ARCHIVERead-only snapshot of the zulm.net forums, captured 12 November 2026.Home · Members · Search · About

Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC




   Page 1 of 4
  [ 56 posts ]  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
rana
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6148
Different Aspect Ratio Versions
Hollywood Bollywood Movies

Many, if not most, older Hollywood DVDs and almost all the new Hollywood releases are available in various Aspect Ratio pictures.

Mostly the Aspect Ratio is stated and also if altered from theatrical version or not. But, what is not stated is whether the re-formatted version contains more picture or less picture. As most of the new theatrical releases are 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 and the DVD options are 1.33:1, 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. A theatrical release of 2.35:1 could be presented as 1.85:1 or as 1.33:1 by removing the soft mats and/ or cutting the picture from the sides. On the other hand, a wider AR could have been obtained by either adding on the sides or by chopping the top and bottom of the picture.


On a side note, I know many will disagree; I personally have come to conclusion that 2.35:1 AR is not suitable for 99% of the movies. It is just not possible to compose a frame properly with a 2.35:1 AR. I see chopped heads in almost all the 2.35:1, often in 1.85:1 and almost never in 1.33:1.

I have seen a few DVDs where a lower AR version was obtained by removing the soft mats. I preferred that version as opposed to theatrical wider AR version. I have also seen lower AR versions where soft mats may or may not have been available to be removed but the lower AR was obtained by chopping the ends of the wider picture. I have also seen wider AR versions where the wider AR was obtained by chopping the top and bottom of the picture.

It will be nice to know which version contains more picture, whether Director wanted us to see it or not.

Rana

P.S.
Another ambiguity is:

What is Full Screen??
It can be a 1.33:1 Full Screen or 1.85:1 Anamorphic Full Screen (or even a 2.35:1 Anamorphic Full Screen if and when that anamorphic format is adopted).

What is Letterbox??
It can be a 1.85:1 letterboxed in 1.33:1 Full Screen or 2.35:1 letterboxed in a 1.33:1 screen or 2.35:1 anamorphic Letterboxed in a 1.85:1 screen.
Top
   
 
youullu
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2003 7:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2002 12:06 am
Posts: 112
first, 1:2.35 doesn't mean you can remove some "soft matte". That only happens when films are shot in Super35. If the film is shot with an anamorphic lens(say, the star wars films) then you can't remove any "matte", you have to pan and scam. The major reason for the prevalence of SUper35 is that filmmakers knew that their films were going to be watched on "squares", and shooting that way meant that yes, the compositions would be off, but they wouldn't be butchered.

I don't know why you say 1:2.35 isn't suitable for movies. Heads chopped off? Ever consider that was an artistic choice? If you see films by scorcese, p.t. anderson, spielberg, kurosawa, and others who know how to make use of a scope frame, you'll see the beauty of the cinemascope ratio.

THe version released in the theater is what the director intended you to see, the compromised releases are just that, compromised. Ex: Gangs of New York was shot in 1:2.35 Super35. THe film was framed beautifully for this ratio, and the DP says in the current issue of American Cinematographer that they used Super35 just so that when people end up watching it on TV, it wouldn't be pan and scammed.

rant ends here.
Top
   
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2003 8:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
Faces are often framed at 2.35:1 from the eyebrows down. This is common practice to direct the eye to the face. So you are supposed to see "chopped heads." Again, watching original aspect ratio isn't about seeing more picture than 4:3 or less picture, it is about seeing how the director framed the picture. 2.35:1 is harder to frame. However, like Youllu has said, many films have been shot beautifully in 2.35:1. Matting 1.37:1 down to 1.85:1 or matting Super 35 (which is also 1.37:1, but the frame is taller and wider) to 2.35:1 is common practice. The eyepieces and monitors are clearly marked for the widescreen AR, and the director/DP frame for that AR and not 4:3.
Top
   
 
ganti
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2003 8:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2002 3:45 pm
Posts: 515
Location: columbus
Rana,
Apart from the technical aspects, I pretty much like to watch 2.35:1 movie than any other kind. Then only I feel like watching a movie. I try not to purchase a full screen Movie unless otherwise it is a classic like Aradahana Progressive from Dragun. :D

May be its because of my setup, which I explained before. But I hardly remember watching a 1.33:1 Movie since January last year (some of our guests wanted to watch Deewar).

I know there are some people from AVSForum with only 2.35:1 screens; Unfortunately I am not one of them.
Top
   
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2003 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6148
DragunR2 wrote:
Faces are often framed at 2.35:1 from the eyebrows down. This is common practice to direct the eye to the face. So you are supposed to see "chopped heads."

Thanks DragunR2 and Youullu. Points well taken.

I agree 100%, "you are supposed to see "chopped heads" in a 2.35:1 AR. Because that's all that is possible. If I had space avail, that we do in 1.85:1 or in 1.33:1 TV, at top or bottom, I would rather see the picture above the eyebrows and below the chin.

