How many DVDs are zoomed then cropped? (four side cropping)

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Walter Traprock, Nov 11, 2005.

  1. Note that it is standard practice when preparing full screen
    transfers of soft matted films to ZOOM within the full frame,
    thus losing substantial parts of the left and right sides of the
    theatrical presentation; there being no truly full frame
    transfer. Now, how often, or, is it also standard, to prepare
    widescreen versions for home video that were ALREADY prepared
    as full screen versions for TV/video, thus actually cropping
    all four sides for a correct aspect ratio but zoomed widescreen
    picture? The vast majority of films from the mid-1950s to the mid-1990s
    are soft-matted, and first transfered for TV/video without any interest
    in retaining the widescreen theatrical ratio, and the world of film
    transfering is so secretive; IS IT SAFE to assume that no new
    transfer is generally made at all, and older movies are simply
    the ZOOMED IN un-matted frame and then further cropped to make
    the resulting widescreen versions that are widescreen but
    reduced on all four sides from the theatrical version?
     
    Walter Traprock, Nov 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements


  2. It's never safe top assume anything, and it's certainly not safe to
    assume what you're claiming.

    I wont' say that it's never happened, but I can't think of any
    widescreen films of that era that I've seen both theatrically and on
    DVD that have been transferreed in the manner you describe.

    John Harkness
     
    John Harkness, Nov 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Walter Traprock

    P Pron Guest

    Walter Traprock wrote:
    || Note that it is standard practice when preparing full screen
    || transfers of soft matted films to ZOOM within the full frame,
    || thus losing substantial parts of the left and right sides of the
    || theatrical presentation; there being no truly full frame
    || transfer. Now, how often, or, is it also standard, to prepare
    || widescreen versions for home video that were ALREADY prepared
    || as full screen versions for TV/video, thus actually cropping
    || all four sides for a correct aspect ratio but zoomed widescreen
    || picture? The vast majority of films from the mid-1950s to the
    || mid-1990s are soft-matted, and first transfered for TV/video without
    || any interest in retaining the widescreen theatrical ratio, and the
    || world of film transfering is so secretive; IS IT SAFE to assume
    || that no new
    || transfer is generally made at all, and older movies are simply
    || the ZOOMED IN un-matted frame and then further cropped to make
    || the resulting widescreen versions that are widescreen but
    || reduced on all four sides from the theatrical version?

    I believe it _has_ happened in the past, with a very few titles, but it has
    never been standard operating procedure. I'd guess that with people getting
    more picky about picture quality and more aware of aspect ratios, it is even
    less likely to happen now. It is too easy for it to be exposed, and the
    information publicised.

    The only time you're likely to encounter it is with some Academy format
    (1.37:1) transfers, where occasionally companies are a bit over-enthusiastic
    in their "windowboxing", and trim off a few millimetres more than is
    strictly necessary to get a clean edge to the picture.

    paul

    Once someone has noticed something strange
     
    P Pron, Nov 11, 2005
    #3
  4. Walter Traprock

    jayembee Guest

    Not at all true. The whole point of soft-matted films is that
    they are matted in the projector. The film itself is full-frame.
    Back in the early days of widescreen films, a fair number
    of soft-matted films were also circulated in fullscreen prints.

    Through the 60s and 70s, though, directors and cinematographers
    often did not protect the to-be-matted-off portions of the frame,
    so that boom mikes, lights, and the like would often show up
    if the print was left unmatted. In these cases, then, yes, the
    frame would have to be zoomed in a bit.

    Since the advent of the home video market, there's been more
    of an effort to protect those areas of the frame so that full
    screen transfers can be made from open-matte sources.

    Now, *hard*-matte films are a different matter. Since those are
    matted in-camera, they have to be zoomed in order to create
    a full-screen transfer.

    Pretty much never.
    Most DVD transfers are new transfers. Which means that they go
    back to (usually) an interneg or interpos to transfer from. And if
    the widescreen transfer is anamorphic, they *have* to do a new
    transfer.

    With some early widescreen DVDs, the studio used a widescreen
    transfer already prepared years earlier for LD, but that rarely
    happens anymore. It still does, on occasion (MGM's done it
    several times in the past few years), but it's rare.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Nov 12, 2005
    #4
  5. And I have at least on film where the LD WS tranfer is slightly
    wider than the DVD WS transfer. And the color-timing on the DVD
    is poor compared to the LD. But the width is close - so you have
    to look closely to see the differences.

    There are those who will never be happy until they can see the
    frame line of the film at the top and the perfs at the side. :)

    And I understand there are a handfull of DVD players that let you zoom out
    so you can see what is actually on the disk - as many players tend to
    crop a bit internally.

    Bill
     
    Bill Vermillion, Nov 12, 2005
    #5
  6. Walter Traprock

    Biz Guest

    So if you have at least one title, cant you at least do the courtesy and
    list what it is for others?
     
    Biz, Nov 12, 2005
    #6
  7. Sorry about that. The only one I've checked that closely is one of
    my favorite films "Heaven's Gate". The DVD transfer is awfully
    warm - more on the brownish side.

    This is the 3rd disk vesion I have of this. The first was on
    an RCA CED in P&S format.

    I'm short an input on my system now - so my LD is not permanently
    connected - and it was easy to still frame and perform an A/B on
    the different video inputs.

    Transfers seem to vary quite a bit.

    I recorded "Midnight Cowboy" from TCM one night. I missed the
    setting on my DVR by hitting record twice so I only got the first
    hour.

    Later it came up again on TCM and I missed the first hour. [that
    movie must be jinxed].

    So I used VideoRedo to put the pieces together.

    The transfers were different - the framing was slightly different
    and the color timing was slightly changed.

    And from memory the one of the opening logos had the UA and MGM
    progression and the later showing had the new standard MGM logo.

    I'll try to be a bit more locquatious next time. I have a tendency
    to make long posts, and I'm trying to be a bit more prudent when it
    comes to length.

    Years ago I made a post in an audio group that was about 35K long -
    and I was asked for permission to reprint it as an article in a
    magazine [actually more of small journal].

    Bill
     
    Bill Vermillion, Nov 14, 2005
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.