the bottom image is the GOUT.

the thing that stands out is how much is cropped.

also, notice that smoke and effects look very different.

---------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------

i'll post some stats and framed images next.

later

-1

To be fair, I think the amount that was cropped off the edges by projection was variable based on lots of factors, but nevertheless the amount that was cropped off in a theatre in 1977 is surprisingly large, and all filmmakers knew that it would be when they made their film.  This raises some questions about whether the outer edge has the same historical value if nobody ever saw it until it was on home video.  Nevertheless this same question hangs around all movies from that period, and the answer that seems to be satisfactory to most people for other films is to show as much of the frame as possible and just forget about the cropping from projection.

Looking forward to the framed images.  I was frankly shocked when I saw how much of Star Wars was never seen in the theatre to begin with!

CatBus said:

To be fair, I think the amount that was cropped off the edges by projection was variable based on lots of factors, but nevertheless the amount that was cropped off in a theatre in 1977 is surprisingly large, and all filmmakers knew that it would be when they made their film.  This raises some questions about whether the outer edge has the same historical value if nobody ever saw it until it was on home video.  Nevertheless this same question hangs around all movies from that period, and the answer that seems to be satisfactory to most people for other films is to show as much of the frame as possible and just forget about the cropping from projection.

Looking forward to the framed images.  I was frankly shocked when I saw how much of Star Wars was never seen in the theatre to begin with!

you've seen most of the ones i'll be putting up already.

although now that we have a new batch

of shots now. i'll have to get around to comparing

those..

later

-1

good idea to check it against that.

i have that version also.

haven't looked at it in quite awhile.

thanks for the idea.

later

-1

How about compared to the DVD/BD editions? They are less cropped than the GOUT.

LexX said:

How about compared to the DVD/BD editions? They are less cropped than the GOUT.

really? haven't even gotten around to doing

screen shots from the bluray. i don't think anyone

has yet.

at some point..

later

-1

here are more shots from the

test reel, slightly corrected:

NOTE: the top is the print,

the bottom is the GOUT

==========================

later

-1

damn, I had no idea the GOUT was cropped like this.  Stretchy faces galore!

here are some actual pixel ratio's,

with the gout images overlaid

over the prints images:

====================

later

-1

I think one showing how much was cropped in projection would be good, too, just to show the GOUT cropping wasn't bad at all relatively speaking.

Ah yes, I knew it was variable, but I was thinking of the Senator screening as an "average" amount of cropping, not as an extreme edge case.  Good to know.

CatBus said:

I think one showing how much was cropped in projection would be good, too, just to show the GOUT cropping wasn't bad at all relatively speaking.

harmy posted this about the theatrical cropping:

That's a really interesting idea. And even more interesting results: 

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-PpDwMu_u-ME/TsVcyg46xsI/AAAAAAAABE4/8aZybqIPGHQ/Star%252520Wars%252520Episode%252520IV%252520A%252520New%252520Hope%2525201977%252520720p%252520HDTV%252520x264-DON_25fps.m2ts_snapshot_01.07.13_%25255B2011.11.17_19.48.42%25255D.jpg

And that's only compared with the 2004 master, which is already cropped!

harmy

--------------------

later

-1

none said:

^ What is the software which helps create these pics?

 

nothing special.. just used paintshop pro. ha ha!

the calculations were done with calculator, that's it.

by the way, good resources about projecting:

-----------

1

http://hsvmovies.com/static_subpages/formats/anamorphic_format.html

2

http://hsvmovies.com/static_subpages/formats/aspect.html

3

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/lbx.htm

later

-1

tservo: right, i didn't repost your comments yet!

here's pictures from the empire strikes back

compared:

===========================

later

-1

again, using the official screenshot comparisons,

here are the ratios for cropping compared to film:

-----

later

-1

TV's Frink said:

I opened this thread on my phone.

You owe me one phone.

don't you know by now,

a lot of my threads are data-bombs!

it's a TRAP! mwhaaaa ha ha ha!!!

later

-1

It kinda makes sense:

New IP made around '85 or so-Digital tape transfer-Overporcessing, sharpening, DVNR,-final resize to 4:3 letterboxed 2.35:1.

There's bound to be some cropping in there and definite resizing. Theatrically you're bound to lose some here and there unless you're a brilliant projectionist with a pristine print and great equipment or Stanley Kubrick pops up in Kansas to tell you that you're mis-projecting Full Metal Jacket...;)

Nice pics -1. The cropping seems fairly consitant throughout (obviously with shot-by-shot ajustments for keeping the action center).