• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

All Things Related to Widescreen

Captain Khajiit said:
Yes; we'll have to agree to differ here then, guys. :)

I'm glad we have resolved this. I apologize, Tranzor, if that became a little heated for a while!
Click to expand...


Ahh we still kept it civil, it keeps the blood flowing and the mind going :)

but we really need to delete those other posts. Will PM TMBTM and ask him to do it
 
:lol:

You are right. Next time, we shall argue about open matte... :smile:

EDIT: Yes; we must delete those posts.
 
Captain Khajiit said:
:lol:

You are right. Next time, we shall argue about open matte... :smile:
Click to expand...


NO WE WONT. I already had a somewhat argument with a guy on the imdb.com about this

actually you know what it boiled down to this:

Shout factory re-released the 1983 film Suburbia. On the package they advertised it as anamorphic widescreen (note the widescreen part).

I made a post saying that the film is not a TRUE widescreen film. It was shot full frame open matte and was matted to a fake 1:85:1 ratio

the other guy was not understanding this and kept telling me yes this disc is anamorhpic!!

So I had to repeat myself and tell him they did not use a true 1:85 (or other widescreen lens) when they shot the film. I told him the correct thing to say would have been "new anamorphic transfer in a matted widescreen format" In fact I told him Warner bors would state this on their packages

depending on what film it is I prefer open matte. Sometimes the studios will over matted a film, to another ratio it was not intended for (Warner Bros did this for their dvd release of the 1974 Black Christmas. they gave it a 1:85:1 matte like their old laserdisc version-- film was shot open matte full screen and director Bob Clark previously approved of a 1:75 ratio on a previous dvd release from Critical mass)
 
check my previous post about open matte I edited it--
 
Yes; this confusion arises because there is a difference between a film being filmed on anamorphic lenses, and an anamorphic encoding. Any film can have an anamorphic encoding, whether it is filmed on anamorphic lenses or not. That's why films filmed on Super 35 and matted can still have anamorphic encodings.
 
Captain Khajiit said:
Yes; this confusion arises because there is a difference between a film being filmed on anamorphic lenses, and an anamoprhic encoding. Any film can have an anamorphic encoding, whether it is filmed on anamorphic lenses or not. That's why films filmed on Super 35 and matted can still have anamorphic encodings.
Click to expand...


yeah super35 is insane. Nowadays many do not understand matting. If they see widescreen written anywhere on the package they assume it to mean more picture

I am not totally against matting. I know some films effects have been ruined by open matte (ironically open matte was made to wipe out the true destroyer of films --pan/scan). However I do have some films released by studios where you can clearly see it is over matted and ends up hurting the picture (Dolls from MGM being one, though they did give us the full frame version as well). Not every film was intended for a 1:85L1 ratio. Sadly since most HD tv stations or labels will release a movie with no director intent in mind they use the now general 1:85:1 even if that was not the original intended ratio to begin with

below is one example of a film that has no dvd release but showed up on the IFC channel. The open matte vhs is on the bottom with the slightly appearing to be over matted picture on top. Personally it looks like this foilm should have had a 1:77 or 1:75 and not the 1:85:1

o682a2n40p.jpg
 
The anamorphic encoding onto DVD is related to the anamorphic filming technique (aka Cinemascope) only by name. For instance, Star Wars (1977) was filmed in 2.35:1 ratio using an anamorphic camera lens, and shown in theaters using the corresponding projector lens. Since it is a widescreen film, when encoded to a widescreen-format DVD the studio would almost certainly use the anamorphic encoding process. Monty Python and the Holy Grail was filmed in 1.85:1 ratio without using an anamorphic lens on the camera, and similarly was shown in theaters without the need for the decompression lens. However, since it is also a widescreen film, when encoded to a widescreen-format DVD the studio would probably use the anamorphic encoding process.

This is from wikipedia's article on anamorphic widescreen, which is surprisingly good. I think this is what the guy you were arguing with was going on about.

I agree that mattes can be poorly placed at times. I am amazed by the variation in matting shown in different DVD transfers of the same film. People who insist on the OAR often fail to realize how much variation there can actually be in OAR transfers.
 
