• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
Channels Showing Full Widescreen Films
<<
<
78 of 136
>>
>
DVDfever
01-07-2012
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“So that's most of their major film premiθres this year at non-OAR. The Boat That Rocked was also cropped/opened up (don't know which) to 16:9, as was Cirque De Freak. I didn't see Fast & Furious and Can't remember any other films they've premiθred this year”

F&F was cropped/opened up. I saw the opening scene and that was enough.

I did try tweeting ITV last night:
F***ing hell, @ITV1, what part of "2.35 : 1" do you not understand? #PublicEnemies

For some reason, they didn't reply... useless funsters.

Originally Posted by jenzie:
“you could be watched RAIDERS .....

OOPS

at least i watched it earler, along with TEMPLE OF DOOM .....
”

Spielberg can kiss my butt if he thinks I'll buy the cut Blu-ray version of TOD when he eventually releases the films that way.
theonlyweeman
01-07-2012
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“F&F was cropped/opened up. I saw the opening scene and that was enough.

I did try tweeting ITV last night:
F***ing hell, @ITV1, what part of "2.35 : 1" do you not understand? #PublicEnemies

For some reason, they didn't reply... useless funsters. ”

I have it on DVD so I saw no point in watching it on ITV (not sure whether you were commenting on the quality of the print or the film).

Have we seen them actually play a recent Universal film OAR? Cos it look a lot like they're being provided with crap versions from Uni, whereas they've been getting better at showing Warner Bros. films OAR, with Happy Feet, Harry Potter and Lethal Weapon 4 all being shown OAR this year...
mwardy
01-07-2012
Originally Posted by jzee:
“Sorry, being bit thick, can you explain what that means exactly?”

I mean that because of the nature of anamorphic lenses the apparent distance between objects at different distances from the camera seems less than it really is, i.e. they have a slightly foreshortened perspective and seem a bit squashed together. Here is an extreme example--see the section on the telephoto shot:

http://classes.yale.edu/film-analysis/

Obviously it's far from as extreme as this with normal Panavision lenses but the effect is there.

Originally Posted by jzee:
“Here's the blu beaver comparison, annoyingly the one thing they don't state is the blu AR or any comment on the framing but I measured it at about 2.33:1 compared to 2.23:1 on C4 HD/5 USA, so basically do you think someone just f*ked the ratio up on the 25fps conversion?”

Well, they can't both be right, and as I say my instinct is that the Blu is correct. There may be another reason for the TV version but I can't see what it might be.

--Actually, one of the DVDs on that site lists AR as 2.27:1 but the grabs from it have less information at the sides, so I think that clinches it that the Blu (which elsewhere is listed as 2.35:1) is correct.
DVDfever
01-07-2012
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“I have it on DVD so I saw no point in watching it on ITV (not sure whether you were commenting on the quality of the print or the film).”

The print. I haven't seen the film, but would've given it a try had it been in 2.35:1. It's not a film I'm desperate to see, so I'm not about to rush to download it.
PhilH36
01-07-2012
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“I did try tweeting ITV last night:
F***ing hell, @ITV1, what part of "2.35 : 1" do you not understand? #PublicEnemies

For some reason, they didn't reply... useless funsters. ”

We've had this discussion before. Would you seriously expect them to reply to an email/tweet/Facebook posting which contained that type of language?
pad_ehh
01-07-2012
Universal films on ITV have all been cropped, either by request of ITV at the time of signing the deal or just Universal are only supplying cropped copies for some reason. This seemed to be the case with Warner Bros. too, but recently, films have been coming from WB in their OAR, whilst older films have not. ITV have also broadcast one 20th Century Fox film and it was in 2.35:1 also, so perhaps from a certain date not too long ago they requested all films to be in OAR and it;s only the new content that's coming that way, the older films they have will have to remain cropped until the rights deal comes up for renewal and then they will be updated to OAR versions (if ITV want to pay for them, they may not!). Same with Channel 5. Surely their long term movie contracts should be up by now and the majority of the films they still show in 4:3 can finally be updated to OAR versions. Seeing a film or TV show in prime time on Channel 5 in 4:3 looks incredibly amateur, especially with their badly placed DOG's (which look fine for 16:9 content).
DVDfever
01-07-2012
Originally Posted by Libretio:
“Sunday (1 July)