I agree many movies have been beautifully shot @ 2.35:1. But many look incomplete frames as well. Specially in Indian movies. As you know, star dates, and star being there even if you have a date, is a big problem. Getting two stars at the same time is even a bigger problem. Lots of shots are taken on a solo star. Now, How do you fit a tall Star like Amitabh when he is standing (or jumping) in a 2.35:1 screen?? Actually you need 1:2.35.

2.35:1 is perfect for action films where action is from one end of the screen to the other. Rarely are Indian movies shot to fill the screen from left to right.

Well, these are my observations and preferrences. I do prefer more picture, whether it is 2.35:1 AR or in 1.33:1 AR, whether Director wanted us to see it or not (for theatrical presentation). And these optional ARs are available in the case of Hollywood films.

I just wanted to know/ share the info on which versions contain more picture.

I do have some DVDs with both versions on the same disc (I have seen the results) and I intend to rent some, as well, for this purpose. Actually I found a DVD rental place, renting real cheap. And he has multi-copies and multi-versions of the same movies. Sooner or later I will get into screen caps capturing and then I can illustrate my point.

Rana

P.S.
I know my views on this AR issue are different than that of others just like on RRSP contributions. If I debate, I can prove my points on RRSP, mathematically, but AR preferrance is subjective.

Sorry Ganti, I didn't see your post as WE both were writing at the same time. I do understand your reasons.



Edited By rana on 1042837549
Top
   
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2003 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
Watching open matte to me is tolerable, but when given a choice, I will always choose the OAR. I can't stand watching pan and scan, though.
Top
   
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2003 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6148
DragunR2 wrote:
I can't stand watching pan and scan, though.

I agree 100%. Pan and Scan means seeing less picture. I prefer to see more picture.

Rana
Top
   
 
jag
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2003 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 10:38 pm
Posts: 408
Quote:
I prefer to see more picture


Why would you want to see more picture than what the director intends to show? Is it really the black bars that are bothering you or the fact that the TV's screen is not being used fully?

Quote:
DragunR2 says

Again, watching original aspect ratio isn't about seeing more picture than 4:3 or less picture, it is about seeing how the director framed the picture


While thats mostly true, wasnt the widescreen format used in the first place so that we can watch a larger/wider picture?
Top
   
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
from http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/intro.htm

The rise in popularity of television is credited with inciting the move to the widescreen systems that flourished throughout the 50s, 60s, and 70s. This is only partially true. In the early 1950s, studios did begin to compose their movies so that the top and bottom of the picture could be chopped off and a wider screen would show the center of the old 1.37:1 frame. The aspect ratio used by the various studios varied from about 1.5:1 up to the common 1.85:1. But the real reason for the birth of a multitude of widescreen and large format systems was the 1952 opening of a movie made in a process that had its roots in a World War II aerial gunnery trainer. This Is Cinerama shook the industry to the core. The public and reviewers loved it. Its giant screen filled with three oversized 35mm images and an incredible new sound system called Stereophonic were a marvel to behold, and the studios immediately rushed to find something that could do what Cinerama did.

This mentions that matting 1.37:1 down to a wider aspect ratio did exist in the early 1950s, but it was Cinerama that popularized widescreen. Of course, it was the wider aspect ratios that were popular for epic films.

Precursor to Super 35

Widescreenmuseum.com has tons of information on widescreen, color, and sound processes.

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingss4.htm

In the early 1980's the Superscope concept was resurrected in its 2.35:1 version and came to be referred to as Super 35. The super infers that the frame area is larger than the Academy format, in fact it's the old silent aperture, rather than indicating that the picture quality is super. As mentioned earlier, the benefits of the system are the fact that standard spherical lenses and potentially lower light levels are required in photography. The prime reason for its application is the fact that it becomes very easy to create a television version of a widescreen film. The theatrical print (sometimes even in outrageous 70mm blowup) is vastly inferior to a conventional Panavision anamorphic production. Producers, rather than taking advantage of continually improving film stocks to present a better image, use it to reduce their inconvenience in production and aftermarket sales at the expense of the screen image. One of the chief proponents of the Super 35 format is director James Cameron who has produced a number of successful action films on mega million dollar budgets. Fortunately the motion picture screen is rapidly approaching postage stamp size and the all important television image is growing, so formats such as Super 35 won't display their inherent shortcomings so easily. End of editorial.



Edited By DragunR2 on 1042843289
Top
   
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
jag wrote:
Quote:
DragunR2 says

Again, watching original aspect ratio isn't about seeing more picture than 4:3 or less picture, it is about seeing how the director framed the picture


While thats mostly true, wasnt the widescreen format used in the first place so that we can watch a larger/wider picture?

Yes, that is certainly true. However, what we're concerned with is not wider picture, but wider aspect ratio, that is, the ratio of width to height. An open matte version of a 1.85:1 film is technically taller, but the aspect ratio is less.

