1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Calling on Widescreen experts..

Discussion in 'Movie Forum' started by pinda, Jun 12, 2002.

  1. pinda

    pinda
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hi People..
    Just purchased Don Juan de marco (reg 1) from Future Entertainment...
    It describes "Screen: Widescreen letterbox - 1.85:1 / Full Screen (Standard) - 1.33:1" Non anamorphic.
    Problem is the 1.33 ratio appears to show more in the frame...also it seems the 1.85:1 is exactly the same as 1.33:1 width way with the exception of black bars on top and bottom which cut off the viewing area ?!? Is this a cheap attempt at replicating a widescreen effect?? Is there someting wrong with my dvd player?
    Is there a valid reason for this....??
    Thanks for your time.

    Pinda
     
  2. European

    European
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    ...there's nothing wrong with your DVD player...

    ...like the vast majority of movies today, DJDM was filmed on 35mm stock... according to the IMDb, that's it...

    ...other films are lensed using the Super 35mm process (which, btw, also uses 35mm stock!)...

    ...to get the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio in the cinema, these films are projected using 'mattes'...

    ...today's 'Scope' (2.35:1, 2.40:1 movies - either filmed with anamorphic lenses or - using the Super 35mm process - with spherical lenses) are also made on 35mm stock...

    ...many 'independent' movies are filmed on 16mm stock (or using the Super 16mm process)...

    ...ahh... it's difficult to describe this in 25 words or less, and it's late, and I've had too much Château Migraine to drink tonight... suggest you check a cinematography site for more details - for instance these two:

    http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/static_subpages/formats/format_history.html

    http://www.imago.org/formats/vacano.htm

    ...or take a look here:

    http://www1.tripnet.se/~adler/wide2.html

    http://www.factsaboutfilm.com/

    . . . :eek: . . .
     
  3. Squirrel God

    Squirrel God
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    In case you'd like a less technical answer than the perfectly correct one that European has provided...

    There are two types of widescreen...

    The first type is widescreen letterbox (yuk :(). This is widescreen within a 4:3 frame (i.e. black bars at the top and bottom). You have to use the zoom mode on your widescreen TV to make it fill the picture.

    The other type is anamorphic widescreen (better :)). This is NOT within a 4:3 frame, but is widescreen within a 16:9 frame. You may still get black bars at the top and bottom (depending on the aspect ratio) but now you use the wide mode on your widescreen TV. It's better because extra resolution is provided on the disk; whereas with the widescreen letterbox, you have to zoom in and so you are watching a lower resolution.

    Hope that's understandable :)
     
  4. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hello again. I do not profess to be a widescreen expert.
    Rather, I offer the view that there is no need to be anything of the sort.
    It is simply a matter of looking on the dvd packet. I always look for the word 'Fullscreen' which is often written very clearly on the packet and sometimes on the cd itself.
    This always gives the best picture as there are no black spaces on my television set. Widescreen pictures are reduced in size while the cinemascope format is the biggest culprit with most of the picture missing. Put simply, one should use ones common sense. Fullscreen means just that, the complete picture with nothing missing.
     
  5. CWB

    CWB
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2001
    Messages:
    102
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Camberley
    Ratings:
    +0
    This is an obvious wind-up guys. No response needed.
     
  6. Squirrel God

    Squirrel God
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Not necessarily ;) Fullscreen would suit Alfred because he has a 4:3 set (I presume).

    If you have a widescreen TV, then fullscreen doesn't mean fullscreen....
     
  7. Ian J

    Ian J
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    25,529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,906
    Squirrel God,

    You are wrong. A supposed 64 year old ex army officer living in Sri Lanka but frequently on the internet using language that went out in the fifties and continually trying to be contraversial by posting rubbish.

    A Hoax I assure you.

    Your obediant servant etc

    PS not a widescreen expert but knows about 4% PAL speedup (see previous posts)
     
  8. LV426

    LV426
    Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    12,756
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Somewhere in South Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +4,909
    Fullscreen is not always better than widescrren.

    It is true that some movies are originally shot on a 4x3 film format, and then "masked down" to a wider aspect for theatrical use. However, it is often the case that, when transferred to video as "fullscreen" (ie the masking is removed) things that were hidden by the masking, that you shouldn't see, reappear. Like boom microphones, underwear on people who were supposed to be naked, and so on.

    The only way to view a movie is as it was intended. If that means a matted widescreen presentation, then a fullscreen alternative is not an improvement, even if there is "more picture".
     
