The Sting?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Mark Peterson, Jan 18, 2005.

  1. I see where the old "Limited Edition" pan'n'scan version of The Sting is
    pretty much out of stock everywhere. Anybody heard anything about a new
    (better) version being in the works?

    Thanks,
    -Mark
    Mark Peterson, Jan 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <41ec5cfe$0$87053$>,
    "Mark Peterson" <> wrote:

    > I see where the old "Limited Edition" pan'n'scan version of The Sting is
    > pretty much out of stock everywhere. Anybody heard anything about a new
    > (better) version being in the works?



    There is no pan and scan on THE STING. It was a full-frame release.
    Reginald Dwight, Jan 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark Peterson

    Bill Binder Guest

    Since when? The Sting is 1.85, and is released so in other countries.
    Even the old VHS copies did the annoying; opening credits in OAR, then
    the movie in P&S.

    Bill
    Bill Binder, Jan 18, 2005
    #3
  4. Mark Peterson

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Reginald Dwight wrote:
    > In article <41ec5cfe$0$87053$>,
    > "Mark Peterson" <> wrote:
    >
    >> I see where the old "Limited Edition" pan'n'scan version of The
    >> Sting is pretty much out of stock everywhere. Anybody heard anything
    >> about a new (better) version being in the works?

    >
    > There is no pan and scan on THE STING. It was a full-frame release.


    Pan-n-scan, full-frame - same difference. Where's the widescreen release?
    You know what he meant.

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Jan 18, 2005
    #4
  5. In article <csi2k5$80d$>, "Mike Kohary" <>
    wrote:

    > Pan-n-scan, full-frame - same difference.


    The DVD is not a pan & scan job. It is a true full-frame release that
    was matted in its theater presentation. The DVD shows the whole picture
    as it was filmed.

    > Where's the widescreen release?


    There wasn't one for whatever reason.

    > You know what he meant.


    He didn't know what he meant nor do you. Go read.
    http://dvdreview.twentysix.net/aspect.php
    Reginald Dwight, Jan 18, 2005
    #5
  6. Mark Peterson

    Bill Binder Guest

    Re: The Sting? - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

    No,

    Yes, The Sting DVD is open-matte not true Pan and Scan. You got us all
    on our grammar there. The Sting was filmed open matte, as are hundreds
    of films without the budget for better filmstock.

    This doesn't change the fact that 1:33 is not the original, nor intended
    aspect ratio for the film. And yes, a small amount of side information
    is still usually lost in an open matte video release.

    http://www.howstuffworks.com/video-format8.htm
    http://www.cinemadigital.be/screens/onscreen.htm
    http://twowiresthin.com/aspect/
    http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml
    Bill Binder, Jan 18, 2005
    #6
  7. Re: The Sting? - a lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing

    In article <3k5Hd.4925$0B.3424@fed1read02>,
    Bill Binder <> wrote:

    > Yes, The Sting DVD is open-matte not true Pan and Scan. You got us all
    > on our grammar there.


    Well, the guy called it Pan & Scan. It's not and the two terms shouldn't
    be interchanged. I responded because it seemed to me he really thought
    the open-matte release was a hack job. In spite of what Mike later
    replied, I don't believe for a second the OP knew that.

    > This doesn't change the fact that 1:33 is not the original, nor intended
    > aspect ratio for the film.


    Grammar again. It is the original - just not the intended.
    Reginald Dwight, Jan 18, 2005
    #7
  8. Mark Peterson

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Reginald Dwight wrote:
    > In article <csi2k5$80d$>, "Mike Kohary" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Pan-n-scan, full-frame - same difference.

    >
    > The DVD is not a pan & scan job. It is a true full-frame release that
    > was matted in its theater presentation. The DVD shows the whole
    > picture as it was filmed.


    Like I said, "same difference".

    >> Where's the widescreen release?

    >
    > There wasn't one for whatever reason.
    >
    >> You know what he meant.