1.85:1 films are framed for 1.85:1, so anything above and below that area is extraneous image. Filmmakers do not take that area into consideration when framing shots, aside from merely keeping it clear of boom mikes and other things for the open matte TV and video versions.
Top
   
 
spike86
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2003 1:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 4:29 pm
Posts: 672
Location: NY
Here's my observation on this matter since I was watching 'Behind Enemy Lines' (Super-35) on HBO-HD which is an open matte tranfer from its orginal theatrical ratio of 2.39. As you may or may not know, HBO has this stupid policy that require to change 2.35 aspect ratio to the HD standard ratio. This is not a good thing. Many films shot through the anamorphic process can loose a lot of resolution resulting in a softened image. But for Super-35 films they can use open matte to 1.85. I find this process screws up the directors vision of the frame. The empty space above the actors heads can be really annoying as it doesn't look right. So all I am saying is its better watch the movie in its OAR, unless the director intended on a open matte presentation (ex: stanley kubricks' SHINING, EYES WIDE SHUT, FULL METAL JACKET ETC)
Top
   
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2003 4:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6148
spike86 wrote:
So all I am saying is its better watch the movie in its OAR, unless the director intended on a open matte presentation (ex: stanley kubricks' SHINING, EYES WIDE SHUT, FULL METAL JACKET ETC)

Agreed.

I am interesred in knowing those movies where the Director had intended an open matte presentation for lesser AR presentation even if a Wider AR presentation was used/ intended for some or all the Theatres.

Presently this info isn't clearly stated on the DVD covers whether a lower AR version has been obtained by removing the mattes or by Pan and Scan or just by cutting the wider picture from the sides. I think, this info is some times indicated but one has to read bet the lines. Moreover, not neccessarily, what is indicated is correct. Today I picked up a DVD with a certain Cat # that I was after. It sure was the rare version (as per Cat #) that I was after, but the info on the web doesn't match the info on the cover.

Recently I have started gathering both version DVDs. In some, where lesser than OAR pic has been obtained by removing the mattes, open matted picture looks more sensible than the wide sceen version.

Rana
Top
   
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
There is still alot of controversy about the aspect ratios for which The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut were framed. Kubrick would certainly have known that cinemas in America would crop the top and bottom to 1.85:1. American theaters do not usually project anything narrower than that, but European cinemas often project 1.66:1. Watching both Shining and FMJ (I haven't seen EWS), it looks to me that they were framed for 1.85:1, as there is too much headroom. I'm sure someone has asked the directors of photography for those films how they framed the images, but I've never read any definitive answer.
Top
   
 
youullu
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2002 12:06 am
Posts: 112
as far as kubrick was concerned, the way he wanted the films presented was in 4:3. The HD transfers were initiated with his full approval. there is controversy about whether he was right to decide this, but it is just that, controversy.

I personally want to see films as they were seen in theatres. what ticks me off is directors(and cinematographers) approving transfers because most tvs today are 4:3, so let's "open it up". where's their vision. the most unforgivable instance to me is apocalypse now. they released redux in theatres, ins 1:2.35, and yet the dvd has that mangled 1:2.10 AR. that i don't get.

and the big deal about "more" picture is that most here watch on regular tvs. go with a front projection system, and all that changes. you'll wish everything was scope.
Top
   
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
youullu wrote:
as far as kubrick was concerned, the way he wanted the films presented was in 4:3. The HD transfers were initiated with his full approval. there is controversy about whether he was right to decide this, but it is just that, controversy.

I personally want to see films as they were seen in theatres. what ticks me off is directors(and cinematographers) approving transfers because most tvs today are 4:3, so let's "open it up". where's their vision. the most unforgivable instance to me is apocalypse now. they released redux in theatres, ins 1:2.35, and yet the dvd has that mangled 1:2.10 AR. that i don't get.

and the big deal about "more" picture is that most here watch on regular tvs. go with a front projection system, and all that changes. you'll wish everything was scope.

HD transfers? What films of his got HD transfers? The first version of Warner's Kubrick box set used old LD transfers. I wasn't aware that Warner did HD transfers like the other studios. Mhafner, please advise!

Vittorio Storaro, the DP of Apocalypse Now, is a proponent of the Univisium format, which has a 2:1 aspect ratio. Now I can understand framing a film for 2:1 now, but it is obvious from seeing the 2.35:1 version of AN in theaters that it was not framed for 2:1 back then. Coppola's "Tucker" DVD, also DPed by Storaro, is also cropped to 2:1. Maybe it is 1.90:1. It is ridiculous to crop a 'scope film that much. It's what the Indian DVD companies do!
Top
   
 
   Page 1 of 4
  [ 56 posts ]  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC




Preservation copy of the zulm.net forums. Private forums, member profiles and login features are not included. About this archive