«

>It's called a mistake. It happens.

Yeah, but it's not a mistake when it would be covered by the 4x3 mattes.
--------------------------------
"That's the worst reverse-acting I've ever seen!" -Sam Raimi

Black Locust <> wrote:
: In article <3fd93d90$0$169$>, lid wrote:

[snip]

: > He does mention the first season being 16mm but nothing about
: > widescreen. Technically I guess one could argue that his claim that
: > "no one even noticed it was 16mm" is not exactly true, but that's
: > kinda grasping for "technical errors" I think
:
: You sure? I thought he said that no widescreen versions of the first
: season exist because it was shot on 16mm and the negatives for 16mm film
: is 1.33:1(though according to others it's actually 1.66:1). I tend to
: have a shoddy memory at times so I may be confusing what he said.

I haven't listened to it since I got the DVDs but I'm (almost) positive
he doesn't mention anything about widescreen.

Regular 16mm is 1.33:1 which can be cropped to whatever aspect ratio
is wanted, though with a loss of resolution, but Buffy was shot in
super16mm which is 1.66:1. This was matted down to 1.78:1 and they
composed for a 1.33:1 frame inside the center of this. This 1.33:1
frame would have almost the same size as a regular 16mm 4:3 frame,
because super16 gains the extra width by using the area previously
occupied by an optical soundtrack aswell as one set of perforations.


/Lars

In article <alxCb.196$ >,
"Joshua Zyber" <> wrote:

> All three Austin Powers movies were photographed the same. Both parts 2
> and 3 have a real 2.35:1 aspect ratio on DVD. Only the first movie has
> had the mattes lifted.

Wasn't there a "full screen" version of Goldmember released with the
mattes removed?
--
BL

"Black Locust" <> wrote in message
news:bl2112-...
> Were Austin Powers 1 and 2 also shot on Super 35 for a 2.35:1
theatrical
> version? I know AP 2 has a 1.85:1(or 1.90:1 maybe) on the DVD
transfer.

All three Austin Powers movies were photographed the same. Both parts 2
and 3 have a real 2.35:1 aspect ratio on DVD. Only the first movie has
had the mattes lifted.

"Black Locust" <> wrote in message
news:bl2112-...
> > There is a difference between "open-matte" (where the mattes can be
> > removed when doing a full-frame video transfer), and "hard-matte"
(which
> > means that the matte was actually placed over the camera gate during
> > filming and blocked light from exposing the top and bottom of the
film
> > frame). A movie shot with a hard-matte obviously cannot have those
> > mattes removed after-the-fact, and so a full-frame video transfer
will
> > need to be cropped on the sides.
>
> I see. So it only has to be cropped for a center extraction? The P&S
> process isn't necessary for hard-matte 1.85:1?

Well, if the hard-matted 1.85:1 picture has important detail on the
extreme edges of any particular frame, panning and scanning may still be
necessary in some shots, just not as severe as you'd see on a 2.35:1
movie.

> > Hard-matting is very rare these days, for the simple reason that
> > open-matte just makes video transfers easier. Sadly, even with the
> > popularity of widescreen on DVD, full-frame video transfers are
still
> > the rule of the day on VHS, television, and other secondary markets
such
> > as airlines or hotels.
>
> But why would the studios and film makers care about these secondary
> markets anymore? Most of their bread and butter comes from the
> theatrical and subsequent DVD releases. Hell, didn't Disney make more
> money on DVD sales of Finding Nemo than it did for the theatrical run?

Think of it this way: If you've just spent a couple years of your life
dedicated to putting a movie together, and when it comes time for video
the studio is forcing you to do a full-frame transfer for VHS and
television whether you like it or not, wouldn't you prefer that the
full-frame transfer is at least watchable? A certain percentage of the
population are going to be introduced to your film through those venues,
and if the full-frame transfer wrecks all your shots those people
probably aren't going to think too highly of your filmmaking skills.

It's a matter of damage control. The full-frame transfer is an
unfortunate necessity, so you might as well minimize the harm it does.

> > Here's a web page with a simplified summary:
> >
> > http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml
> >
> > Take a look also at the original (non-Superbit) DVD for The Fifth
> > Element. On the full-frame side, most of the shots without special
> > effects in them have the mattes lifted to expose a considerable
amount
> > of picture above and below the widescreen frame, but as soon as a
> > special effect scene comes up the picture is badly cropped and p&s.
>
> Uhh. I'm afraid there's no examples of The Fifth Element there.

No, those were meant to be two separate thoughts. First look at the web
page, and then rent that DVD for another comparison.

"Black Locust" <> wrote in message
news:bl2112-...
> > All three Austin Powers movies were photographed the same. Both
parts 2
> > and 3 have a real 2.35:1 aspect ratio on DVD. Only the first movie
has
> > had the mattes lifted.
>
> Wasn't there a "full screen" version of Goldmember released with the
> mattes removed?

Was there? Perhaps so. I was only talking about the widescreen disc.

Waterperson77, says...
> then I guess no one here should go by "director's intent" for determining the
> intended OAR of a movie since directors aren't cinematographers, and therefore,
> don't know what they're doing.

Your mistake here is in assuming that TV directors and movie directors
are the same thing. They are not. Whedon was directing television, which
is an entirely different level of involvement from film. TV is a
producer's medium. They have much more control over an episode than a
director. TV directors primarily work with the actors. In television,
you may have 10 or more different directors in a season, some doing only
a single epsiode. So they are there to solely focus on the actor's
performance, and to make sure that there is enough coverage for the
editor to cut the show together. The producers and crew focus on the
technical details, since they return from episode to episode. I've met
directors who had no idea whether the show was being shot in 16mm or
35mm, and didn't care. That's not what they were there for.

So in this case, it is entirely reasonable for the director and writer
of an episode to not be familiar with the technical details.

>Your mistake here is in assuming that TV directors and movie directors
>are the same thing. They are not.

accepted and agreed. from that statement and your other statements below.

>TV is a
>producer's medium. They have much more control over an episode than a
>director.

accepted and agreed. I was wondering about that. At first, I had always thought
that the "executive producer"s had the most control over tv shows.

But after reading so many people in this newsgroup saying about how the
director has most control over movies, I wasn't so sure aabout tv any longer
and thought that maybe the directors had most control over tv shows.

But now I know. I accept and agree with your statements correcting me.