Widescreen Questions

[Locke_]

1. I always see people posting the widescreen ratios for DVDs, but I don't know what the ratios mean. Could someone tell me or show me some examples?

2. Right now I have a flat screen TV (but not widescreen), so I like to buy fullscreen DVDs. But eventually, I plan to buy a widescreen TV. My question is: when i get a widescreen TV, what will my fullscreen DVDs look like on it? Will there be bars on the sides instead top and bottom?

Thanks!!

[brian]

I reccomend you read this thread.

It shows examples of different ratios, on different sets, and accurately explains the different ratios.

[feldon23]

When you buy the "Full Screen" DVD, often 30-55% of the image is being cut off on the left and right sides and major portions of the artistic framing are being lost.

I'd link some images of Widescreen.org but he is more interested in propelling his own career/website than getting the word out about widescreen so we're not allowed to link images directly.

when i get a widescreen TV, what will my fullscreen DVDs look like on it? Will there be bars on the sides instead top and bottom?

Yes, you will have black bars on the sides.

[Cap42086]

Originally posted by feldon23
Yes, you will have black bars on the sides.

So sell every full-screen DVD you have.

[orf]

Why would you want to buy fullscreen DVDs even if you had a 4:3 set? :flush:

[bembol]

And when/why did studios start releasing DVDs in 1.33:1?

Consumer demand? Increase DVD sales/popularity?

[orf]

Probably a popularity issue. All those old people who lived on VHS since it came out are so stuck on FS, that they won't switch to widescreen.

[tomdkat]

Originally posted by bembol
And when/why did studios start releasing DVDs in 1.33:1?

Consumer demand? Increase DVD sales/popularity?

What about OAR? Not EVERY movie that was ever filmed was filmed in an aspect ratio greater than 1.33:1.

Also, some DVDs are released ONLY in 1.33:1 (like "Can't Buy Me Love", at least in region 1 it's 1.33:1) so I have no choice of widescreen or fullscreen versions to buy.

Should I then NOT buy that DVD? What about "Eyes Wide Shut" and several other Stanley Kubrik titles? Are those not worth buying because they are not widescreen or have aspect ratios greater than 1.33:1?

Please try to differenciate between widescreen and Original Aspect Ratio (OAR), since OAR is what people here tend to demand, and not necessarily widescreen.



Peace.....

[Hollow Man]

Originally posted by orf
Probably a popularity issue. All those old people who lived on VHS since it came out are so stuck on FS, that they won't switch to widescreen.

I'm one of those "old people". But I am happy to say I have absolutely NO VHS tape that's full-frame (unless that's its OAR). I had to wait years to get Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark on VHS because I stubbornly/smartly refused to buy pan-and-scan garbage.

Although truth be told I didn't buy a lot of VHS back then, because I was young, and they were expensive. It's also strange that the widescreen VHS stuff I do own (the ones I mentioned, Lost Highway, etc.) somehow STILL aren't available on DVD...

-HM

[orf]

Open matte films are uncommon now of days, though. And, if you look at locke's collection, you can see that he's not a huge aficionado of films that were made during the days of the Academy ratio cameras or really anything shot on open matte.

[tomdkat]

Originally posted by orf
Open matte films are uncommon now of days, though. And, if you look at locke's collection, you can see that he's not a huge aficionado of films that were made during the days of the Academy ratio cameras or really anything shot on open matte.

That's fine, but that's talking about how the movies are filmed and not how or why the DVDs are released...

I think people just get confused with the word widescreen getting used when OAR is really what is meant.

Peace.....

[orf]

Originally posted by Hollow Man
I'm one of those "old people". But I am happy to say I have absolutely NO VHS tape that's full-frame (unless that's its OAR). I had to wait years to get Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark on VHS because I stubbornly/smartly refused to buy pan-and-scan garbage.

Ahh, I apologize for making such a stereotype, then. But, from the majority of people that I know who grew up during the prime of VHS, I find them to be much, much more biased towards pan & scan than OAR.

[tomdkat]

Originally posted by orf
But, from the majority of people that I know who grew up during the prime of VHS, I find them to be much, much more biased towards pan & scan than OAR.

I think this is a fair statement.......

Peace......

[Hollow Man]

I just happen to be one of those people that didn't really collect movies during VHS's dominance. So I made sure the few things I bought were in OAR. Laserdiscs intrigued me due to the better presentation and some extras, but they were sooooo expensive.

I just got into DVD last year. Buying a movie is so cheap on DVD (usually $15 on day of release), plus one gets so much extra cool stuff to boot, that it became worthwhile to make movie collecting a hobby.

-HM

[Nexus 6]

originally posted by orf:

Open matte films are uncommon now of days, though.

Well.....not exactly. I work part-time as a projectionist at a local theater, and many of the prints for flat movies we get are at least partially open-matte. Sometimes there are sections that are hard-matted to various ratios ranging from 1.66:1 or lower to 1.85:1. Many films are still printed at the full 1.37:1, though. That doesn't mean their video transfers will be straight open-matte, though; that is a rarity.

But open-matte itself is still very much in common use, and I must say I'm not a big fan of it. Not only is it confusing when you're trying to explain OAR to someone, it's also a mess to frame in the projector.

[Hollow Man]

Hey Nexus 6, if you show a film that was shot with a soft matte, how do you know what to project it at? Is there literature that comes with the reels?

Another question I have is: Do you guys ever show anything at 1.37:1 anymore? The reason I ask is because lots of people contend that The Evil Dead's OAR is that (it was shot this way), but I suspect that theaters simply don't show films in this, and Raimi would've known this. I suspect it was matted at 1.6:1 or 1.85:1 by projectionists, but have no proof.