• THE BOYS ARE BACK (BBC 2)]”

Showing now in 2.35:1 (and on BBC HD)

And I see State of Play (Fri, ITV) is a Universal film, so that'll be 16:9

Originally Posted by PhilH36:
“We've had this discussion before. Would you seriously expect them to reply to an email/tweet/Facebook posting which contained that type of language?”

(sigh) my post emoticon showed how I wasn't seriously expecting one. They're too backwards to understand what an aspect ratio is, anyway.
icstm
02-07-2012
even when watching BluRays even I prefer to generally watch to fill the screen top and bottom.
I like 4:3 material in correct aspect ratio and thus with black bars to the side.
But Black bars top and bottom make the picture too small. Widescreen TVs (Unlike giant projections) never look particually tall so chopped further to maintain your aspect ratio is a little waste.

As far as I am concerned it is like radio stations like Capital FM playing with the equaliser of their songs. Done right it can sound more enjoyable (though not necessary better than the orginial as played say on Radio 1).

16:9 is the TV size so fill it, even if the movie is 22:9
theonlyweeman
02-07-2012
Originally Posted by icstm:
“even when watching BluRays even I prefer to generally watch to fill the screen top and bottom.
I like 4:3 material in correct aspect ratio and thus with black bars to the side.
But Black bars top and bottom make the picture too small. Widescreen TVs (Unlike giant projections) never look particually tall so chopped further to maintain your aspect ratio is a little waste.

As far as I am concerned it is like radio stations like Capital FM playing with the equaliser of their songs. Done right it can sound more enjoyable (though not necessary better than the orginial as played say on Radio 1).

16:9 is the TV size so fill it, even if the movie is 22:9”

Trouble is, you crop it you lose half the image and almost certainly miss half the action (unless you pan and scan, but I'm not even gonna waste time explaining why that is shit).

Also, Capital cut their songs, as a matter of principle I try and avoid listening to them. It's like TV channels editing shows to fit more adverts in, I would avoid any TV channels I knew were definitely doing it.
icstm
02-07-2012
I rarely have to change a disc from 16:9 to orginial aspect to capture the action, in fact as the action is filling more of the screen it is more engaging to the viewer. - This is the main reason I like 16:9 it is more visually appealing to have a larger image and a more complete one.

Sure for some movies you miss some key background shots and you can also miss some text (eg locations, flashback timestamps, etc).
Libretio
02-07-2012
(Unless otherwise indicated, all films in the following list were projected at 2.35:1 prior to 1971, and at 2.39:1 thereafter)

Scope and 3-D films released on UK Blu-ray (2 - 8 July):

• AIRPORT (1969) [Todd-AO] [2.21:1]
• BATMAN BEGINS (2005) [Panavision]
• BREAKING DAWN PART 1 (2011)
• CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (2011) [3-D]
• CLEANSKIN (2010) [Techniscope]
• THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) [Panavision / IMAX] [2.39:1 and 1.44:1]
• ECLIPSE (2010)
• HELL (2011)
• JOHN CARTER (2012) [Panavision and 3-D]
• LION OF THE DESERT (1981) [Panavision]
• THE MESSAGE [الرسالة] (1976) [Panavision]
• NEW MOON (2009)
• THIS MEANS WAR (2012)
• TT3D: CLOSER TO THE EDGE (2011) [3-D] [1.85:1]
• TWILIGHT (2008)
• UNLEASHED [Danny the Dog] (2005)
• ZOOLANDER (2001)


Scope and 3-D films released on US Blu-ray (3 - 9 July):

• BARBARELLA (1968) [Panavision]
• BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY (1989) [Panavision]
• DJANGO, KILL... IF YOU LIVE, SHOOT! [Se Sei Vivo, Spara] (1967) [Techniscope]
• THE ENTITY (1981) [Panavision]
• THE HORSE WHISPERER (1998) [Panavision] [2.39:1 and 1.85:1]
• PHENOMENON (1996) [Panavision]
• STEP UP (2006) [J-D-C Scope]
• WIND BLAST [西風烈] (2010)
DVDfever
02-07-2012
Originally Posted by icstm:
“even when watching BluRays even I prefer to generally watch to fill the screen top and bottom.”

