logo Sign In

Star Wars Pan Scan — Page 4

Author
Time
Post link
Sorry, man; I'm a bit passionate about aspect ratios, in case you hadn't already noticed, and working in a movie theatre has made me moreso.

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

Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, I too have an unhealthy addiction to aspect ratios. Is there some kind of club we can join? Like Aspect Ratio Anonymous?

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

Author
Time
Post link
"Hi. My name is Bad Karma and I'm addicted to aspect ratios."

"Welcome, Bad Karma."

"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
Post link
If there was, ~90% of the Home Theater Forum membership would be there.

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

Author
Time
Post link
Nah... I'd say at least 95%.

Robert A. Harris could lead it

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

Author
Time
Post link
Actually, no. Read this:
Litigating OAR

The studios have been getting away with it for years.

It all began when CinemaScope initially appeared in the early 1950s. While some theatres were newly equipped with much wider screens, some older houses merely cropped the top and bottom of their extant screen to create the illusion of width, albeit on a smaller canvas.

And those audiences which viewed widescreen films within the walls of these ill-prepared theatres were unknowingly the recipients of a well-prepared, yet deeply deceptive fraud. They were seeing a much smaller projected image than intended by the film's creators, and yet were paying full price for their tickets.

When widescreen home video came into play, many laserdiscs were proudly emblazoned with banners promising "Deluxe Widescreen Edition."

But it wasn't the widescreen edition that was deluxe, but more properly the pan and scan full screen edition. It was the full screen which needed additional processing, time and the investment of additional monies for creation. The widescreen edition was simply the film as it had been seen in theatres. No big deal here. Repetitive of the theatrical experience and a waste of screen real estate with those black bars.

And on to what I understand is the subject to be heard by the courts, and which will most likely make its way to the Supreme Court as an issue of violated Constitutional rights.

I have been shocked to learn that many "widescreen" releases, well...

Aren't.

Well, they are, but then again, they aren't.

Anyone who spends a bit of time reading The Bits or HTF will likely understand that every one of the studios is perpetuating a fraud upon the consumers with their continual pushing of "widescreen" and the use of the ubiquitous term "OAR."

For the uninitiated, OAR stands for Original Aspect Ratio, as relates to the shape of a motion picture image as projected within the confines of a motion picture theatre via a projection system.

Those of you who have read about the subject understand that the entire OAR concept is another fraud being perpetuated by the studios.

Motion pictures as properly projected in the real world are NOT RECTANGULAR!!!

The actual area of projected image is TRAPAZOIDAL!!

Therefore if a film is to be presented properly in its OAR, then the resultant image as seen on a television device MUST BE TRAPAZOIDAL in shape.

If it is not, then the software is a fraudulent release.

The current suit doesn't seem to bring these facts to the fore. It understandably attempts to simplify the problem in relating that a widescreen image is many cases simply a cropped (at top and bottom) flat image.

And the suit in question correctly identifies this fraudulent activity by the studios via which image information is stolen from the licensee of the home video rights.

In short, the licensee is getting much less than they bargained for.

Rather than receiving more information on the sides, the image being delivered has, in many cases, been shorn at the top and bottom yielding less information.

I applaud the fact that this situation will finally be heard by the courts. Hopefully the public, which has been mistreated and literally stolen from over the years will somehow be compensated, and that these deceptive practices will end.

Robert Harris

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

Author
Time
Post link
So which movies have been released incorrectly and which ones are true widescreen releases? I know all widescreen release aren't like this. I ve done comparisons on some movies (The Superman DVD for example) between the widescreen and pan and scan and the widescreen clearly as more information. And maybe its an optical illusion but when I watch a movie in the theater, the shape looks rectangular to me.

Another question, about the those Cinemascopes be shown on a small screen size than intented by the films creator. did the smaller image still contain all the information of the orginal print? If so than it is just another form letterboxing and not a fraud. Unless you perfer a bigger screen size with less info of course. Because thats the only other way the those old theaters could the movie. Just like with standard TVs.
Author
Time
Post link
What Harris is getting @ is this: when you see a movie in a theatre, the projection booth is high above your head and angled down @ the screen, creating a trapezoidal image. A decent theatre will file the aperture plate to compensate for this so that the image displayed is a rectangle. Filmmakers know this and build a certain amount of give into their framing so nothing will get cut off.
However, some people have become so obsessive about the film being shown in the proper dimensions (the correct numerical ratio) that some transfers have actually cut off image information in order to appease these people. This is what pisses Harris (and myself, for that matter) off.
Here's a link to some good examples: Letterbox Lunacy!

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

Author
Time
Post link
Well all I can say for myself is that I just want all the information that was up on the screen in the theater to be on the DVD. Nothing more, nothing less. And if you did that then, by logic the dimensions of the DVD would have to equal the dimensions of the movie when shown in the theater.
Author
Time
Post link
With all this digital hi-res TV talk nowadays, and digital recording and stuff... Couldn't the movie makers, studios and TV statios agree on a standart universal format? A widescreen standart ratio, that would be use in every movie and TV show? And every movie theater and TV would follow that screen ratio. And that would end all those problems.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
With all this digital hi-res TV talk nowadays, and digital recording and stuff... Couldn't the movie makers, studios and TV statios agree on a standart universal format? A widescreen standart ratio, that would be use in every movie and TV show? And every movie theater and TV would follow that screen ratio. And that would end all those problems.



No, bad idea.

Different directors can choose whatever aspect ratio they want. That's an artistic trait of a film.

My stance on revising fan edits.

Author
Time
Post link
They are, however, working on a digital projection standard, so that Lucas' dream of widespread digital cinema can become reality.

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

Author
Time
Post link
Gundark, I saw what you were referring to when I saw Brother Bear yesterday. And it annoyed the hell out of me. The DVD keeps the same "aspect ratio" vertically speaking (the black bars on the top and the bottom of the screen remain the same throughout the movie), however, for the first 20 minutes, there are black bars on the sides of the screen as well. God, it was awful. I just could not get over that. I would've rather had the screen shift from one aspect ratio to the other via compressing the top and bottom bars than by adding the side bars.
"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
Post link
Bossk I've never seen this movie but, I assume when it was shown in the theaters, the picture did not grow taller, it grew wider. So if you change ratios, like you're saying the movie would not be shown the way it was in the theaters.
Author
Time
Post link
It did grow wider in theatres. The prints were prepared in scope, so the first 24 minutes of the movie had black bars on the sides. Of course, as per the article by Robert Harris above, the image was trapezoidal rather than rectangular.

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

Author
Time
Post link
May i just say that in some cases you get more of the image information on the DVD than you get in
cinema prints.

If you shoot super35 film without any hard matting (masking)
you get dimensions of 24.89mm x 18.67mm
the aspect ratio of that is 1.3333 (a lots of 3's)
This is how a lot of TV material is shot (full frame), and a lot of spherical films.
Spherical films (1.65:1 and 1.85:1) are usually shot in camera with a full
frame of those dimensions i mentioned there.And then when you get to the internegative stage of
the intermediate process they put a hard matte on the image of the internegative
in the film printer.
So on the prints you get 1.85:1 ratio. The images are "letterboxed".But not only
on the up and down sides,but allso on the left of the image.
The image area is reduced from 24mm to about 21mm of width.

And when they make a video transfer they use the interpositive (which is not masked yet)
and they mask the image areas digitally to match the aspect ratio of the prints and put it on
a DVD.

BUT..

Often for the television releases and some DVD releases (like Kubricks's "The shining")
they put it in the television aspect ratio,the original ratio as it was in the motion picture camera.
You get full 24.8x18.7 millimeters of the image on your TV screen. And you see a lot
more image area than it was on the masked prints.
I remember some video releases had problems with microphone booms because of that.

Most of the time when you see a full screen video release it is pan scanned,
but not always,sometimes you see all from the film prinhts plus additional image
area that was cut out of film prints.

With cinemascope films this is not the case. Nothing is masked in the lab on those films.
You get 21.9 mm x 18.7 mm image area on film prints and in widescreen video,unless
it is a pan and scann edition (which really sucks with cinemascope films)

Anyway,my point is,when you see a full screen image of a non-anamorphic film next time,
don't automatically think that you are seeing less that the director intended.
Sometimes you are seeing more than he intended.
Author
Time
Post link
Very true. I've found, however, that a lot of films are not hard matted before they reach the theatres; the only ones I've seen recently that were were Home On the Range (hard matte of 1.66:1), Spy Kids 3-D, Teacher's Pet and Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas. Most flat live-action films are not hard matted when they reach my projection booth.

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

Author
Time
Post link
So then you matte them with an aperture plate?
Author
Time
Post link
That is correct; unfortunately I only have plate settings for 2.35 and 1.85, because those are the only formats the screen masking will accomodate.

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

Author
Time
Post link
Theforce.net says that the Passion of the Christ is looking for a TV deal.

Does this mean they'll be showing a butchered pan-n-scan version? Or is there chance for a letterbox presentation?

My stance on revising fan edits.

Author
Time
Post link
Well if it is for SD TV,it will probably be pan scan,and for HD TV it would probably be mild letterboxing,just like on the DVD
But you never know, allthough it is rare that cinemascope films get released in letterbox on TV,
there have been cases of that too (like Alien 3)

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: cubebox
Well if it is for SD TV,it will probably be pan scan,and for HD TV it would probably be mild letterboxing,just like on the DVD
But you never know, allthough it is rare that cinemascope films get released in letterbox on TV,
there have been cases of that too (like Alien 3)


That's what I hate about broudcasting.

You need to have a special TV to pick up widescreen signals.
I'd like to have a proper movie shown without it being butchered without having to pay a lot more for a high-definition TV!

My stance on revising fan edits.

Author
Time
Post link
Some cable specialty channels broadcast films in widescreen. In Canada, Space broadcast the original Planet of the Apes in 2.35:1, and TCM in the US has garnered a reputation for showing widescreen films in their proper aspect ratios. There is hope, and HD sets will be dropping in price soon anyway.

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

Author
Time
Post link
Hal..

The best thing about HDTV is not really the aspect ratio so much as the resolution is.
The resolution is 1920 pixels by 1080 lines. This is a very nice resolution,and
films are shown with much more detail and clarity.
I think that kind of resolution is worth buying a HDTV TV set.

This is a great thing about movies shot on film. With every new generation of electronic
equipment films just keep looking better and better. On the other hand,
films like episode2 that are shot on HD video will always look the same.
Today's HD television systems have the capability to broadcast episode 2
in full resolution. I think that cinema experience should always be better than
TV experience. Episode 2 will never look better than today no matter what
kind of new TV standard appears.

I can imagine how wonderful episode4 will look on in 40 years when they introduce some
new 4K TV standard (unless of course Lucas scans all his film at 2K and burns the negatives or something).
It is very ironical that Lucas's newest film is worse in image resolution and tonal range,
worse than some film he did 27 years ago.
Here of course i'm not counting episode1 that was butchered with 2K resolution
SFX work.

Author
Time
Post link
Very few HDTVs support resolution that high. Even then such models are expensive at the momment. Mine is only capable of 800 x 540. Still quite a bit better then an analog televisions 640 x 240