DVDs/ widescreen

James2001 · 19-01-2002, 22:19

We ahve jsut got a DVD palyer and I'm wondering how many DVD are there that offer between aspect ratio selections? Many DVDs I've seen force the full format through the TV and when you're watching through a 4:3 set it doesnt look very good. I want to know which DVDs offer a choice beween full format, 16:9 format and pan/scan, so I know which to buy. Some discs say on the back "2.35:1/1.85:1 widescreen" some say "2.35:1/1.85:1 anamorphic", some say "2.35:1/1.85:1 widescreen" with "16:9 anamorphic widescreen" next to it, and some say "2.35:1/1.85:1 suitable for all tv set ratios". Which are the right ones? I don't mind watching in 2.35:1 on a 16:9 set as the black bars are only what a 16:9 picture is on a 4:3 set, which isn't distracting but the full 2.35:1 bars on a 4:3 set is practically unwatchable. I could easily watch a film with 16:9 ratio width bars, but not 2.35:1 ratio so could someone advise me so I know which discs to buy? I could watch in 2.35:1 with the box set to 16:9 so I get full pictue, but with slightly streched pictures and thinner bars, but the annoying pin 8 switching forces the TV set into 16:9 mode, and if I switch the TV back to 4:3, it swiches itself back to 16:9 after 5 seconds.

Mark Hughes · 20-01-2002, 03:23

2.35:1 is the most gorgeous aspect ratio in existance in my opinion, and looks fine on a 4:3 set. I've not got a widescreen set myself (yet), but if a film was shot in 2.35:1 I wouldn't DREAM of watching it in any other format. You should really watch 'em in the format they are shot in. Not doing so destroys the composition and feel of the film, makes scenes unwatchable, basically ruins 'em.

However, if you must watch a hacked, pan and scanned, basically destroyed transfer of the film, then many discs (I'd say about 30-40% of all the discs available) do offer both widescreen and full screen options. But if you're gonna do that, you may as well just rent the VHS....

Mark
(in "widescreen elitest" mood)

James2001 · 20-01-2002, 09:36

I don't like it though- the picture is less than half the screen and looks awful. Its OK in a cinema, its OK on a widescreen set but its terrible on a 4:3. I wouldn't mind watching in anamorphic, as the black bars aren't too big (and on 1.85:1 films there are hardly any) and the elongation is unoticable but the pin 8 switching is annoying and I can't snip it because I don't know which pin it is!

Mark Hughes · 20-01-2002, 09:59

Errrrr that's not what anamorphic is meant for, you know...

Can't believe you can watch films stretched like that. I guess it's up to you though, if you're happy to watch films that have been butchered and bastardised then that's fine, but for my money, I can't pay attention when I know that a) half the frame is missing, and b) it keeps sliding from side to side in a most ugly way to keep the action on screen, as happens with full-screen transfers.

Mark

20-01-2002, 13:08

James have any american blood in your by any chance

well i disagree with james but i know there are many with his view, i notices on play.com that a few of the latest films have a full screen version as well as a wide screen version.

i was also sickened beyond belief when i received the deerhunter on DVD only to find it was not anamorphic and the thing is utterly un watchable on a 16:9 set as its forced letterbox

James2001 · 20-01-2002, 13:42

I'd like DVDs to be more like Digital TV- always anamorphic and with a choice of how to view rather than being forced how to view.

Mark Hughes · 20-01-2002, 17:14

Well, I'll agree that they should all be anamorphic, the increase in picture quality is great, but I personally couldn't give a toss if they don't have the choice how to view - this is because TV shot for 16x9 is composed with the fact in mind that it should be able to be zoomed to 14x9 or 4x3 without missing out any of the action.

Films are certainly not shot in this way, and should always, IMO, be shown in their full original aspect ratio. Because of the fact that films aren't shot in this way, it's a lot harder to do what's done with digital TV (i.e. just zooming in on the centre of the 16x9 area) because the action fills the frame, so you need to pan it from side to side, meaning a special pan&scan version needs to be prepared, whcih doubles the amount of room you need on the disc. For something that is a *bad* thing IMO.