  9. alan8477

    alan8477
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2001
    Messages:
    574
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Pershore
    Ratings:
    +5
    I do hope we are not going to get a proliferation of 'Alfred Saunders', otherwise reading this forum will become a waste of time. Alfred was funny for the first couple of postings, but it is becoming tiresome. I applaud you for your initial contact, but come on don't spoil a good thing.
     
  10. mcmullanbrush

    mcmullanbrush
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,137
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    39
    Location:
    rotherham
    Ratings:
    +0
    Some directors who shot "unmasked negative" did so with both a 1:1.33 and a 1:1.85 ratio in mind. this was the case with kubricks last three films. they are masked down by the projectionist in cinemas but are only available unmasked on video and dvd. the composition of the photography did not suffer, however in "the shining" the helecopter shooting the arrival at the hotel has its shadow and rotary blades showing
     
  11. Squirrel God

    Squirrel God
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I know Ian. Hence the wink ;). Was trying to 'save the thread' by making some logic out of that nonsense. :)
     
  12. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    *sighs*

    Full screen means most of the picture is missing.

    Oh my i actually agree with Ian J *slinks off*
     
  13. pinda

    pinda
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thanks for your reply guys! Very interesting read..i'll take notice next time and if in any doubts check the original camera formats on IMDb before i make a purchase. Still think it's cheeky callin 'em widescreen when what you really get is a 1.33:1 frame, which is fine if the movie was shot using this format. Even more annoying is...can't remember the techinal term..but with my projector i can scan the horizontal position of the frame..which reveals more footage cut out of the viewable area....whats that about? i'm i not even getting a true 1.33:1 ratio horizontally???? Confused as even true anamorphic dvds can be scrolled to reveal images..can't remember the term but i know it serves a purpose.
    Duel was filmed 1.33:1....hope the new dvd doesn't say widescreen!:confused:
    Thanks again for ppls input.
     
  14. Squirrel God

    Squirrel God
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Displays are usually set up for overscan. That means there's always some bits (edges) missing from the viewable area. The reason for this is because pictures tend to expand/contract as they get brighter/darker (to a lesser or greater extent, depending on the TV). Overscan is the easiest way to ensure that the picture doesn't contract so much as to reveal the border.

    Personally, I'm beginning to find non-anamorphic DVDs untolerable. :rolleyes:
     
  15. Reiner

    Reiner
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    3,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +13
    Dear Mr. Alfred Saunders, you are hereby warned not to provide wrong and misleading information in future.

    To state your own opinion and be wrong is one thing, but to do so with malicious intent is another issue and with respect to newbies will not be tolerated.

    If you have nothing valuable to contribute to any discussion I would appreciate if you just keep the fingers of the keyboard. Thank you.
     
  16. pinda

    pinda
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    "overscan" Thats the word! Thx S.god. :) overscan could be bettered..less of it for starters...probably more to it than that though..like you've mentioned.

    I thought Mr.A.Saunders woz being serious...?? mind you there are a alot of ppl that believe full screen is all the picture..i should know..i worked in HMV a few yrs ago..and found it incredibly hard to convince the public of anamorphic advantage over full screen which led me to sketch the differences out on a note pad for them. Even then, the panicked and bought the full screen version...no offence but it was the type of ppl that had so much money they didn't know what to do with it..shame really..:devil:
     
  17. bishman

    bishman
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2001
    Messages:
    4,902
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    hertford
    Ratings:
    +172
    Pinda, it's not just people with money that don't get it. All my friends with widescreen TV's don't get it either. The general public aren't really interested with watching things as they are supposed to be seen, distorting images at any given oportunity. All of my widescreen owning friends ask me why, when I watch TV, do I watch with black bars at the sides! It's because that's the size it's supposed to be and I don't like making people look shorter and fatter than they should be.

    Some of them even watch DVD in zoom mode, to eliminate the bars on top and bottom of the picture!!

    I have taken the route you took of drawing pictures, along with practical demonstrations, "See how the circle looks like a long oval now?", "errrrrrr, yeeeessss, eerrrrrr, I think so". They just don't see it.
     
  18. mcmullanbrush

    mcmullanbrush
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,137
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    39
    Location:
    rotherham
    Ratings:
    +0
    I spent several years as a semi professional photographer. To me cropping or distorting an image is a terrible thing to do.
    A film company employs a Director and a Director of Photography to compose each and every frame. Composition plays a vital part in creating a particular mood which everybody can pick up on whether consciously or subconsciously.
    In my opinion messing with that image will ruin a film just as replacing the score with a man playing comb and paper would.