So you buy a high-definition format and crop that?! What is the weather like on your planet?

Originally Posted by icstm:
“I rarely have to change a disc from 16:9 to orginial aspect to capture the action, in fact as the action is filling more of the screen it is more engaging to the viewer. - This is the main reason I like 16:9 it is more visually appealing to have a larger image and a more complete one..”

Er.. quite the opposite.
icstm
03-07-2012
I hear where you are coming from, but the impact it not looking at a very detailed stamp sized picture - if you buy an xx inch TV, with a surface area of Y, then I want to see my image fill Y.

Maybe it is just personal perference, but I find the WOW factor from the total size of the image, rather than the fact it is a 1:1 mapping of what the editor cut.

However, I only choose the largest screens when going to the cinema, rather than the small ones at so many multiplexes. But then I do have iMax tickets for Dark Knight
theonlyweeman
03-07-2012
Originally Posted by icstm:
“Maybe it is just personal perference, but I find the WOW factor from the total size of the image, rather than the fact it is a 1:1 mapping of what the editor cut.”

Personally, I get a bigger wow factor from good editing and well composed shots. something often killed by cropping

(Note: I wouldn't go out of my way to avoid a cropped film, but I definitely wouldn't crop one myself)
DVDfever
05-07-2012
Not sure if this has been commented on before, and the film wasn't in 2.35:1, but I saw the last 10 mins of Magnum Force (cropped to 16:9) and while ITV in SD was fine with the audio, in HD their audio front channels were reversed. Is this a regular thing with them?
eyeblink
05-07-2012
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“Personally, I get a bigger wow factor from good editing and well composed shots. something often killed by cropping

(Note: I wouldn't go out of my way to avoid a cropped film, but I definitely wouldn't crop one myself)”

I have IMAX tickets for The Dark Knight Rises too...

As for panning-and-scanning, it depends. I've seen a lot of anamorphically-shot films from the 80s onwards which are clearly composed so that they can be cropped to 4:3, and in many cases visual composition is limited to making sure that "the vital action" (which means who is speaking/acting and reacting is in shot, and composition be damned) can be seen.. Watch a Blake Edwards Scope film from the 80s and you will see an image framed for 4:3 with acres of empty space to either side. That's just one of the more blatant examples of "TV Scope" out there.

Films that do make a virtue of visual composition do suffer, in the worst cases are ruined. Pacing and sometimes even comprehensibility go out of the window as cuts and pans are introduced that aren't there in the original. Try watching a 60s spaghetti western cropped, or most Hollywood films from the "high Scope" era of the 50s and 60s and you will see what I mean. (My personal prize for unwatchability goes to the BBC Film Club's 80s showing of "Two-Lane Blacktop".)
Libretio
05-07-2012
IN THE ELECTRIC MIST 'premiered' OAR on BBC 1 last night.
theonlyweeman
05-07-2012
Originally Posted by eyeblink:
“I have IMAX tickets for The Dark Knight Rises too...

As for panning-and-scanning, it depends. I've seen a lot of anamorphically-shot films from the 80s onwards which are clearly composed so that they can be cropped to 4:3, and in many cases visual composition is limited to making sure that "the vital action" (which means who is speaking/acting and reacting is in shot, and composition be damned) can be seen.. Watch a Blake Edwards Scope film from the 80s and you will see an image framed for 4:3 with acres of empty space to either side. That's just one of the more blatant examples of "TV Scope" out there.