Mark

James2001 · 20-01-2002, 18:10

I do see your point there, as films aren't made for the 4:3 aspect. there are, however, still some films now shot in 4:3. You can usually see these when the BBC show them as BBC1 or 2 digital show a cropped version of the 4:3 version- there were a few films treated this way over christmas. Authough these films are usually made to be matted to 1.85:1 in cinema.

Mark Hughes · 20-01-2002, 20:19

Yup, such as The Shawshank Redemption (not sure if that was shown over xmas, but it was shot that way). However, while you ARE getting more picture, you're still not seeing it framed right. It's shot to be seen cropped to 1.85:1 (or even 2.35:1, in the case of films like The Abyss).

And again, that's a whole other can of worms too, as I don't think films should be shot that way, they should be shot anamorphically to use the whole area of the film... but that's just me

Mark

RichardS · 20-01-2002, 20:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Hughes
Yup, such as The Shawshank Redemption (not sure if that was shown over xmas, but it was shot that way). However, while you ARE getting more picture, you're still not seeing it framed right. It's shot to be seen cropped to 1.85:1 (or even 2.35:1, in the case of films like The Abyss).

And again, that's a whole other can of worms too, as I don't think films should be shot that way, they should be shot anamorphically to use the whole area of the film... but that's just me

Mark

I bought the DVD of Shawshank Redemption and its a 2 sided DVD with the 4:3 version on one side and the anamorphic version on the other.

Mark Hughes · 21-01-2002, 02:21

indeed, you'll notice the 4:3 version actually shows MORE picture than the 1.85:1 version. It's supposed to be framed at 1.85:1 though, so the 4:3 version is still "wrong". But nonetheless, it's better than a pan&scanned version.

I've nothing against choice, I guess, but if they ever start releasing DVDs where there's no widescreen option I think I'll scream

Mark

21-01-2002, 18:57

Quote:

but if they ever start releasing DVDs where there's no widescreen option I think I'll scream

god that thought scares me.... but have you read how anti wide screen so many yanks are and that some blockbusters over there now only ship full screen only

I can only hope that the film makers would never let it happen, surely they all hate it with the passion of ten drunk horny monkeys.

James2001 · 21-01-2002, 19:22

Yes, but most R2 DVDs are widescreen, authough I'd like to see more with the choice of widescreen or full screen, though more seem to be made this way anyway. I would aggree with more 16:9 film channels, because people then have a choice how to watch.

Mark Hughes · 21-01-2002, 19:25

The widescreen film channels need to make sure they show 2.35:1 films in 2.35:1 - do they already do this??

Mark

Mark Hughes · 21-01-2002, 19:27

Quote:

Originally posted by oldmandeets

god that thought scares me.... but have you read how anti wide screen so many yanks are and that some blockbusters over there now only ship full screen only

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but just to clarify some Blockbuster video stores only stock full screen, not some block buster films are only available in full screen. There'd be uproar if that happened.

Quote:

I can only hope that the film makers would never let it happen, surely they all hate it with the passion of ten drunk horny monkeys.

I think that is quite possibly the finest line anyone has ever said on this forum

And I agree, totally. I'm sure they really hate it.

Mark

squidgy · 23-01-2002, 03:32

At the moment, I don't have a widescreen TV but I consider it likely that I will get one in the future. So, yes, I AM conscious of whether movies are presented in widescreen properly or not when I buy them.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but on the vast majority of widescreen movies, the DVD player lets me choose whether I want to play it in letterbox or pan-scan. I'm assuming that these ones will give better resolution on a widescreen TV too. Is that what "anamorphic" means? But there are a few which don't, as though it's a 4:3 presentation but the movies is shown in a letterbox within this, in which case the DVD player won't allow me to put it on pan-scan. I'm assuming that these will give just a little low resolution picture in the middle of the screen of a widescreen TV - is this right?