Always been curious on these issues,

-HM

[sub780lime]

i would have to agree with what im sure many have said in this thread

start buying widescreen, even if you only have a square TV if you ever upgrade, get a plasma or anything your going to regret having it, anyway why would you want to lose everything on the edges unless your tv is only 13'' big, but if you have like a 24 or 27, go with widescreen DVD's all the way

[tomdkat]

Originally posted by sub780lime
but if you have like a 24 or 27, go with widescreen DVD's all the way

Still, I contend this is more of a matter of preference as my mom has a 32" Sony Wega and she doesn't mind the black bars, as she is used to them now, but every time I watch a widescreen DVD on her TV my heart just bleeds for her, due to the size of the black bars. There are a LOT of movies out that are 2.35:1 or wider and even with the 16:9 mode on her TV engaged, the balck bars COMBINED take up damn near half of the screen....

I think buying OAR DVDs with future plans on getting a 16:9 TV is worthwhile, but if a 16:9 TV is not in your planned future, I definitely understand going with whatever your preference is.

Peace......

[bembol]

Please try to differenciate between widescreen and Original Aspect Ratio (OAR), since OAR is what people here tend to demand, and not necessarily widescreen.

Ooopps...my bad. Sorry.

[tomdkat]

Originally posted by bembol
Ooopps...my bad. Sorry.

Hey.. there's no reason to apologize....

It's nothing to worry about....


Peace.....

[JediDuck]

I'm hoping on getting a digital widescreen 32" Sony tv next month. It's good that most of my DVD's are indeed widescreen because i've been planning this for a couple of years now.

The thing is that i'm going to invest a large amount of money into the 10 season box sets of Friends amongst others and the trouble is that those shows are only available in Pan&Scan! How bad will this look on a wide screen tv? :flush:

I'm also curious, does anyone else feel i'll when they go to a house and see a large collection of pre-recorded VHS tapes? I have a phobia and i think i need to see a doctor!

[tomdkat]

Originally posted by JediDuck
The thing is that i'm going to invest a large amount of money into the 10 season box sets of Friends amongst others and the trouble is that those shows are only available in Pan&Scan! How bad will this look on a wide screen tv? :flush:

That will depend on how good the 4:3 stretch modes are on the Sony you are getting. If the Sony has bad 4:3 video stretch modes, the people will look distorted and somewhat obese....

Peace.....

[Nexus 6]

originally posted by Hollow Man:

Hey Nexus 6, if you show a film that was shot with a soft matte, how do you know what to project it at? Is there literature that comes with the reels?

There is information that comes regarding the film's ratio and/or the lens it is intended for, but it usually doesn't matter. In our multiplex (and I think in most other first-run theaters in the US), films either use the flat or scope lens. For flat movies, the intended ratio is almost always 1.85:1, and that is how they are shown. The flat aperture plate masks the film to approximately 1.85:1 as it's projected, so we actually have no control over it. If a film is hard-matted at, say, 1.66:1 (such as most of Disney's recent animated films), they are still shown at 1.85:1, as the top and bottom are masked. Same goes for those printed at 1.37:1 (as most live-action flat films nowadays are, at least the non-FX shots). The center area of 1.85:1 is all that is shown.

A film that uses the scope lens is printed on the celluloid at roughly the same ratio as flat films, but with the "anamorphic squeeze," meaning the picture is vertically distorted (everyone's too tall), looking similar to an anamorphic DVD shown on a 4:3 monitor, with the player on the wrong display setting. Anyway, the scope lens stretches the image to its proper 2.35:1 ratio during projection. The scope aperture plate has a more open frame than the flat one, although it usually masks the film slightly to 2.40:1. When a film is shot in Super35, all of the cropping/re-framing occurs during the printing process, and when the movie is delivered to theaters, it is the 2.35:1 ratio on an anamorphic print. When they transfer it to full-frame video, they usually go back to the negative.

It also should be noted that anamorphic in regards to a film print or lens, and anamorphic in regards to a DVD are not exactly the same thing. The result is similar, though.

Another question I have is: Do you guys ever show anything at 1.37:1 anymore? The reason I ask is because lots of people contend that The Evil Dead's OAR is that (it was shot this way), but I suspect that theaters simply don't show films in this, and Raimi would've known this.

Nowadays, when a movie from the Academy Standard days (1.37:1) is re-released, most theaters will get a print that windowboxes the 1.37:1 frame within the 1.85:1 frame. This was the case with the recent re-releases of Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz. It's similar to the Fantasia 2000 DVD, where the "Sorcerer's Apprentice" segment is shown in it's original 1.37:1 ratio within the 1.78:1 anamorphic frame.

There are theaters that frequently show older movies that show the films in their proper 1.37:1 ratio using an un-windowboxed (is that a word?) print, but I'm not sure of the specifics of that.

As for Evil Dead, I really can't help you there. By the early '80s, I think most theaters showed flat films at 1.85:1. And if they had projectors like ours, they had no choice. I just know that I personally prefer the 4:3 framing for ED, and that the Book of the Dead version is a "tilt-and-scan" job. It's a director-approved one, but it's tilt-and-scan nonetheless. Of course, since ED was initially shown mostly at festivals, it was probably at many theaters that had the capability to show unmatted 4:3. I think Raimi framed it for 4:3, with an idea that he might make a 1.85:1 framing of it later. Of course, this is all speculation. I don't know for sure.

Most of this is based on what I've had experience with and what I've read, and some of it is just plain guesswork, so I may be mistaken on some points. Anyone else is free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I hope that helps a little and wasn't too confusing. It sure took me a while to get it all straight.

Edit: A little more added to the first paragraph.

[Hollow Man]

I wanted to say thanks for writing all that out. Lately I've become interested in the fine details of AR, and all the different film stock that is used for shooting, so your insight has been enlightening.

I'll probably have to read it a few times to take it all in.

-HM