logo Sign In

T2 HDWMV isn't the full print

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
OK when Cameron filmed T2 he used Super35 film stock which is a high quality 16:9 format. So why has this HD version not unmatted the full screen? see below for examples;

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c1/nacluv/T2HD.jpg
HDWMV version

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c1/nacluv/T2VCD.jpg
VCD version
Author
Time
Post link
The intended aspect ratio of T2 is 2.35:1, not 16:9. A Super 35 frame is 1.66:1 I believe. Mattes are applied to achieve the desired aspect ratio.

The WMV transfer has the mattes in place. The mattes were removed for the 4:3 VCD transfer, which is why you see more vertical information in the capture.
Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: eros
which is a high quality 16:9 format.

'Bout died when I read this. Super 35 is anything but high quality. It now approaches acceptable quality thanks to finer grain film stocks and greater lens use flexibility, but the quality is actually closer to matted 1.85:1 AR films. Cameron chooses to use this format because of its flexibility and video-conversion friendliness. Same with Peter Jackson and the LOTR films.

Quentin Tarantino used a modified version of Super 35 for the Kill Bill films, which is a 3 perf 2.0:1 native AR, converted to 2.35:1 for theatrical release and widescreen DVD. The graininess particularly shows in the B & W segments, but is part of the look of the film.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
Thanks for the science class

That link above implies that the directors never intended for the full frame movie to be shown. But they must have been released with the directors consent. Stanley Kubrick allegedly prefered his movies in full frame and I'm sure I once read that Cameron actually preferred the full frame T2 to the 2:35:1 edit.
Author
Time
Post link
I do recall him saying that "The Abyss" DVD was non-anamorphic because he didn't like some aspects of the anamorphic master (little things, but we know what a perfectionist he can be), but I don't recall him saying anything about preferring 4x3 for T2.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: eros
Thanks for the science class

That link above implies that the directors never intended for the full frame movie to be shown. But they must have been released with the directors consent. Stanley Kubrick allegedly prefered his movies in full frame and I'm sure I once read that Cameron actually preferred the full frame T2 to the 2:35:1 edit.


Yet did not Cameron choose to release the 2:35 version in the theaters? If he preferred the full frame, why was that not the version we saw in the theaters?
Author
Time
Post link
I think we are talking about the difference bewteen his personal preference and his theatrical vision. They needn't be the same.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
I've also heard Cameron has stated that he prefers the full frame version of his movies. Was super 35 matted used for LotR? Is there a list of all of the matted widescreen films where you actually see "more" in the fullscreen version. Didn't the dvd lawsuit against MGM deal with this? The open matte films I can think of are.
E. T.
Back to the Future (1, 2 & 3)
Terminator 2 (super 35)
The Princess Bride
Spaceballs
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
Air Force One (super 35)
Waiting for Guffman
Titanic (super 35)

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
I think we are talking about the difference bewteen his personal preference and his theatrical vision. They needn't be the same.


But which one should be put on DVD?
Author
Time
Post link
I believe what Cameron has stated is that he used to prefer full frame transfers for home video back when all displays were 4:3. Stanley Kubrick cited similar preferences, which I read was due to how awful 2001 looked when it was panned and scanned. That's why everything he did after that was shot on Academy ratio stock and was composed not only to look good for matted theater showings, but also look good on home displays with the full frame in view. Now that the majority of displays sold are widescreen, I'm guessing both directors would have different opinions on the matter.

While the full frame transfers of Kubrick's later films are quite nice, I'd like to see a future release (possibly in HD on BluRay) that has both a full frame version in keeping with Kubrick's last known wishes and a matted, anamorphic transfer that reproduces their original theatrical aspect ratios.
Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
Post link
Jay is correct. The only place where a compromised frame [for pan-and-scan video transfers] is used in Cameron's films is where digital visual effects come into play. These effects shots were composed for a 2.0:1 A/R, so you'll see obvious panning and scanning in these shots. Why not do effects for the full Super 35 frame? Cost. It is much cheaper to do effects for only the part of the frame that is seen in theatres than for the full Super 35 frame. You'll notice if you watch T2 or Titanic in the "fullscreen" version [hate that term] that the top and bottom is opened only slightly for the effects shots, but you'll see much more of the top and bottom of the frame in non-effects shots.

As for Kubrick, I'm almost certain that if he'd seen what today's hi-def displays are capable of producing, he would have authorised video versions of his films with both open matte and matted transfers.
Note: E.T. was not open matte. Allen Daviau shot with a 1.66:1 hard matte in the camera and composed his shots in a loose 1.75:1 A/R.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
Widescreen movies look fine on my 4:3 TV.
Author
Time
Post link
Same, but not as good as film looks in a theatre. HD is getting close to that resolution.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
I know, but HD is still expensive and all of my 4:3 TVs are still in pretty good condition.
Author
Time
Post link
Same here.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Knightmessenger
Didn't the dvd lawsuit against MGM deal with this?

Yeah, but the case was dismissed because it was a ridiculous case.

I used to be very active on this forum. I’m not really anymore. Sometimes, people still want to get in touch with me about something, and that is great! If that describes you, please email me at [my username]ATgmailDOTcom.

Hi everybody. You’re all awesome. Keep up the good work.

Author
Time
Post link
Indeed it was. A fine example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
So E. T. wasn't open matte. Thanks for the correction and how did you find that out? Is there any way to find out if a particular film was shot open matte. Were most of the mgm films named in the lawsuit actually matted widescreen or were the people not even that bright? Does IMDB point it out when it lists the aspect ratio for a film?

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
Post link
Occasionally IMDB lists matted transfers but i think mots info on open or hard matting comes from simply reading about the shooting of a film, likely from American Cinematographer magazine.

what was this mgm dvd lawsuit about?
Author
Time
Post link
ET did look more wide on dvd then on laserdisc. i like the laserdisc aspect ratio better myself. i hate fake letterboxing especially the ones so prevelant in the mgm titles. it pisses me off just thinking about it
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Knightmessenger
So E. T. wasn't open matte. Thanks for the correction and how did you find that out? Is there any way to find out if a particular film was shot open matte. Were most of the mgm films named in the lawsuit actually matted widescreen or were the people not even that bright? Does IMDB point it out when it lists the aspect ratio for a film?

When E.T. was first released on video back in the late 80s, Video Review ran an article on the process of transferring the film to video. The subject of letterboxing was brought up, and since cinematographer Allen Daviau worked closely with the colorist on the transfer, he divulged in the article that he had composed the film in a loose 1.75:1 aspect ratio and shot with a 1.66:1 hard matte in the camera. It's just one of those things that has stuck in my head.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
wasnt it 1.85 on the dvd? the aspect ratio is screwed up then isnt it?
Author
Time
Post link
A/R is fine. Daviau knew the film would end up being shown 1.85:1 and in fact approved the 1.85:1 transfer for LD at the same time as teh first video release.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
yeah but the laserdisc isnt 1.85, the dvd is. if you have the laserdisc you would know what i'm talking about