If so, then there are only two R2 movies that I've found to be presented in a non-anamorphic letterbox, they are All About My Mother and Clockwork Orange. The vast majority of movies are presented in anamorphic format, though, but I usually rent before I buy to make sure I like it.

fivelittlefish · 23-01-2002, 08:41

'Anamorphic' just means that the footage has been treated so that it can be expanded on the correct equipment - i.e. a 16x9 TV will expand an anamorphic picture to fill the display.

I've noticed that there is a terminology problem with widescreen. Some film distributors will call a letterbox transfer (in 4x3) 'widescreen' - whereas some will correctly say 16x9 widescreen, or anamorphic 16x9 (if that's what it is)

And yes, I've seen some 16x9 transfers that actually contained less image information than the 4x3 transfer. That's 'cos they make them by blowing up the original and then compressing it left to right. Outrageous!

No film production is likely to pay much attention to how the movie will be shown on TV, and will shoot with framing of their choice (for artistic effect or whatever). However, these days, all ads and promos are usually shot 16x9 anamorphic, and in 'shoot and protect', which means that the action happens within the 4x3 centre area.
There are a whole bunch of different ways a director of photograpy can use the raw stock. For example I seem to remember Lawrence of Arabia was originally shot very wide indeed and I've seen a correct transfer of that movie (on to 4x3) that amounted to a thin strip across the middle of the screen.

Hope this helps...

Duncan Harvey · 23-01-2002, 09:33

"No film production is likely to pay much attention to how the movie will be shown on TV, and will shoot with framing of their choice (for artistic effect or whatever). "

Hmm, I'd doubt that, especially for British films where most of the money for their production comes from TV companies.

Also, far more people see a film on TV than ever see it in the cinema, so I'd expect shooting for 16:9 safely within a 2.35:1 frame to be a consideration when shooting a film in scope, or composing shots in Super 35.

Directors may get on their high horse about their artistic integrity but mainly this is rubbish. I remember seeing an interview with Michael Mann, who was po faced and saying how he "never considered TV" when composing his shots - yeah right... this is the man who gave the world "Miami Vice".

Mark Hughes · 23-01-2002, 13:55

Quote:

Originally posted by squidgy
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but on the vast majority of widescreen movies, the DVD player lets me choose whether I want to play it in letterbox or pan-scan. I'm assuming that these ones will give better resolution on a widescreen TV too. Is that what "anamorphic" means?

Not really. Anamorphic means that the 16x9 picture area fills the 720x576 resolution of the video, thus if played back in 16x9 mode (set on the dvd player) on a standard TV, everything looks stretched vertically. When played in 16x9 mode on a widescreen TV, everything gets squished back down to the correct aspect, and you get more picture lines so it looks a lot better.

The DVD player offers you the choice to watch it in pan&scan but VERY few DVDs actually support this feature - I can only think of one and I can't remember what it is. Some DVD players may spoof it by zooming in on the centre of the picture, but that could well miss out action as films are not composed to be "safe" to 4x3, as TV is.

Quote:

But there are a few which don't, as though it's a 4:3 presentation but the movies is shown in a letterbox within this, in which case the DVD player won't allow me to put it on pan-scan. I'm assuming that these will give just a little low resolution picture in the middle of the screen of a widescreen TV - is this right?

The picture will be the same "size" on the widescreen TV on a non-anamorphic title, because it will zoom in to the widescreen area, however obviously you have less active picture lines, so lower picture quality. I believe The Abyss is non-anamorphic in this way, because James Cameron in all his wisdom decided that the down-conversion that DVD players do if you set them to 4x3 mode when watching an anamorphic DVD - i.e. to watch them in full widescreen on a 4x3 TV - is not as good as a straight 4x3 transfer (possibly true), and as "most people*" have 4x3 TVs, the transfer should be aimed at them.

