"Back to the Future"

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Tim923, Jun 27, 2004.

  1. Tim923

    Tim923 Guest

    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, Jun 27, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tim923

    Black Locust Guest

    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
     
    Black Locust, Jun 27, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tim923

    Jay G Guest

    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
     
    Jay G, Jun 27, 2004
    #3
  4. Tim923

    Tim923 Guest

    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, Jun 28, 2004
    #4
  5. Tim923

    Jay G Guest

    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, Jun 28, 2004
    #5
  6. Tim923

    Jim Nason Guest

    "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
     
    Jim Nason, Jun 28, 2004
    #6
  7. 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
     
    The Intrinsically Flawed Mr. Hole, Jun 28, 2004
    #7
  8. Tim923

    Tim923 Guest

    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, Jun 28, 2004
    #8
  9. Tim923

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "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.
     
    Joshua Zyber, Jun 29, 2004
    #9
  10. Tim923

    Tim923 Guest

    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.
     
    Tim923, Jul 2, 2004
    #10
  11. Tim923

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Tim923" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It would be possible to use a 1.85 anamorphic lens to get better
    > resolution, no?


    While this is possible, it is not the standard.
     
    Joshua Zyber, Jul 2, 2004
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ZC TGS
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    405
    ZC TGS
    Jul 2, 2003
  2. ZC TGS
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    435
    ZC TGS
    Jul 4, 2003
  3. Memnoch

    Back To The Future Trilogy Reissue

    Memnoch, Sep 10, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    355
    Memnoch
    Sep 10, 2003
  4. Steve Smith
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    1,952
  5. Windsor Egan

    Back to the Future Re-issue

    Windsor Egan, Jan 23, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    867
    JF Sebastian
    Feb 4, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page