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

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?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So if you have at least one title, cant you at least do the courtesy and
list what it is for others?

 

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