[*most people in the UK who own DVD players, certainly until at least six months ago when the last figures were released, have widescreen TVs. This statistic is definately true in America, where only 3% of people with DVD players have 16x9 TVs, however here last time the figures were released it was something like 75% of people with DVD players also have 16x9 TVs.]

Quote:

If so, then there are only two R2 movies that I've found to be presented in a non-anamorphic letterbox, they are All About My Mother and Clockwork Orange. The vast majority of movies are presented in anamorphic format, though, but I usually rent before I buy to make sure I like it.

The reason Clockwork Orange is not anamorphic is that it was shot at 1.66:1, which is taller than 16x9, and so cannot be anamoprhic without either putting black bars at the SIDE of the image (thus ending up with black bars all around on a 4x3 TV), or making it non-anamorphic.

Mark

Mark Hughes · 23-01-2002, 13:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Harvey
Also, far more people see a film on TV than ever see it in the cinema, so I'd expect shooting for 16:9 safely within a 2.35:1 frame to be a consideration when shooting a film in scope, or composing shots in Super 35.

I'm afraid this is bollocks. You only need to look at a film in 2.35:1 to see that action takes place from one side of the frame to the other. If it's gonna be shown cropped on TV, it HAS to be pan&scanned, to track the action. Simple as that. There may be /some/ exceptions to this rule, but the vast majority of films shot in widescreen are intended only to be seen in widescreen.

Quote:

Directors may get on their high horse about their artistic integrity but mainly this is rubbish. I remember seeing an interview with Michael Mann, who was po faced and saying how he "never considered TV" when composing his shots - yeah right... this is the man who gave the world "Miami Vice".

So because he's done TV in the past he's not allowed to shoot something not-aimed-for-TV now? I'm afraid that you're wrong here - you only need to look at a film shot in wider-than-4x3 to see that.

Mark

Kevo · 23-01-2002, 18:02

Totally agree with Mark Hughes comments.
Although I am surprised he doesn't own a WS TV!

2.35:1 is definatley more pleasing on the eye.

Although I have noticed that more modern WS films tend to centre the action with TV in mind.

Just watch one of the old Westerns or Roman Epic films and you'll see the difference.

Talking of Roman Epic films, James I hope you don't like Ben Hur, as the DVD is in 2.70:1 which I just couldn't imagine what be like on an average sized 4:3 set!

Mark Hughes · 23-01-2002, 18:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevo
Totally agree with Mark Hughes comments.
Although I am surprised he doesn't own a WS TV!

If I had the cash....

Mark

23-01-2002, 18:11

mine was a philips 28" and was under £400

Mark Hughes · 23-01-2002, 18:32

The thing is at the moment I've got a really good Sony 25" 4x3 (which is big enough for the room it's in) - it's got a 16x9 mode that takes advantage of anamorphic discs, and the picture is lovely. To replace that with a cheaper widescreen TV would be, in my opinion, a step backwards. I'll probably spend a lot and get a very, very good TV when i do, but it'll probably be some years yet.

Mark

23-01-2002, 19:39

indeed, my old set was a cheapo goodmans 20" which i bought for univeristy and the remote had died, so when i saw the 28" WS from philips I took my chances! cost £550 in comet, funny, I bought it online (no ads though) but i went into comet to see it running, thanks comet