    Having said that Mike Figgis' new film will probably have that exact score ( beats that jazz rubbish he writes himself though)
     
  19. the badger

    the badger
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I agree with Bishman and the last posting. My brother bought a widescreen tv last year. He does not have satellite tv or a dvd player. Nor does he possess any widescreen videotapes. Why does this man need a widescreen tv? Like many of the British public he has been convinced that he needs widescreen. Look at all the hype surrounding the World Cup. Most people will think that Beckam looks like a sumo wrestler. Unfortunately tv. manufacturers encourage this sort of nonsense by puting in these expanding modes. The problem, however, facing people who watch a lot of 4:3 material on widesreen tv may be worry about screenburn.
    Apparently Buffy is now being released on widescreen even though Whedon says it is designed to be seen in 4:3 which is what most Americans have. Perhaps these dvd s will have the sort of camers booms etc. which others have said get in the shots of full screen movies?
     
  20. Squirrel God

    Squirrel God
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think stretching and cropping modes are available on TVs to help hide the bad geometry on 4:3 (on the sides of the image).

    Badger, I can't understand your brother at all. :rolleyes: Buy him a widescreen VHS movie for his birthday or Christmas ;) :p
     
  21. bishman

    bishman
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2001
    Messages:
    4,902
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    hertford
    Ratings:
    +172
    Badger, your point about screen burn is a good one, but do you think that the people who stretch a 4:3 to the full frame even know what screen burn is?

    Widescreen promotion is rife, which is a good thing, but is being promoted in ignorance for the most part. I just happened to catch a glimpse of Eastenders the other day, think the Mrs was watching it, ahem. Anyway, they were going on about the world cup and how they had to have a widescreen telly in the Vic to watch it on. They kept going on about it, I was sitting there shouting at the telly, "but it's not even being broadcast in f**king widescreen!". I think this is why I can't get into the soaps!!!
     
  22. rob_w

    rob_w
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    i`ve got a bloke at work who insists that his goodfellas dvd (2.35:1) has smaller black bars than shrek(16:9) on his 4:3 - i`ve drawn pics for him, asked him whether phantom menace was almost square at the cinema etc etc, and he just wont listen - he only uses 16:9 mode on 16:9 anamorphic stuff - says 2.35 looks right without it....

    ended up banging my head against the brick wall.....

    we`ve just got to accept that some folks really do not care about widescreen ratios - just pic size.......

    cheers

    rob
     
  23. Squirrel God

    Squirrel God
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    We've got to accept that some people are just plain stupid. ;)
     
  24. rob_w

    rob_w
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    We've got to accept that some people are just plain stupid.

    i didn`t want to say that but...

    rob
     
  25. Ridcully

    Ridcully
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2002
    Messages:
    309
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +23
    Not sure this totally true. Season 4 onwards was shot in w/s as w/s had picked up enough in the US. There is a question about Angel season 1 though as to whether it was shot w/s with the intention of matting or not.

    Personnally I would like to see better labling of DVDs such as Orignal Aspect Ratio and perhaps a little introduction on the disc about why 2.35 films have black bars so that Joe public can get educated.
     
  26. the badger

    the badger
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    In reply to Robwells comment- 16:9 is not the same as 2.35:1.
    A dvd which is 1.85:1 should give small black bars at top and bottom of a 4:3 screen and no black bars on a widescreen tv. 2.35:1 will give large black bars at top and bottom of a 4:3 tv and small black bars at top and bottom of widescreen tv. Some widescreen tv.s have a facility to stretch the image vertically to eliminate the bars on a 2.35:1 picture but this obviously not the correct aspect ratio. To add to the confusion some dvd.s will call themselves 16:9 when they are actually 2.35:1. Only trust the description on a box when it says 1.85:1 or 2.35:1
     
  27. the badger

    the badger
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I have read Robbs posting again and think I may have misunderstood it. I hope Rob doesn't think mI am trying to teach him how to suck eggs and apologise if he found my posting patronising in any way
     
  28. Squirrel God

    Squirrel God
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Maybe it's better to delete your post then? (tick the Delete box at the top after you click Edit). :p
     
  29. mjn

    mjn
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    17,649
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Herts, England
    Ratings:
    +4,559
    LOL....ROFL....
     
  30. rob_w

    rob_w
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    no offence taken - i make mistakes or misread posts every now and then- usually late in the evening after a few beers.....

    rob
     

Share This Page

Loading...