    >
    > He didn't know what he meant nor do you. Go read.
    > http://dvdreview.twentysix.net/aspect.php


    You're being pedantic. You know what he meant - he's looking for a
    widescreen release, and so am I. Of course we know there isn't one - duh.
    We want one.

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Jan 19, 2005
    #8
  9. Mark Peterson

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Re: The Sting? - a lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing

    Reginald Dwight wrote:
    > In article <3k5Hd.4925$0B.3424@fed1read02>,
    > Bill Binder <> wrote:
    >
    >> Yes, The Sting DVD is open-matte not true Pan and Scan. You got us
    >> all on our grammar there.

    >
    > Well, the guy called it Pan & Scan. It's not and the two terms
    > shouldn't be interchanged. I responded because it seemed to me he
    > really thought the open-matte release was a hack job. In spite of
    > what Mike later replied, I don't believe for a second the OP knew
    > that.
    >
    >> This doesn't change the fact that 1:33 is not the original, nor
    >> intended aspect ratio for the film.

    >
    > Grammar again. It is the original - just not the intended.


    If you get this bogged down in semantic minutia over such a simple topic, I
    wonder what happens to you when faced with truly complex situations?

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Jan 19, 2005
    #9
  10. Mark Peterson

    JimReid56 Guest

    Re: The Sting? - a lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing

    >If you get this bogged down in semantic minutia over such a simple topic, I
    >wonder what happens to you when faced with truly complex situations?


    So what you are saying is that everything that is not widescreen is the same
    thing? If two things are different, which full-frame and pan-and-scan are, then
    it's not minutia.
    JimReid56, Jan 19, 2005
    #10
  11. Mark Peterson

    Dick Sidbury Guest

    Re: The Sting? - a lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing

    JimReid56 wrote:
    >>If you get this bogged down in semantic minutia over such a simple topic, I
    >>wonder what happens to you when faced with truly complex situations?

    >
    >
    > So what you are saying is that everything that is not widescreen is the same
    > thing? If two things are different, which full-frame and pan-and-scan are, then
    > it's not minutia.


    Well, I'd say that full-frame contains pan-and-scan as a subset. The
    other common subset is open matte.

    dick
    Dick Sidbury, Jan 19, 2005
    #11
  12. Mark Peterson

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Re: The Sting? - a lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing

    JimReid56 wrote:
    >> If you get this bogged down in semantic minutia over such a simple
    >> topic, I wonder what happens to you when faced with truly complex
    >> situations?

    >
    > So what you are saying is that everything that is not widescreen is
    > the same thing? If two things are different, which full-frame and
    > pan-and-scan are, then it's not minutia.


    See all those individual trees? That's a forest. ;)

    Seriously, did you just completely overlook what was OBVIOUSLY the OP's
    point? He's looking for The Sting in widescreen. Does it matter if he used
    the term "pan and scan" or "full-frame"?

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Jan 19, 2005
    #12
  13. Mark Peterson

    Joe S Guest

    Re: The Sting? - a lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing

    Mike Kohary wrote:
    > JimReid56 wrote:
    >
    >>>If you get this bogged down in semantic minutia over such a simple
    >>>topic, I wonder what happens to you when faced with truly complex
    >>>situations?

    >>
    >>So what you are saying is that everything that is not widescreen is
    >>the same thing? If two things are different, which full-frame and
    >>pan-and-scan are, then it's not minutia.

    >
    >
    > See all those individual trees? That's a forest. ;)
    >
    > Seriously, did you just completely overlook what was OBVIOUSLY the OP's
    > point? He's looking for The Sting in widescreen. Does it matter if he used
    > the term "pan and scan" or "full-frame"?
    >


    Back in the olden days, there was a poster who made these black bars he
    could apply to the front of his TV so that he could turn a full frame
    DVD into "widescreen".