19-01-2002, 22:19	#1
James2001 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Mansfield Posts: 27,529	DVDs/ widescreen We ahve jsut got a DVD palyer and I'm wondering how many DVD are there that offer between aspect ratio selections? Many DVDs I've seen force the full format through the TV and when you're watching through a 4:3 set it doesnt look very good. I want to know which DVDs offer a choice beween full format, 16:9 format and pan/scan, so I know which to buy. Some discs say on the back "2.35:1/1.85:1 widescreen" some say "2.35:1/1.85:1 anamorphic", some say "2.35:1/1.85:1 widescreen" with "16:9 anamorphic widescreen" next to it, and some say "2.35:1/1.85:1 suitable for all tv set ratios". Which are the right ones? I don't mind watching in 2.35:1 on a 16:9 set as the black bars are only what a 16:9 picture is on a 4:3 set, which isn't distracting but the full 2.35:1 bars on a 4:3 set is practically unwatchable. I could easily watch a film with 16:9 ratio width bars, but not 2.35:1 ratio so could someone advise me so I know which discs to buy? I could watch in 2.35:1 with the box set to 16:9 so I get full pictue, but with slightly streched pictures and thinner bars, but the annoying pin 8 switching forces the TV set into 16:9 mode, and if I switch the TV back to 4:3, it swiches itself back to 16:9 after 5 seconds.

20-01-2002, 03:23	#2
Mark Hughes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Somewhere near London Posts: 2,936	2.35:1 is the most gorgeous aspect ratio in existance in my opinion, and looks fine on a 4:3 set. I've not got a widescreen set myself (yet), but if a film was shot in 2.35:1 I wouldn't DREAM of watching it in any other format. You should really watch 'em in the format they are shot in. Not doing so destroys the composition and feel of the film, makes scenes unwatchable, basically ruins 'em. However, if you must watch a hacked, pan and scanned, basically destroyed transfer of the film, then many discs (I'd say about 30-40% of all the discs available) do offer both widescreen and full screen options. But if you're gonna do that, you may as well just rent the VHS.... Mark (in "widescreen elitest" mood)

20-01-2002, 09:36	#3
James2001 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Mansfield Posts: 27,529	I don't like it though- the picture is less than half the screen and looks awful. Its OK in a cinema, its OK on a widescreen set but its terrible on a 4:3. I wouldn't mind watching in anamorphic, as the black bars aren't too big (and on 1.85:1 films there are hardly any) and the elongation is unoticable but the pin 8 switching is annoying and I can't snip it because I don't know which pin it is!

20-01-2002, 09:59	#4
Mark Hughes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Somewhere near London Posts: 2,936	Errrrr that's not what anamorphic is meant for, you know... Can't believe you can watch films stretched like that. I guess it's up to you though, if you're happy to watch films that have been butchered and bastardised then that's fine, but for my money, I can't pay attention when I know that a) half the frame is missing, and b) it keeps sliding from side to side in a most ugly way to keep the action on screen, as happens with full-screen transfers. Mark

20-01-2002, 13:08	#5
oldmandeets Posts: n/a	James have any american blood in your by any chance well i disagree with james but i know there are many with his view, i notices on play.com that a few of the latest films have a full screen version as well as a wide screen version. i was also sickened beyond belief when i received the deerhunter on DVD only to find it was not anamorphic and the thing is utterly un watchable on a 16:9 set as its forced letterbox

20-01-2002, 13:42	#6
James2001 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Mansfield Posts: 27,529	I'd like DVDs to be more like Digital TV- always anamorphic and with a choice of how to view rather than being forced how to view.

20-01-2002, 17:14	#7
Mark Hughes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Somewhere near London Posts: 2,936	Well, I'll agree that they should all be anamorphic, the increase in picture quality is great, but I personally couldn't give a toss if they don't have the choice how to view - this is because TV shot for 16x9 is composed with the fact in mind that it should be able to be zoomed to 14x9 or 4x3 without missing out any of the action. Films are certainly not shot in this way, and should always, IMO, be shown in their full original aspect ratio. Because of the fact that films aren't shot in this way, it's a lot harder to do what's done with digital TV (i.e. just zooming in on the centre of the 16x9 area) because the action fills the frame, so you need to pan it from side to side, meaning a special pan&scan version needs to be prepared, whcih doubles the amount of room you need on the disc. For something that is a bad thing IMO. Mark

20-01-2002, 18:10	#8
James2001 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Mansfield Posts: 27,529	I do see your point there, as films aren't made for the 4:3 aspect. there are, however, still some films now shot in 4:3. You can usually see these when the BBC show them as BBC1 or 2 digital show a cropped version of the 4:3 version- there were a few films treated this way over christmas. Authough these films are usually made to be matted to 1.85:1 in cinema.

