logo Sign In

Star Wars Pan Scan — Page 3

Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
Actually,you're both right; most modern theatres aren't equipped to show 4:3 films,but there are a handful that can. I have one here in Edmonton that is run by a theatre society. As a side note, it's the theatre where I saw Bubba Ho-Tep.


Alright, I have another question. Lets say you're a director planning to make a movie. You're considering using a certain format in the filming of the movie. However, only a handfull of theaters can show a movie in that format. So if the you use that format, in most theaters the movie will not be shown correctly. With this in mind why would you make a film using that format?


Another thing, I'm no expert but how hard could be to take a 4:3 film and create a copy in a format that modern theaters are equiped to show and have black bars on the sides ? I know I probably sounding stupid but it just doesn't seem that difficult to me.

Author
Time
It's not difficult, but you'd lose a lot of film resolution, because you'd either be (1) matting the sides to make it fit a flat screen, which would reduce the size of the frame by 50%, or (2) matting the sides to fit a scope screen, with pretty much the same result. In other words, grainy as hell.
BTW, Bubba Ho-Tep was a lot of fun. Apparently, since Coscarelli decided to distribute the film himself, there's only 6 or 7 prints out there. I consider myself very lucky, especially since I only paid $6.

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

Author
Time
Ok, this is going make me sound real stupid, why would you lose resolution and why does it make the picture grainy? And it still begs the first question, which is, why would a director choose to film a movie in a format that couldn't be used in most theaters thereby making it imposible to have the movie to shown correctly in those theaters?
Author
Time
With respect to Stanley Kubrick, the reason he filmed in 4:3 was in anticipation of his films being shown on television. He didn't want any of his film to be lost in the cropping process. Why risk it? So he just filmed them so the issue never arose.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
That's logical I suppose he did make his films before letterboxing got popular, But I would want My movie to able to show properly when up on the big screen, when making its premier, when people are buying tickets for it, no watching it on a small tv for free. But that is just me.
Author
Time
I dunno, I can't decide between watching my widescreen SEs or my 1995 THX-remastered pan scan set (the ones with Vader, Stormtrooper, and Yoda on the covers). Do I watch the films I grew up with and sacrifice image quality and the "whole picture" or do I watch the technically-superior SEs with annoying changes? Lately I've been watching the SEs just because I can't stand watching ANY movies in pan and scan these days, even though that's how I've been watching the original trilogy all these years. There are just too many scenes (e.g., every Milennium Falcon cockpit shot, last shot in ANH) where the pan and scan "cutoffs" are too noticeable after watching the same shot in widescreen. The only way to see the original trilogy in widescreen now is to acquire one of the 1995 widescreen collector's sets, which are going on E-Bay for upwards of $50, which I'm just not willing to plunk down. Despite my predilection towards widescreen, I will NOT be buying the SE DVDs when they come out, just because I don't want to give any $$$ towards encouraging Lucas to completely ignore his original versions.

I'd also just like to say that's it good to see that there's so many other SW fans out there who want the original trilogy back on home video. It's just too bad that Lucas has completely alienated his core fan base.

-Matt
Author
Time
In response to Kubrick, he's an artist and I don't think he would choose what ratio to film in based on what people would buy. Although his last three were full frame, pretty much everything he did before that besides Paths of Glory was widescreen. Dr. Strangelove is actually multi-aspect-ratio.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
He didn't frame his last several movies based on "what people would buy". He did it based on how it would show on TV. This is documented. He knew that life on the big screen was limited. Life on the small screen afterwards goes on forever. Plan for the bigger audience... TV. And the reason why he didn't do it with his earlier films, I suppose, was studio influence. Later in his career, he had more power of his own and made a decision of his own.

Max, the THX set you are referring to is called the Faces Edition. That's how we refer to it on this site in case you happen to read the name and wonder what it is. It's a shame you weren't able to get the Faces Edition in widescreen. It is choice. Both in terms of picture and packaging. I own it. I love it.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Also, Kubrick did create a safety zone in his compositions, since he knew that most theatres would show his films in 1.85:1. He merely eschewed 2.35:1 and sterophonic sound because he knew he was producing material for 150-seat crapoplex theatres, who wouldn't be able to do justice to his films in terms of presentation.

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

Author
Time
How is Doctor Strangelove multi-aspect-ratio?
Author
Time
I'm assuming it means that the DVD comes in both fullscreen and widescreen. But I could be wrong.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Warbler
How is Doctor Strangelove multi-aspect-ratio?


It isn't, really. Kubrick did apply a variety of mattes during shooting, but it's still 1.37:1 (Academy ratio).

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

Author
Time
Wasn't Kubrick a noted fan of Academy Ratio though? I'd heard that he was very distraught over what happened to the composition of 2001 when it was cropped for TV, and that certainly would be one reason for him to go with 1.37:1, but I also think I read that he preferred Academy Ratio in the first place.

Kubrick definitely composed his shots with both 1.85:1 and 1.37:1 (roughly equivalent to 4:3) in mind, but I think he focused on 1.37:1 more. I remember thinking how cropped the image looked when I went to see Eyes Wide Shut in the theater. The DVD presentation is much better (side note: grab the uncensored UK version if your DVD player is multi-region capable).
Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
Quote

Originally posted by: Warbler
How is Doctor Strangelove multi-aspect-ratio?