    Joe
    Joe S, Jan 19, 2005
    #13
  14. Mark Peterson

    JimReid56 Guest

    Re: The Sting? - a lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing

    >Does it matter if he used
    >> the term "pan and scan" or "full-frame"?


    I guess it doesn't if he's dumb. Seeing as how full-frame can be what you want
    and you insist on grouping it with pan-and-scan, which is a form of butchering
    a film. Are you disappointed because your Citizen Kane is full-frame?
    JimReid56, Jan 19, 2005
    #14
  15. Mark Peterson

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Re: The Sting? - a lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing

    JimReid56 wrote:
    >> Does it matter if he used
    >>> the term "pan and scan" or "full-frame"?

    >
    > I guess it doesn't if he's dumb. Seeing as how full-frame can be what
    > you want and you insist on grouping it with pan-and-scan, which is a
    > form of butchering a film. Are you disappointed because your Citizen
    > Kane is full-frame?


    <shaking my head> I'll try this one more time, though I'm not sure why. Is
    "The Sting" on DVD in its original, intended aspect ratio as displayed in
    the theaters? No it's not, and that was the OP's point. Arguing about what
    he called it is pedantry, which is why I responded by saying it was the
    "same difference" ("same" "difference"..."same difference"...get it? No, of
    course P&S is not the same as unmatted full screen, but it's the "same
    difference" because the presentation is not in OAR either way.)

    Pedantic: "...marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of
    learning and especially its trivial aspects..."

    Ah, Usenet. Gotta love it, or else you'd hate it. ;)

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Jan 19, 2005
    #15
  16. Re: The Sting? - a lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing

    In article <cskr9m$dn5$>, "Mike Kohary" <>
    wrote:

    > Arguing about what
    > he called it is pedantry, which is why I responded by saying it was the
    > "same difference" ("same" "difference"..."same difference"...get it?


    Whatever dude. P & S is not open matte. That's all I was pointing out.
    Call it whatever makes you happy.

    > No, of
    > course P&S is not the same as unmatted full screen, but it's the "same
    > difference" because the presentation is not in OAR either way.)


    Mmm...then why didn't you say this the first time instead of saying the
    were the same thing?
    Reginald Dwight, Jan 19, 2005
    #16
  17. Mark Peterson

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Re: The Sting? - a lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing

    Reginald Dwight wrote:
    > In article <cskr9m$dn5$>, "Mike Kohary" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Arguing about what
    >> he called it is pedantry, which is why I responded by saying it was
    >> the "same difference" ("same" "difference"..."same difference"...get
    >> it?

    >
    > Whatever dude. P & S is not open matte. That's all I was pointing out.
    > Call it whatever makes you happy.


    Here's the original exchange:

    >> I see where the old "Limited Edition" pan'n'scan version of The Sting is
    >> pretty much out of stock everywhere. Anybody heard anything about a new
    >> (better) version being in the works?

    >
    >There is no pan and scan on THE STING. It was a full-frame release.


    How was your response helpful or pertinent to his question? Why nitpick
    over his choice of words, instead of answering the question?

    >> No, of
    >> course P&S is not the same as unmatted full screen, but it's the
    >> "same difference" because the presentation is not in OAR either way.)

    >
    > Mmm...then why didn't you say this the first time instead of saying
    > the were the same thing?


    I never said they were the same thing. I said, basically, "Who cares what
    he called it?" We knew what he meant. Admit it - you knew what he meant.
    :)

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Jan 19, 2005
    #17
  18. Re: The Sting? - a lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing

    In article <csku4f$n91$>, "Mike Kohary" <>
    wrote:

    > Here's the original exchange:
    >
    > >> I see where the old "Limited Edition" pan'n'scan version of The Sting is
    > >> pretty much out of stock everywhere. Anybody heard anything about a new
    > >> (better) version being in the works?

    > >
    > >There is no pan and scan on THE STING. It was a full-frame release.

    >
    > How was your response helpful or pertinent to his question? Why nitpick
    > over his choice of words, instead of answering the question?


    Because he called it a P&S and wanted a "better" version. His choice of
    words lead me to believe he thought it was a butchered release. Note his
    use of the word "better". What the hell can't you understand about this?
    It was hardly a nitpick.

    > > Mmm...then why didn't you say this the first time instead of saying
    > > the were the same thing?

    >
    > I never said they were the same thing.


    Rigggght...actually you did when you said:
    "Pan-n-scan, full-frame - same difference."

    They aren't the same thing. Feel free to spin it any way you want with
    how you define your use of "same difference". When one uses that term it
    means that the two things are one and the same.

    > I said, basically, "Who cares what
    > he called it?"


    No, you said they were the same thing. I care what he calls it because I
    LOATHE P&S while I don't mind an open-matte. I actually find open-matte
    releases to be somewhat interesting.

    > We knew what he meant. Admit it - you knew what he meant.


    Yes, I did know what he meant. He meant, "Is there a BETTER (i.e.
    non-P&S) version in the works?". There never was a P&S version. That's
    all I wrote. I made no comments about a widescreen version because I
    don't any information about a widescreen version. Why are you blowing
    this all out of proportion?
    Reginald Dwight, Jan 19, 2005
    #18
  19. Mark Peterson

    Dick Sidbury Guest

    Re: The Sting? - a lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing

    Reginald Dwight wrote:
    > In article <csku4f$n91$>, "Mike Kohary" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Here's the original exchange:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>I see where the old "Limited Edition" pan'n'scan version of The Sting is
    >>>>pretty much out of stock everywhere. Anybody heard anything about a new
    >>>>(better) version being in the works?
    >>>
    >>>There is no pan and scan on THE STING. It was a full-frame release.

    >>
    >>How was your response helpful or pertinent to his question? Why nitpick
    >>over his choice of words, instead of answering the question?

    >
    >
    > Because he called it a P&S and wanted a "better" version. His choice of
    > words lead me to believe he thought it was a butchered release. Note his
    > use of the word "better". What the hell can't you understand about this?
    > It was hardly a nitpick.
    >

    Are you saying that the previously available full-frame version was NOT
    a butchered release? That's what this statement appears to imply.

    dick
    -- IMHO if it wasn't OAR then it was butchered.
    Dick Sidbury, Jan 19, 2005
    #19
  20. Re: The Sting? - a lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing

    In article <>,
    Dick Sidbury <> wrote:

    > Are you saying that the previously available full-frame version was NOT
    > a butchered release? That's what this statement appears to imply.


    It doesn't imply it - it outright says it. :)

    An open-matte release like THE STING actually shows more of the picture
    than the filmmakers actually intended you to see in the theatre. The
    theatrical release would have cropped the top and bottom of the frame.
    That's why I find this version interesting to watch in spite of it not
    being "correct".

    Either way, the main point is that it's not to be confused with that
    glorious butchered mess that is Pan & Scan. Apparently telling people
    that P&S is not the same as a full-frame release is a crime here. :)
    Reginald Dwight, Jan 19, 2005
    #20
    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. Mark C

    These Bee's Don't Sting.....

    Mark C, Aug 7, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,651
    Argon3
    Aug 8, 2003
  2. Mike C.

    Was Sting one of the better bassists of his time

    Mike C., Mar 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    358
    Paolo Pizzi
    Mar 4, 2004
  3. Marc Barrett

    Was Sting one of the better bassits of his time

    Marc Barrett, Mar 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    284
    Kevin
    Apr 10, 2004
  4. Marc Barrett

    Was Sting one of the better bassists of his time

    Marc Barrett, Mar 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    295
    Marc Barrett
    Mar 3, 2004
  5. TheDreamwaster

    The Sting

    TheDreamwaster, Feb 8, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    493
Loading...

Share This Page