logo Sign In

So, just how bad is pan & scan compared to widescreen?

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
First off, I appologize if this is the wrong section; I thought this would be the best place for it. A question for all you tech-savvy people here: I have the 1997 Special Edition of Star Wars in full screen; the only place I can see a major difference is the opening crawl. Can someone show me a few comparison shots, particularly those where you lose most???
thanks,
Kevin

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: russs15

The early "Time Compressed" NTSC version and PAL version in Pan and Scan
http://www.galactictradefederation.com/russ/002.jpg

The early "Full length" NTSC version in Pan and Scan
http://www.galactictradefederation.com/russ/003.jpg

The ITV broadcast version
http://www.galactictradefederation.com/russ/005.jpg


The Widescreen version for comparison
http://www.galactictradefederation.com/russ/004.jpg


In short, there were quite clearly different Pan and Scan cuts of the films as this one example shows.

The Pan and Scans are not "bad".

In fact, for most people, these versions were the ones first bought/recorded from TV in the 80's and played again and again until they fell apart.

After that, the widescreen versions just did not look right (on a normal 4:3 ratio TV) and only really look the part on the widescreen TV's that are now more common place in 2007.

Here is another page of interest.

4 - 5 - 3 - 1 - 6 - 2

Discuss…

Author
Time
Post link
Dear GOD, what am I missing?

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time
Post link
This:

http://widescreen.org/examples/starwars/index.shtml

Never, ever buy a non-OAR (original aspect ratio) film ever again.

I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently.

Author
Time
Post link
Cut me some slack, I was 5 at the time and my parents like full screen movies.

But yes, I see your point. Thank you for your information guys.

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time
Post link
Yep, as soon as widescreen versions of the VHS were available I bought them.
There's good in the Original Trilogy, and it's worth fighting for.
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
http://www.myspace.com/harlock415
Author
Time
Post link
In some movies, those kind of scenes, like when you're looking through binoculars, are widescreen with black bars in pan & scan versions, so they don't cut the picture, especially if you could lose some information (like a Tusken Raider). Too bad Star Wars isn't one of them.

And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.

Author
Time
Post link
All the Star Wars films are 2.35:1 hard matte. You lose "half the picture" in this way although with other full screen versions of films, you might lose less or even gain image (open matte).
Here's a site that compares the wide and full screen dvd's of the Harry Potter movies.
http://plum.cream.org/HP/index.htm

Does anyone know if these films were open matte?
Better off Dead (1.85) 1985
Lemony Snicket (1.85) 2004
Peter Pan (live action 2003) 2.40:1 but was it super 35 like Titanic?
Airplane & the Naked Gun trilogy (1.85)

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

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

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Knightmessenger
All the Star Wars films are 2.35:1 hard matte.


I don't think Star Wars films are 'hard matte' -- they're anamorphic. Anamorphic films use most of the film frame, so there's no real matting. Not like there would be for Super35.

I'd also like to see how you could shoot 'open matte' on an HD camera with anamorphic lenses.

Author
Time
Post link
http://www.usotsuki.info/aspect.jpg

Outermost: 2.3:1
Center: 16:9
Innermost: 4:3

You'll lose one of the heads in pan-scan. (For the record: On the THX VHS, the missing head is Tarkin's.)

"Right now the coffees are doing their final work." (Airi, Masked Rider Den-o episode 1)