1.85:1 xfer of 2.35:1 theatrical == Pan & Scan???

Anamorphic or not, using a 16:9 set, how is a 1.85:1 transfer of a
2.35:1 (or wider) film NOT just a wider Pan & Scan?

I've read a fair number of pages and NG responses, but I just don't see
how you're not cutting off some of image.

lasitter

"lasitter" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> Anamorphic or not, using a 16:9 set, how is a 1.85:1 transfer of a
> 2.35:1 (or wider) film NOT just a wider Pan & Scan?

Ideally, a 2.35:1 movie image should be letterboxed within the 16:9
anamorphic area of a DVD.

> I've read a fair number of pages and NG responses, but I just don't
> see
> how you're not cutting off some of image.

If the 2.35:1 movie has been modified to fill a 16:9 screen, either the
sides will be cropped or you may be seeing excess picture info at the
top and bottom of the screen if it is an open-matte transfer.

Joshua Zyber

> Ideally, a 2.35:1 movie image should be letterboxed within the 16:9
> anamorphic area of a DVD.

This is what I'd like to see.

>> I've read a fair number of pages and NG responses, but I just don't
>> see how you're not cutting off some of image.

> If the 2.35:1 movie has been modified to fill a 16:9 screen

Would be nice if they said: "Modified to fill a 16:9 screen" ...

> either the sides will be cropped or you may be seeing excess picture info at
> the top and bottom of the screen if it is an open-matte transfer.

I was so blissfully ignorant before trying to figure this stuff out.
It's only been quite recently that I've learned, by reading posts here,
about how theatres can "opt to show 1.85 flat at 2:1 flat and to show
2.35 anamorphic at 2:1 anamorphic".

Now I have no idea about what I have seen in theatres versus what the
director / cinematographer might have wanted me to see. This is yet
another exciting variable (lack of focus / low wattage bulbs, talkers,
etc.) for the theatre going experience.

Someone else here posted a link with a good explaination of hard / soft
/ open matting. It makes MORE sense now, but it seems to me that the
whole story is rarely available on the packaging.

You almost need to go retail shopping with a live wireless link (or
shop only online) to get the straight scoop before buying.

Seems to me that it now helps to know about the original film / scope
process ...

Kinetograph
Academy Ratio
ArriScope-ArriVision
Cinerama
Cinerama 70mm
CinemaScope
Dimension 150
Fearless SuperFilm
Grandeur 70mm
Imax
J-D-C Scope
Magnascope / Magniscope Grandeur
Matted 1.66:1 (Paramount)
Matted 1.85:1 (Universal and Columbia Pictures)
Metroscope
Natural Vision / Realife Natural Vision / Realife 70mm
Panavison (CinemaScope / Panavision)
Shawscope
Super 35mm
SuperScope
Super Panavision 70mm
Super Technirama 70mm
Techniscope
Technovision
Technirama 35mm
Todd-AO
Todd-AO-35
Ultra Panavision 70mm and MGM Camera 65
Vitascope
VistaVision
WarnerScope
Widescreen 1.85:1 (W/Stereo Opt & Dig 5.1)
(and more)

.... and the various types of matting employed, layering technology,
data rates, anamorphic vs not, and all sorts of other stuff.

What a minefield!

lasitter

"lasitter" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> I was so blissfully ignorant before trying to figure this stuff out.
> It's only been quite recently that I've learned, by reading posts
> here,
> about how theatres can "opt to show 1.85 flat at 2:1 flat and to show
> 2.35 anamorphic at 2:1 anamorphic".
>
> Now I have no idea about what I have seen in theatres versus what the
> director / cinematographer might have wanted me to see. This is yet
> another exciting variable (lack of focus / low wattage bulbs, talkers,
> etc.) for the theatre going experience.
>
> Someone else here posted a link with a good explaination of hard /
> soft
> / open matting. It makes MORE sense now, but it seems to me that the
> whole story is rarely available on the packaging.
>
> You almost need to go retail shopping with a live wireless link (or
> shop only online) to get the straight scoop before buying.
>
> Seems to me that it now helps to know about the original film / scope
> process ...
>
> ... and the various types of matting employed, layering technology,
> data rates, anamorphic vs not, and all sorts of other stuff.

