«

I borrowed a bunch of movies from my brother, and noticed that his
copy of the 2nd Harry Potter is the full screen version. Is this a
P&S? or just open matte? I don't want to have to go through the hassle
of returning the movie to him and wait for Netflix to send me the
widescreen cut...

-Martin O'B

<< 2nd Harry Potter is the full screen version. Is this a
P&S? or just open matte? >>

More than likely a P&S.

>I borrowed a bunch of movies from my brother, and noticed that his
>copy of the 2nd Harry Potter is the full screen version. Is this a
>P&S? or just open matte? I don't want to have to go through the hassle
>of returning the movie to him and wait for Netflix to send me the
>widescreen cut...

Depends.

On the end credits, if it says "Filmed in Panavision," then it likely was
panned and scanned. Some clues as to how the film was photographed can lie in
light glares from the sun for instance: if the glares are circular, then it's
probably matted; if the glares are elliptical, then anamorphic lenses were used
in principal photography.

However, just because a film says "Panavision" doesn't mean that it was filmed
in Panavision. Sometimes, Panavision equipment is used to make films in matted
widescreen. Although, you can also have cameras from Arriflex and Otto Nemenz
used for shooting matted widescreen as well.

Another way to tell is to scrutinize both OAR and fullscreen versions,
especially if the film's OAR was 2.35:1. If you can see more info on the top
and bottom in the fullscreen version, it was matted widescreen. If you notice
that the sides are cropped off to about half of the original frame in the
fullscreen version, then it was dedicated widescreen.

However, do note that the preferred presentation of the film will always be the
OAR version. A film is composed with its intended aspect ratio in mind, so
fullscreening the movie either through removing the mattes or panning and
scanning will disrupt the cinematography, which is the frame's ability to give
you good visual information to tell the story.

In other words, films intended to be widescreen in the first place will be
ruined when made into fullscreen. Likewise, films made for the academy format
and the TV 4:3 format will be ruined when someone tries to make them look
widescreen. It's always best to view something the way it was intended to be
viewed. - Reinhart

"Martin O'Brien" <> wrote in message
news:...
> I borrowed a bunch of movies from my brother, and noticed that his
> copy of the 2nd Harry Potter is the full screen version. Is this a
> P&S? or just open matte? I don't want to have to go through the hassle
> of returning the movie to him and wait for Netflix to send me the
> widescreen cut...

The Harry Potter movies are shot in Super35. The majority of live-action
shots without special effects will likely be open matte, while most of
the SFX scenes will probably have cropping.

"Joshua Zyber" <> wrote ...
> "Martin O'Brien" <> wrote ...
> > I borrowed a bunch of movies from my brother, and noticed that his
> > copy of the 2nd Harry Potter is the full screen version. Is this a
> > P&S? or just open matte? I don't want to have to go through the hassle
> > of returning the movie to him and wait for Netflix to send me the
> > widescreen cut...
>
> The Harry Potter movies are shot in Super35. The majority of live-action
> shots without special effects will likely be open matte, while most of
> the SFX scenes will probably have cropping.

Not necessarily. Check this page:
http://plum.cream.org/HP/dvd.htm

Almost all the shots are recomposed, losing some image on the sides
while gaining some at the top and bottom. Even the FX shots aren't
a straight crop; they've been rendered for the recomposed frames.

-Jay

Who cares?
It is still not the ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIO!


--
There's only one hope left for the Star Trek movie franchise.
It is a letter located between P and R in the alphabet.
"Jay G" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Joshua Zyber" <> wrote ...
> > "Martin O'Brien" <> wrote ...
> > > I borrowed a bunch of movies from my brother, and noticed that his
> > > copy of the 2nd Harry Potter is the full screen version. Is this a
> > > P&S? or just open matte? I don't want to have to go through the hassle
> > > of returning the movie to him and wait for Netflix to send me the
> > > widescreen cut...
> >
> > The Harry Potter movies are shot in Super35. The majority of live-action
> > shots without special effects will likely be open matte, while most of
> > the SFX scenes will probably have cropping.
>
> Not necessarily. Check this page:
> http://plum.cream.org/HP/dvd.htm
>
> Almost all the shots are recomposed, losing some image on the sides
> while gaining some at the top and bottom. Even the FX shots aren't
> a straight crop; they've been rendered for the recomposed frames.
>
> -Jay
>
>

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:25:21 GMT, "Jim Fraas" <>
wrote:

>Who cares?
>It is still not the ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIO!


I care, since I borrowed the movie from someone, and it is a
fullscreen copy. I can just about tolerate watching an open matte
transfer, but P&S just empties my stomach.

Before making asinine statements like you made above, maybe you should
read the original post, which I wrote.

-Martin O'B