Films that do make a virtue of visual composition do suffer, in the worst cases are ruined. Pacing and sometimes even comprehensibility go out of the window as cuts and pans are introduced that aren't there in the original. Try watching a 60s spaghetti western cropped, or most Hollywood films from the "high Scope" era of the 50s and 60s and you will see what I mean. (My personal prize for unwatchability goes to the BBC Film Club's 80s showing of "Two-Lane Blacktop".)”

I watching (500) Days of Summer last night and I did notice just how crap it would look cropped. A lot of the time people's faces would've been cut off. A lot of the (imo amazing) cinematography would've gone. Not to mention the countless text data that would be lost. Thank god Channel 4 got the Fox contract...
pad_ehh
05-07-2012
Imagine ITV showing (500) Days Of Summer, cropped to 16:9 and with black bars at the left and right to fit in all the text whenever it appeared making it a nightmare to try and enjoy.
theonlyweeman
05-07-2012
Originally Posted by Paddy C:
“Imagine ITV showing (500) Days Of Summer, cropped to 16:9 and with black bars at the left and right to fit in all the text whenever it appeared making it a nightmare to try and enjoy.”

how shit would that be [That's a statement not a question, btw]
DVDfever
05-07-2012
Originally Posted by eyeblink:
“I have IMAX tickets for The Dark Knight Rises too...”

I might go and see that. I'm not one for superhero films really, but I'm looking to go and see Spiderman next week, not for the plot or that it's particularly a must-see thing, but because "it had me at... IMAX 3D" and I'm gagging for another IMAX experience after Prometheus.

I may see TDKR too, but the lack of 3D feels like an omission. And at nearly 3hrs... hmm...

And while I thought Batman Begins was okay, I thought Dark Knight was overlong and fairly dull at times. Heath Ledger was okay, but certainly not Oscar-worthy, but clearly he only got that due to the unfortunate problem of him being dead.

Still, if TDKR promises to be a spectacle - and Prometheus felt like an amazing theme park ride - then it'll be worth a trip.

Originally Posted by Paddy C:
“Imagine ITV showing (500) Days Of Summer, cropped to 16:9 and with black bars at the left and right to fit in all the text whenever it appeared making it a nightmare to try and enjoy.”

Would it be cropped? It was filmed in Super 35.
theonlyweeman
05-07-2012
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“Would it be cropped? It was filmed in Super 35.”

I don't think it's suitable for opening up either, as it relies on a large number of brief CGI sequences to help explain the non-linear narrative, and I doubt they'd be bothered enough/able to reanimate those. Also, some of the editing techniques would require some scenes to be cropped anyway. So possibly a combination of the two techniques (or the dreaded pan and scan) would be used.
eyeblink
06-07-2012
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“I may see TDKR too, but the lack of 3D feels like an omission. And at nearly 3hrs... hmm...

<snip>

Still, if TDKR promises to be a spectacle - and Prometheus felt like an amazing theme park ride - then it'll be worth a trip.”

About 55 minutes of TDKR was shot in IMAX. If you haven't seen 15/70 footage shown on an IMAX screen before you are in for a treat. (Similarly, about half an hour each of THE DARK KNIGHT and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL was IMAX footage, the rest of each film being shot 35mm anamorphic.) Trust me, you will see the difference. You won't miss 3D.
eyeblink
06-07-2012
Originally Posted by Libretio:
“IN THE ELECTRIC MIST 'premiered' OAR on BBC 1 last night.”

I missed it but I do have it on my Lovefilm rental list (being a longtime Tavernier fan). Which version was shown last night - the producer's cut, or Tavernier's longer cut?
icstm
06-07-2012
Originally Posted by eyeblink:
“About 55 minutes of TDKR was shot in IMAX. If you haven't seen 15/70 footage shown on an IMAX screen before you are in for a treat. (Similarly, about half an hour each of THE DARK KNIGHT and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL was IMAX footage, the rest of each film being shot 35mm anamorphic.) Trust me, you will see the difference. You won't miss 3D.”

I don't o much to themovies anymore, but 15/70 is just awsome and gets me to cough up and pay.
<<
<
78 of 136
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map