Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Fantasia 60th Anniv. - available in Widescreen?

Reply
Thread Tools

Fantasia 60th Anniv. - available in Widescreen?

 
 
CAndersen (Kimba)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-15-2004
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Eli) wrote:

>Full screen videos of the "open matte" movies will contain the whole
>picture while widescreen versions will be "vertical pan & scans" of
>the fullscreen original. The widescreen DVD fad will live on for a
>while, aided by people unaware of the history of the medium, but it's
>years are numbered. There will probably always be a few widescreen
>releases (just as there are on VHS) of movies the director screwed up
>filming so badly that a good P&S is impossible, but they will be the
>exception rather than the rule.


Nice try at bending reality to your will. And I have to admit I tend to
look favorably upon "open matte" video transfers. But the future of TV is
16:9, so it's just not going to go the way you say.



--
Reply address munged. You can figure it out.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Steve(JazzHunter)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-15-2004
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:40:38 -0500, "CAndersen (Kimba)"
<KimbaWLion_aol.com@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) (Eli) wrote:
>
>>Full screen videos of the "open matte" movies will contain the whole
>>picture while widescreen versions will be "vertical pan & scans" of
>>the fullscreen original. The widescreen DVD fad will live on for a
>>while, aided by people unaware of the history of the medium, but it's
>>years are numbered. There will probably always be a few widescreen
>>releases (just as there are on VHS) of movies the director screwed up
>>filming so badly that a good P&S is impossible, but they will be the
>>exception rather than the rule.

>
>Nice try at bending reality to your will. And I have to admit I tend to
>look favorably upon "open matte" video transfers. But the future of TV is
>16:9, so it's just not going to go the way you say.


It's too bad, he got the actual dates and details of the widespread
adoption of widescreen film correct, and even the editorial comment
about non-widescreen movies of the 50's often being better films than
widescreen spectaculars was true, but saying that Pan and Scan was
ever planned for by the director or that we would go "back" to Academy
ratio is just pure fantasy.

For the record, widescreen was used for "Napoleon" in 1927, and 62mm
2:1 aspect films were actually used by Fox between 1929 and 1932. "The
Bat" from that era is available on DVD.

. Steve .

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2004

"Eli" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
: The present "widescreen" formats are a relic of that battle
: which ended with 'B' movies becoming less popular and generally higher
: quality films. But many studios did not return to the 'academy ratio'
: but continued to make widescreen productions.

====================
That would be ALL studios, actually.
====================

: the widescreen movies are always (with a few mistakes by
: inexperienced directors) shot such that a "pan and scan" transfer can
: be made which increases the immediacy and presence of the movie on a
: small screen while preserving all relevant picture elements.

===================
Pure fantasy. Most GOOD directors don't give a damn about a P&S version.
Some of the best even brag that they film such that a P&S version will be lousy.
=====================

: Thus the pan and scan (P&S) is really the preferred video format and an
: improvement over the widescreen movie (at least on a TV set).

=======================
Only for you and a minority of other people.
WS still outsells FS and most movies are only released in OAR (WS).

By the way, you must be using an antiquated TV format.............newer TVs are 16:9
(widescreen)
============================

: More recently, many studios are returning to academy ratio.

======================
Name one?
======================

: It is often called "open matte" probably to remind the director that
: the top and bottom of the picture will be chopped off in the theatre.

=========================
The theatrical presentation is the actual presentation.
===========================

: Full screen videos of the "open matte" movies will contain the whole
: picture while widescreen versions will be "vertical pan & scans" of
: the fullscreen original.

==========================
You sure have that wrong. The whole intended picture is the theatrical presentation.
You also know very little about CGI, apparently.
You also seem to ignore the fact that quite often, the VHS (and now FS DVD) releases
are actually panned and scanned from the matted version.
They look terrible,
===========================

: The widescreen DVD fad will live on for a
: while, aided by people unaware of the history of the medium, but it's
: years are numbered.

=============================
How long have you been locked in that closet?
=============================

: There will probably always be a few widescreen
: releases (just as there are on VHS) of movies the director screwed up
: filming so badly that a good P&S is impossible, but they will be the
: exception rather than the rule.

====================
Dream on................



 
Reply With Quote
 
CAndersen (Kimba)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2004
"Richard C." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The whole intended picture is the theatrical presentation.


Considering that the theatrical audience is tiny compared to the video
audience, and a movie's time in theaters is very brief compared to its
lifespan on video and, most importantly, most of a movie's earnings come
from video releases, I wonder if that statement is true in general any
more.


--
Reply address munged. You can figure it out.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Justin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2004
CAndersen (Kimba) wrote on [Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:34:00 -0500]:
> "Richard C." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>The whole intended picture is the theatrical presentation.

>
> Considering that the theatrical audience is tiny compared to the video
> audience, and a movie's time in theaters is very brief compared to its
> lifespan on video and, most importantly, most of a movie's earnings come
> from video releases, I wonder if that statement is true in general any
> more.
>


Yup.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dick Sidbury
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2004
CAndersen (Kimba) wrote:
> "Richard C." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>The whole intended picture is the theatrical presentation.

>


.... snip...

> most importantly, most of a movie's earnings come
> from video releases, I wonder if that statement is true in general any
> more.
>
>


What does this mean? total income to video stores for rentals is
greater than total ticket sales on movies? Or more movies make more
from video than from theatrical release? Or what?