It isn't, really. Kubrick did apply a variety of mattes during shooting, but it's still 1.37:1 (Academy ratio).


No, it's not. Maybe I'm not understanding you, but it changes aspect ratios for sure. It may not be as noticeable on TVs due to overscanning, but it was done to impose a sense of confusion and paranioa in the audience, much like the wine glass in A Clockwork Orange.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
What I'm saying is that Kubrick did shoot with hard mattes for some sequences, but the film is largely 1.37:1; in fact, if I remember correctly from the last time I saw it (~8 years ago), the shot with Slim Pickens riding the bomb looks to be 1.66:1, but once Pickens enters the frame, his image actually overlaps the mattes, showing that Kubrick is, once again, trying to confuse us. The most correct presentation for this film would still be 1.37:1, as it would preserve this moment as well as allowing the other scenes to be shown correctly.

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

Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
What I'm saying is that Kubrick did shoot with hard mattes for some sequences, but the film is largely 1.37:1; in fact, if I remember correctly from the last time I saw it (~8 years ago), the shot with Slim Pickens riding the bomb looks to be 1.66:1, but once Pickens enters the frame, his image actually overlaps the mattes, showing that Kubrick is, once again, trying to confuse us. The most correct presentation for this film would still be 1.37:1, as it would preserve this moment as well as allowing the other scenes to be shown correctly.


That's true for Slim Pickens, he was shot at a 1.37:1 ratio as opposed to the background, but showing it 1.37:1 would cut off the scenes that were hard matted, so showing it in varying aspect ratios is the correct way of viewing it.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
So the movie just bounces back and forth between aspect ratios? How weird. Do any other films do this?
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: bad_karma24
Quote

Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
What I'm saying is that Kubrick did shoot with hard mattes for some sequences, but the film is largely 1.37:1; in fact, if I remember correctly from the last time I saw it (~8 years ago), the shot with Slim Pickens riding the bomb looks to be 1.66:1, but once Pickens enters the frame, his image actually overlaps the mattes, showing that Kubrick is, once again, trying to confuse us. The most correct presentation for this film would still be 1.37:1, as it would preserve this moment as well as allowing the other scenes to be shown correctly.


That's true for Slim Pickens, he was shot at a 1.37:1 ratio as opposed to the background, but showing it 1.37:1 would cut off the scenes that were hard matted, so showing it in varying aspect ratios is the correct way of viewing it.

But the only way to show it in varying aspect ratios is to present it 1.37:1, since this is the size of the overall frame. Hard matting is like letterboxing; you'll only see what you were meant to see. The image will change sizes within the frame, but the frame size remains constant.
As for other movies that switch aspect ratios, here's 4: Brainstorm (the movie itself was shot flat, but sequences involving the brainwave device were shot 70mm 6-track), Fantasia 2000 (Sorcerer's Apprentice is shown in its correct 1.37:1 AR), Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course (scenes with Steve & Terri rescuing animals are 1.85:1; the surrounding story is 2.35:1), and Brother Bear (first 24 minutes are 1.85:1; the screen widens to 2.35:1 after Kenai's transformation into a bear).

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

Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
Quote

Originally posted by: bad_karma24
Quote

Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
What I'm saying is that Kubrick did shoot with hard mattes for some sequences, but the film is largely 1.37:1; in fact, if I remember correctly from the last time I saw it (~8 years ago), the shot with Slim Pickens riding the bomb looks to be 1.66:1, but once Pickens enters the frame, his image actually overlaps the mattes, showing that Kubrick is, once again, trying to confuse us. The most correct presentation for this film would still be 1.37:1, as it would preserve this moment as well as allowing the other scenes to be shown correctly.


That's true for Slim Pickens, he was shot at a 1.37:1 ratio as opposed to the background, but showing it 1.37:1 would cut off the scenes that were hard matted, so showing it in varying aspect ratios is the correct way of viewing it.

But the only way to show it in varying aspect ratios is to present it 1.37:1, since this is the size of the overall frame. Hard matting is like letterboxing; you'll only see what you were meant to see. The image will change sizes within the frame, but the frame size remains constant.
As for other movies that switch aspect ratios, here's 4: Brainstorm (the movie itself was shot flat, but sequences involving the brainwave device were shot 70mm 6-track), Fantasia 2000 (Sorcerer's Apprentice is shown in its correct 1.37:1 AR), Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course (scenes with Steve & Terri rescuing animals are 1.85:1; the surrounding story is 2.35:1), and Brother Bear (first 24 minutes are 1.85:1; the screen widens to 2.35:1 after Kenai's transformation into a bear).


Ah... now I see what you mean.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
Glad we're finally on the same page.

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

Author
Time


anyone else feeling this?
lol
"Never. I'll never turn to the darkside. You've failed your highness. I am a jedi, like my father before me."
Author
Time
Yep.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Aw, come on! It wasn't that bad.
Have to add another to the changing aspect ratios list: Home on the Range. It changes very briefly to 2.35:1 for a dream sequence.

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

Author
Time
Not just the changing aspect ratios. That much I got. It's all your techspeak that's losing me. The two of you going back and forth. It's a bit dizzying.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com