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" <cl@ncdm.com> wrote in message
news:1123378605.790920.185590@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Ideally, a 2.35:1 movie image should be letterboxed within the 16:9
anamorphic area of a DVD.

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.

This is what I'd like to see.

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

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" <cl@ncdm.com> wrote in message
news:1123427794.558789.320770@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
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.

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 (cl@ncdm.com) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
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).

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 <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

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

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1d604ce49050236e989ee4@news.nabs.net:

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).

On 7 Aug 2005 14:34:53 -0700, "lasitter" <cl@ncdm.com> wrote:

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.

jayembee (jayembeenospam@snurcher.com) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
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

Stan (srs666@despammed.com) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
Are you saying some films are sent to theaters with hard mattes? In that
case, isn't the visible part what the production people actively chose,
so it really isn't an issue.

Now, if they are constantly screwing up and misframing when they do this,
then I could call it a problem, but since there is no solution for viewer
(other than to be on the set while the movie is made), it's also not a big
deal.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesW...nge/CatBed.jpg

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1d61369764d42956989ee6@news.nabs.net:


Yes.

Stan (srs666@despammed.com) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
So, then, if it's screwed up at the source, there's nothing that a viewer
could do about it.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/TechBigot.gif

Wow! Thank you. Not being anywhere close to show biz, I had no
clue that this was a common practice.

This confirms my suspicion that there is no one single truth in
all of this about knowing if your viewing experience is a bit
like that of Miss Little Red Riding Hood: Too big, too small, or
just right ...

Apparently some theatres feel free to take liberties, which is what
prompted my question ...

http://tinyurl.com/atv57

(Vern Dias)

"By the way, theatres can opt to show 1.85 flat at 2:1 flat and to
show 2.35 anamorphic at 2:1 anamorphic. Thus the picture size
stays the same with a little bit cropped from the top and bottom
for flat and a little bit cropped from the sides for anamorphic.

"I am a projectionist and I have seen it done.

"About two thirds of widescreen movies are filmed at 1.85 (flat) aspect
ratio or less." ... DVD FAQ.

I was attempting to address my question to this set of films, as
opposed to the anamorphic scope films. I know that there's nothing
extra in the frame of films shot with an anamorphic lens, since the
goal there is to use the whole available negative frame.

The internet is a great source of information, and an even better
source of mis-information. I've been wading thru piles of material and
hundreds if not thousands of posts in an effort to understand the
processes by which images are captured on film, reproduced on screen,
and transferred to other video formats, as well as the marketing
decisions by studios and everyday practices by projectionists and
movie chains that often pervert what the original filmmaker wanted me
to see.

If someone else has asked these questions in exactly the same way here
earlier, then I'm sorry for being redundant, but I used Google
extensively before posting and did not find the sort of cohesive,
consensus answers that I had hoped to find.

Cheers.