I suspect that studios still make more from theatrical release than they
do from video since they make a large percentage of the theatrical
income but a much smaller percentage of video.

dick

 
Reply With Quote
 
CAndersen (Kimba)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2004
Dick Sidbury <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>What does this mean? total income to video stores for rentals is
>greater than total ticket sales on movies? Or more movies make more
>from video than from theatrical release? Or what?


One example:
"Home Video/DVD revenue is calculated as a percentage of Theatrical Box
Office revenue and at this time is about 215% of Theatrical Box Office."
"TV syndication typically generates about 50% to 200% of Theatrical Box
Office over the long-term."
http://firestoneentertainment.com/do...penditures.htm

And if the whole intended picture is theatrical presentation, then why are
we getting
"Professional projectionists are as scarce as elevator operators, and
their hastily trained replacements too often use the wrong lens or leave
the house lights up as they run a dozen or more films singlehandedly.
Theaters showing a title on two screens shuffle the reels of a single
print between projectors, inflicting scratches and pops."
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1526/3408507.html
(which matches my theater-going experiences exactly, and I'm talking about
the _better_ theaters in this area.)

So if the artistic intent of a modern day movie is meant to be realized in
a theater, my question is, Why? That idea matches neither the economic
realities nor the present-day quality of the movie-going experience.


--
Reply address munged. You can figure it out.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Kohary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2004
"CAndersen (Kimba)" <KimbaWLion_aol.com@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Mike Kohary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >> So if the artistic intent of a modern day movie is meant to be realized

in
> >> a theater, my question is, Why? That idea matches neither the economic
> >> realities nor the present-day quality of the movie-going experience.

> >
> >Neither of which has anything to do with the art of filmmaking, and

therein
> >probably lies your answer.

>
> Ah, so movies are not made for the audience. OK.


Non-responsive. I'm not sure what it is that you're trying to figure out.
Historically, movies are made to be presented on a theater screen. These
days, it's a little more complex than that, but the theater experience is
still the standard, probably more out of tradition than anything else. When
that either becomes inconvenient to the point that no one attends, or fiscal
suicide, that may change - but until then, why would it? You seem to be
suggesting that conditions already exist that would mandate such a change,
but I think the question you're asking is phrased backwards. It's not, why
is the artistic intent of a movie meant to be realized in a theater? It's,
why should the artistic intent of a movie be meant for any other medium?

Ultimately, movies are intended to be displayed in a variety of media
settings. I would think that a good director would simply make his film,
and not be overly concerned with adapting it for a wide variety of viewing
environments.

Mike

 
Reply With Quote
 
Black Locust
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
(E-Mail Removed) (Eli) wrote:

> The "academy ratio" was universally accepted as the best and proper
> aspect ratio up to the 1950s when the studios began to feel the
> pressure from television. Even black and white TV was putting a dent
> into the movie box office. The studios decided to try fighting back
> and one of the methods used was to experiment with new and bizarre
> aspect ratios. This increased the differentiation between TV and
> movies. The present "widescreen" formats are a relic of that battle
> which ended with 'B' movies becoming less popular and generally higher
> quality films. But many studios did not return to the 'academy ratio'
> but continued to make widescreen productions. At the same time, the
> studios were (and are) very aware of the market for TV and later VHS
> and DVD so the widescreen movies are always (with a few mistakes by
> inexperienced directors) shot such that a "pan and scan" transfer can
> be made which increases the immediacy and presence of the movie on a
> small screen while preserving all relevant picture elements. Thus the
> pan and scan (P&S) is really the preferred video format and an
> improvement over the widescreen movie (at least on a TV set). But
> best of all is a movie like Fantasia made before the battle so that
> the academy ratio is preserved even without the need for a P&S
> transfer. More recently, many studios are returning to academy ratio.
> It is often called "open matte" probably to remind the director that
> the top and bottom of the picture will be chopped off in the theatre.
> Full screen videos of the "open matte" movies will contain the whole
> picture while widescreen versions will be "vertical pan & scans" of
> the fullscreen original. The widescreen DVD fad will live on for a
> while, aided by people unaware of the history of the medium, but it's
> years are numbered. There will probably always be a few widescreen
> releases (just as there are on VHS) of movies the director screwed up
> filming so badly that a good P&S is impossible, but they will be the
> exception rather than the rule.


This is so cute. Reading this post feels like a time warp back to the
1980's. I like your retro style thinking man. You've definitely got
"video tape" rental loser stamped all over yourself.
--
BL
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2004

"Max Christoffersen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:BC57878D.6BB6%(E-Mail Removed)...
:
: Max Christoffersen
:
========================
Proof positive from max's mouth:
"Nothing closet about it. I'm a *HUGE* P&S fan."
from newsgroup post 5/18/2002 Message-ID: ac7a8e$ff2$(E-Mail Removed)



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTD: Fantasia 2000 Disc 2 Dragon DVD Video 3 01-04-2005 05:57 AM
WTD: Fantasia 2000 disc 2 Dragon DVD Video 0 12-19-2004 01:54 AM
Disnet Fantasia 2000 2nd disc Dragon DVD Video 6 11-08-2004 08:10 AM
mission 60th CHRIS HOLLIER Computer Support 9 02-03-2004 12:03 AM
Fantasia - 60th Anniversary Pat DVD Video 17 12-11-2003 07:31 AM



Advertisments