20-01-2002, 20:19	#9
Mark Hughes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Somewhere near London Posts: 2,936	Yup, such as The Shawshank Redemption (not sure if that was shown over xmas, but it was shot that way). However, while you ARE getting more picture, you're still not seeing it framed right. It's shot to be seen cropped to 1.85:1 (or even 2.35:1, in the case of films like The Abyss). And again, that's a whole other can of worms too, as I don't think films should be shot that way, they should be shot anamorphically to use the whole area of the film... but that's just me Mark

20-01-2002, 20:51	#10
RichardS Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Barnsley Posts: 3,302	Quote: Originally posted by Mark Hughes Yup, such as The Shawshank Redemption (not sure if that was shown over xmas, but it was shot that way). However, while you ARE getting more picture, you're still not seeing it framed right. It's shot to be seen cropped to 1.85:1 (or even 2.35:1, in the case of films like The Abyss). And again, that's a whole other can of worms too, as I don't think films should be shot that way, they should be shot anamorphically to use the whole area of the film... but that's just me Mark I bought the DVD of Shawshank Redemption and its a 2 sided DVD with the 4:3 version on one side and the anamorphic version on the other.

21-01-2002, 02:21	#11
Mark Hughes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Somewhere near London Posts: 2,936	indeed, you'll notice the 4:3 version actually shows MORE picture than the 1.85:1 version. It's supposed to be framed at 1.85:1 though, so the 4:3 version is still "wrong". But nonetheless, it's better than a pan&scanned version. I've nothing against choice, I guess, but if they ever start releasing DVDs where there's no widescreen option I think I'll scream Mark

21-01-2002, 18:57	#12
oldmandeets Posts: n/a	Quote: but if they ever start releasing DVDs where there's no widescreen option I think I'll scream god that thought scares me.... but have you read how anti wide screen so many yanks are and that some blockbusters over there now only ship full screen only I can only hope that the film makers would never let it happen, surely they all hate it with the passion of ten drunk horny monkeys.

21-01-2002, 19:22	#13
James2001 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Mansfield Posts: 27,529	Yes, but most R2 DVDs are widescreen, authough I'd like to see more with the choice of widescreen or full screen, though more seem to be made this way anyway. I would aggree with more 16:9 film channels, because people then have a choice how to watch.

21-01-2002, 19:25	#14
Mark Hughes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Somewhere near London Posts: 2,936	The widescreen film channels need to make sure they show 2.35:1 films in 2.35:1 - do they already do this?? Mark

21-01-2002, 19:27	#15
Mark Hughes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Somewhere near London Posts: 2,936	Quote: Originally posted by oldmandeets god that thought scares me.... but have you read how anti wide screen so many yanks are and that some blockbusters over there now only ship full screen only I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but just to clarify some Blockbuster video stores only stock full screen, not some block buster films are only available in full screen. There'd be uproar if that happened. Quote: I can only hope that the film makers would never let it happen, surely they all hate it with the passion of ten drunk horny monkeys. I think that is quite possibly the finest line anyone has ever said on this forum And I agree, totally. I'm sure they really hate it. Mark

23-01-2002, 03:32	#16
squidgy Forum Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: South West London Posts: 494	At the moment, I don't have a widescreen TV but I consider it likely that I will get one in the future. So, yes, I AM conscious of whether movies are presented in widescreen properly or not when I buy them. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but on the vast majority of widescreen movies, the DVD player lets me choose whether I want to play it in letterbox or pan-scan. I'm assuming that these ones will give better resolution on a widescreen TV too. Is that what "anamorphic" means? But there are a few which don't, as though it's a 4:3 presentation but the movies is shown in a letterbox within this, in which case the DVD player won't allow me to put it on pan-scan. I'm assuming that these will give just a little low resolution picture in the middle of the screen of a widescreen TV - is this right? If so, then there are only two R2 movies that I've found to be presented in a non-anamorphic letterbox, they are All About My Mother and Clockwork Orange. The vast majority of movies are presented in anamorphic format, though, but I usually rent before I buy to make sure I like it.