Captain Khajiit said:
The anamorphic encoding onto DVD is related to the anamorphic filming technique (aka Cinemascope) only by name. For instance, Star Wars (1977) was filmed in 2.35:1 ratio using an anamorphic camera lens, and shown in theaters using the corresponding projector lens. Since it is a widescreen film, when encoded to a widescreen-format DVD the studio would almost certainly use the anamorphic encoding process. Monty Python and the Holy Grail was filmed in 1.85:1 ratio without using an anamorphic lens on the camera, and similarly was shown in theaters without the need for the decompression lens. However, since it is also a widescreen film, when encoded to a widescreen-format DVD the studio would probably use the anamorphic encoding process.

This is from wiipedia's article on anamorphic widescreen, which is surprisingly good. I think this is what the guy you were arguing with was going on about.

I agree that mattes can be poorly placed at times. I am amazed by the variation in matting shown in different DVD transfers of the same film. People who insist on the OAR often fail to realize how much variation there can actually be in OAR transfers.
Click to expand...

It sounds like that is what he was saying. I was not even arguing the anamorphic fact, just the part of it not being a true widescreen film. In Suburbia it was shot 35 but with a regular lens
 
Yes; some directors like Super 35 because it can give a rough look. It is also cheap film stock, and you can open mattes if necessary for TV broadcasts, home video releases, or, in the old days, pan and scan. Terminator 2 is a good example of this.

28vgcd4.jpg


Nicholas Meyer is a good example of a director who shoots films with home video in mind. He opened the mattes for Star Trek VI on a number of releases.

I have to say that whether I prefer a film OAR or open matte depends on the film. Open matte ruins the composition on some films, but on others the theatrical framing seems too tight. I prefer to judge on a case-by-case basis.
 
Yes I remember Uncanny Antman had a nice post going about this and the Terminator 2 (I believe it was Uncanny??)

Since the film is so huge you can work many wonders with it.
 
One thing I do not like now (and for the life of me I wish I could recall what films they were)is that due to the 16x9 sets and borders (going back to that topic) was that some films which were shot and shown as 2:35:1, for the home release were re-scoped for 1:85:1 for the sole reason of the no bar full picture on 16x9 sets.

It is going to bother me now about what films they were but I remember reading something and fans of the films because of this, going nuts (in a bad way) over it
 
You might be referring to Apocalypse Now, which was changed to 2.0:1. That is the univisium format I mentioned before. I edited my last post a bit.
 
Captain Khajiit said:
You might be referring to Apocalypse Now, which was changed to 2.0:1. That is the univisium format I mentioned before. I edited my last post a bit.
Click to expand...

hmm that might have been one of them, though I thought it might was a newer film I read about? Either way for the example it is the same situation

The workprint for apoc now at least has the full ratio (actually looks more like it might be 2:40
 
tranzor said:
The workprint for apoc now at least has the full ratio (actually looks more like it might be 2:40
Click to expand...

The workprint is the bootleg, isn't it? I have never seen it. The one I heard about does not have a fully implemented soundtrack, and has alternate takes for audio. I only saw Redux two days ago! Up until then, I had only seen the theatrial version, which I prefer, although Redux was certainly an interesting watch.

Yes; many films that are labelled 2.35 are closer to 2.40 or 2.39. These are just conventional numbers really. The same film can have different transfers, in nominally the same ratio, that are rather different if you actually measure them. Good examples of this are Dances with Wolves and Star Trek II.
 
Update from thedigitalbits:
Okay... just one more update on this whole malware silliness. As you should no doubt be aware by now if you can read this, there IS NO MALWARE on The Bits. It turns out that, unknown to us, a third-party banner on our site was somehow linking to a URL that was reported as malicious by Google. That caused Google to flag us as an attack site, and malware warnings about The Bits to appear on many browsers. We quickly removed that banner and all code and links associated with it, and we've fully scanned and double-checked the whole site. We also requested a review by Google, and they've now checked the site themselves and verified that The Bits has no malware - it's 100% safe as usual. So they're now in the process of lifting the warning flag, and all the browser warnings should stop over the next few hours. My first reaction is, I'm really glad Google is so on top of this stuff! I'm actually really impressed with how quickly they responded on both ends. My hats off to them. Sorry about the inconvenience to all of you, but as I said earlier, this is just the kind of silly thing you have to deal with on the Interweb. So there you go.
Click to expand...
So the site is safe, and here is their guide to anamorphic widescreen:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/ ... index.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom