"Back to the Future"

http://dvdreview.twentysix.net/aspect.php

I have seen "Back to the Future" many times in full screen format in
the '80s. I've read that the full screen version shows "bonus" video
on the top and bottom to fill in those black bar areas. The 1.85:1
movie was filmed on a section of 4:3 film, but the entire 4:3 film
could be used for the full screen version.

Is the entire full screen movie like this?

Tim923

In article <>,
Tim923 <> wrote:

> http://dvdreview.twentysix.net/aspect.php
>
> I have seen "Back to the Future" many times in full screen format in
> the '80s. I've read that the full screen version shows "bonus" video
> on the top and bottom to fill in those black bar areas. The 1.85:1
> movie was filmed on a section of 4:3 film, but the entire 4:3 film
> could be used for the full screen version.
>
> Is the entire full screen movie like this?

Heh. "Bonus video" on the top and bottom. That's the first time I've
seen it called that. Many(but not all) 1.85:1 films are soft-matted to
that ratio. Although that hardly makes it preferable. See the link below.

http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml

Love how that "bonus" picture completely ruins that scene in A Fish
Called Wanda.
--
BL

Tim923 <> wrote:
> http://dvdreview.twentysix.net/aspect.php
>
> I have seen "Back to the Future" many times in full screen format in
> the '80s. I've read that the full screen version shows "bonus"
> video on the top and bottom to fill in those black bar areas. The
> 1.85:1 movie was filmed on a section of 4:3 film, but the entire
> 4:3 film could be used for the full screen version.
>
> Is the entire full screen movie like this?

All the effects shots shots were hard-matted to 1.85:1, so the
4:3 version of the film crops all the effects shots on the sides.
For non-effects shots though, the film was soft-matted, so
the 4:3 version does show additional, albiet unnecessary,
information on the top and bottom for those shots.

So no, the entire film is not open-matte.

-Jay

When soft-matted films are played in the theater, does the film
projector block out this "bonus" footage, or is the film already
processed to block out images beyond the 1.85:1 area.

Tim923 <> wrote:
> When soft-matted films are played in the theater, does the film
> projector block out this "bonus" footage, or is the film already
> processed to block out images beyond the 1.85:1 area.

It depends. A film print can be hard-matted to the proper
aspect ratio. However, I think it's more typical for the entire
frame to appear on the print, and for that film projector itself
to matte off the unnecessary image. This is where you get the
complaints of people seeing boom mikes and such in a film in
theaters, typically it's because the film is improperly matted.

-Jay

"Jay G" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Tim923 <> wrote:
> > When soft-matted films are played in the theater, does the film
> > projector block out this "bonus" footage, or is the film already
> > processed to block out images beyond the 1.85:1 area.
>
> It depends. A film print can be hard-matted to the proper
> aspect ratio. However, I think it's more typical for the entire
> frame to appear on the print, and for that film projector itself
> to matte off the unnecessary image. This is where you get the
> complaints of people seeing boom mikes and such in a film in
> theaters, typically it's because the film is improperly matted.
>
> -Jay
>
>
Soft matte means the film was made with conventional 35mm 4 sprocket
pull-down, and that the essential action was composed (protected) in the
viewfinder for a 1.85:1 aspect ratio inside the 1.37:1 frame. The assumption
is that theaters will equip their projectors with a 1.85:1 aperture plate
that will exclude some of the frame at top and bottom.

Hard matte means that when projection prints are made, black lines are
actually printed in the frame to exclude the extraneous material at the top
and bottom. This means that even if projected with a 1.37:1 aperture plate,
the image would be "letterboxed" to 1.85:1 on the screen.

This is the simplest explanation. Of course there are many other variables
in the theater, such as the shape of the screen and the focal length of the
projection lenses.

Jim Nason

Black Locust <> wrote:

>Heh. "Bonus video" on the top and
>bottom. That's the first time I've seen it
>called that. Many(but not all) 1.85:1 films
>are soft-matted to that ratio. Although that
>hardly makes it preferable. See the link
>below.

>http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml

>Love how that "bonus" picture completely
>ruins that scene in A Fish Called Wanda.
Yes. But I've also seen the opposite occur where you see more nudity
than in a widescreen version. But I'm no p[proponent of fullscreen.






...
Mr. Hole

http://www.stopfcc.com/

"You would make a destructive god, Mr. Hole, but as a human, you remain
pathetic and ineffectual." -- Heck

Are any 1.85 films filmed with an anamorphic lens to fit the 1.37
film, or is that just for 2.35 movies?

"Tim923" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Are any 1.85 films filmed with an anamorphic lens to fit the 1.37
> film, or is that just for 2.35 movies?

Primarily just for 2.35:1 movies. Some 1.85:1 movies are shot with a
hard-matte in the camera, which blocks light from exposing the top and
bottom of the 1.37:1 film frame, forcing a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, but this
is very rare.

It would be possible to use a 1.85 anamorphic lens to get better
resolution, no?

>> Are any 1.85 films filmed with an anamorphic lens to fit the 1.37
>> film, or is that just for 2.35 movies?
>
>Primarily just for 2.35:1 movies. Some 1.85:1 movies are shot with a
>hard-matte in the camera, which blocks light from exposing the top and
>bottom of the 1.37:1 film frame, forcing a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, but this
>is very rare.