23-01-2002, 08:41	#17
fivelittlefish Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 30	'Anamorphic' just means that the footage has been treated so that it can be expanded on the correct equipment - i.e. a 16x9 TV will expand an anamorphic picture to fill the display. I've noticed that there is a terminology problem with widescreen. Some film distributors will call a letterbox transfer (in 4x3) 'widescreen' - whereas some will correctly say 16x9 widescreen, or anamorphic 16x9 (if that's what it is) And yes, I've seen some 16x9 transfers that actually contained less image information than the 4x3 transfer. That's 'cos they make them by blowing up the original and then compressing it left to right. Outrageous! No film production is likely to pay much attention to how the movie will be shown on TV, and will shoot with framing of their choice (for artistic effect or whatever). However, these days, all ads and promos are usually shot 16x9 anamorphic, and in 'shoot and protect', which means that the action happens within the 4x3 centre area. There are a whole bunch of different ways a director of photograpy can use the raw stock. For example I seem to remember Lawrence of Arabia was originally shot very wide indeed and I've seen a correct transfer of that movie (on to 4x3) that amounted to a thin strip across the middle of the screen. Hope this helps...

23-01-2002, 09:33	#18
Duncan Harvey Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lichfield, Staffs Posts: 297	"No film production is likely to pay much attention to how the movie will be shown on TV, and will shoot with framing of their choice (for artistic effect or whatever). " Hmm, I'd doubt that, especially for British films where most of the money for their production comes from TV companies. Also, far more people see a film on TV than ever see it in the cinema, so I'd expect shooting for 16:9 safely within a 2.35:1 frame to be a consideration when shooting a film in scope, or composing shots in Super 35. Directors may get on their high horse about their artistic integrity but mainly this is rubbish. I remember seeing an interview with Michael Mann, who was po faced and saying how he "never considered TV" when composing his shots - yeah right... this is the man who gave the world "Miami Vice".

23-01-2002, 13:55	#19
Mark Hughes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Somewhere near London Posts: 2,936	Quote: Originally posted by squidgy Correct me if I'm wrong here, but on the vast majority of widescreen movies, the DVD player lets me choose whether I want to play it in letterbox or pan-scan. I'm assuming that these ones will give better resolution on a widescreen TV too. Is that what "anamorphic" means? Not really. Anamorphic means that the 16x9 picture area fills the 720x576 resolution of the video, thus if played back in 16x9 mode (set on the dvd player) on a standard TV, everything looks stretched vertically. When played in 16x9 mode on a widescreen TV, everything gets squished back down to the correct aspect, and you get more picture lines so it looks a lot better. The DVD player offers you the choice to watch it in pan&scan but VERY few DVDs actually support this feature - I can only think of one and I can't remember what it is. Some DVD players may spoof it by zooming in on the centre of the picture, but that could well miss out action as films are not composed to be "safe" to 4x3, as TV is. Quote: But there are a few which don't, as though it's a 4:3 presentation but the movies is shown in a letterbox within this, in which case the DVD player won't allow me to put it on pan-scan. I'm assuming that these will give just a little low resolution picture in the middle of the screen of a widescreen TV - is this right? The picture will be the same "size" on the widescreen TV on a non-anamorphic title, because it will zoom in to the widescreen area, however obviously you have less active picture lines, so lower picture quality. I believe The Abyss is non-anamorphic in this way, because James Cameron in all his wisdom decided that the down-conversion that DVD players do if you set them to 4x3 mode when watching an anamorphic DVD - i.e. to watch them in full widescreen on a 4x3 TV - is not as good as a straight 4x3 transfer (possibly true), and as "most people" have 4x3 TVs, the transfer should be aimed at them. [most people in the UK who own DVD players, certainly until at least six months ago when the last figures were released, have widescreen TVs. This statistic is definately true in America, where only 3% of people with DVD players have 16x9 TVs, however here last time the figures were released it was something like 75% of people with DVD players also have 16x9 TVs.] Quote: If so, then there are only two R2 movies that I've found to be presented in a non-anamorphic letterbox, they are All About My Mother and Clockwork Orange. The vast majority of movies are presented in anamorphic format, though, but I usually rent before I buy to make sure I like it. The reason Clockwork Orange is not anamorphic is that it was shot at 1.66:1, which is taller than 16x9, and so cannot be anamoprhic without either putting black bars at the SIDE of the image (thus ending up with black bars all around on a 4x3 TV), or making it non-anamorphic. Mark