You're overthinking it. All you really need to worry about is the
Original Aspect Ratio. It is a very small number of 2.35:1 movies that
are modified for a different ratio on DVD. Most are presented OAR.

Joshua Zyber

> You're overthinking it.

Just maybe.

What if the film was shot open matte and then matted differently for
showing in different theatres? How do you know what the director /
cinematographer WANTED you to see?

Who's to say that the 1.85:1 transfer of an open matte film really does
show extraneous information on the top and bottom? If you can see mike
booms and stage hands holding up props, that's one thing, but
otherwise, I'm not sure.

Now if the filmmaker turned it out with hard matting then his
intentions were pretty clear.

Unless you're looking at the director's cut, how can you be sure? I
don't know.

lasitter

lasitter () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> What if the film was shot open matte and then matted differently for
> showing in different theatres?

Other than normal slight differences in projection equipment, this doesn't
happen.

A 1.85:1 movie is sent to theaters with the full film frame visible, and
they matte in the projector. Removing the matte would result in stuff above
and below the screen with no way to get it on the screen (at least in 99% of
theaters).

A 2.35:1 movie is sent to theaters with the full film frame containing an
anamorphic version of the movie (this is true even if it was filmed using
an "open matte" process like Super35). To display this, you need a lens
that unsqueezes it, and there is no matte involved. There is no way to
show more picture at the top and bottom because it isn't on the film.

Now, some theaters will show such a film on a 1.85:1 screen and just let
all the extra picture fall off the sides, but this can't possibly be
considered "desired" by anyone in the creative chain (or any right-thinking
viewer).

> Who's to say that the 1.85:1 transfer of an open matte film really does
> show extraneous information on the top and bottom?

If people did an ounce of research into the actual filmmaking process, we
would never get this question posted again. Instead, we have to see it for
the 257,196th time in the newsgroup.

--
Jeff Rife | "What kind of universe is this where a man can't
| love his fake wife's mother's best friend?"
|
| -- Ned Dorsey, "Ned and Stacey"

Jeff Rife

Jeff Rife <> wrote:

> lasitter () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
>> What if the film was shot open matte and then matted differently for
>> showing in different theatres?
>
> Other than normal slight differences in projection equipment, this doesn't
> happen.

It's probably happened a lot in the case of European films that are composed for
1.66:1 and matted in American theaters at 1.85:1.

And it happens on DVD, too. One example is ROBOCOP, which Criterion
released with Verhoeven's preferred 1.66:1 ratio, while the MGM release was
done at the US theatrical ratio of 1.85:1.

-- jayembee

jayembee

Jeff Rife <> wrote in
news::

> lasitter () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
>> What if the film was shot open matte and then matted differently for
>> showing in different theatres?
>
> Other than normal slight differences in projection equipment, this
> doesn't happen.
>
> A 1.85:1 movie is sent to theaters with the full film frame visible,
> and they matte in the projector.

snip

This is only true some of the time and you can't even depend on it holding
true scene-to-scene within a reel. (I work in a post-production lab).

Stan

On 7 Aug 2005 14:34:53 -0700, "lasitter" <> wrote:

>Who's to say that the 1.85:1 transfer of an open matte film really does
>show extraneous information on the top and bottom? If you can see mike
>booms and stage hands holding up props, that's one thing, but
>otherwise, I'm not sure.

You'd be surprised to know how many directors view their work through
playback monitors that are taped off to the aspect ratio they expect
the film/tv show to be viewed in. By covering the monitor with tape,
they can't see what would be seen in an open matte transfers.

Unfortunately, this taping of monitors can be a very bad thing. Just
last week I was on set for a new HD network TV show, and the director
had his monitor taped off to show the 4:3 extract. He wasn't viewing
the scene in the HD 16x9 framing that will be the master which is used
for the next 10-20 years of broadcast and syndication.

Mark Spatny

jayembee () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> > Other than normal slight differences in projection equipment, this doesn't
> > happen.
>
> It's probably happened a lot in the case of European films that are composed for
> 1.66:1 and matted in American theaters at 1.85:1.

True, but this is well-known by European filmmakers, so if they are aiming
for a US audience, the picture isn't all that much a 1.66:1 film.

--
Jeff Rife | "Five thousand dollars, huh? I'll bet we could
| afford that if we pooled our money together...
| bought a gun...robbed a bank...."
| -- Drew Carey

Jeff Rife