23-01-2002, 13:58	#20
Mark Hughes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Somewhere near London Posts: 2,936	Quote: Originally posted by Duncan Harvey Also, far more people see a film on TV than ever see it in the cinema, so I'd expect shooting for 16:9 safely within a 2.35:1 frame to be a consideration when shooting a film in scope, or composing shots in Super 35. I'm afraid this is bollocks. You only need to look at a film in 2.35:1 to see that action takes place from one side of the frame to the other. If it's gonna be shown cropped on TV, it HAS to be pan&scanned, to track the action. Simple as that. There may be /some/ exceptions to this rule, but the vast majority of films shot in widescreen are intended only to be seen in widescreen. Quote: Directors may get on their high horse about their artistic integrity but mainly this is rubbish. I remember seeing an interview with Michael Mann, who was po faced and saying how he "never considered TV" when composing his shots - yeah right... this is the man who gave the world "Miami Vice". So because he's done TV in the past he's not allowed to shoot something not-aimed-for-TV now? I'm afraid that you're wrong here - you only need to look at a film shot in wider-than-4x3 to see that. Mark

23-01-2002, 18:02	#21
Kevo Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Manchester Posts: 925	Totally agree with Mark Hughes comments. Although I am surprised he doesn't own a WS TV! 2.35:1 is definatley more pleasing on the eye. Although I have noticed that more modern WS films tend to centre the action with TV in mind. Just watch one of the old Westerns or Roman Epic films and you'll see the difference. Talking of Roman Epic films, James I hope you don't like Ben Hur, as the DVD is in 2.70:1 which I just couldn't imagine what be like on an average sized 4:3 set!

DS Forums

DVDs/ widescreen

23-01-2002, 18:03	#22
Mark Hughes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Somewhere near London Posts: 2,936	Quote: Originally posted by Kevo Totally agree with Mark Hughes comments. Although I am surprised he doesn't own a WS TV! If I had the cash.... Mark

23-01-2002, 18:11	#23
oldmandeets Posts: n/a	mine was a philips 28" and was under £400

23-01-2002, 18:32	#24
Mark Hughes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Somewhere near London Posts: 2,936	The thing is at the moment I've got a really good Sony 25" 4x3 (which is big enough for the room it's in) - it's got a 16x9 mode that takes advantage of anamorphic discs, and the picture is lovely. To replace that with a cheaper widescreen TV would be, in my opinion, a step backwards. I'll probably spend a lot and get a very, very good TV when i do, but it'll probably be some years yet. Mark

23-01-2002, 19:39	#25
oldmandeets Posts: n/a	indeed, my old set was a cheapo goodmans 20" which i bought for univeristy and the remote had died, so when i saw the 28" WS from philips I took my chances! cost £550 in comet, funny, I bought it online (no ads though) but i went into comet to see it running, thanks comet