I was reading a discussion on the hometheaterforum about the upcoming Universal release of THIS ISLAND EARTH which, as we know, will be in the wrong aspect ratio. It will be released open matte.

Not unexpectedly, there is a post there today that says, "Well if it's open matte, then we have nothing to complain about because we are actually seeing MORE picture".

Five or six years ago, I would have attempted to be polite to these dimbulbs. But I've just had it. It's 2006 and I'm long past the point of having patience on this subject. Simple fact: Anybody who thinks open matte is better because they see more picture is dumber than a bag of hammers. The wrong aspect ratio is the wrong aspect ratio and seeing even more wrong aspect ratio doesn't make it right.

I borrowed this example from the net.

In A FISH CALLED WANDA, a naked John Cleese has this encounter with a group of people. On the left, the theatrical version. On the right, the open matte version which has appeared on TV.

Note that you see MORE PICTURE in the open matte version. Isn't that so much better? Of course, the gag is ruined with the open matte because John Cleese is quite obviously wearing pants. But, so what! You see more picture so it's clearly the better way to watch the movie...right?

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/3636/matex6ao.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

Not to defend open matt but didn't that scene get shot where John was in front of a blue screen so as not to break some law with exposing to kids?

A tv only shot with pants so it could be seen un-censored?

That kind of thing happened on Animal House.

If the frames Brent posted are two different takes then "A Fish Called Wanda" employed God as the continuity director.

I know the feeling, Brent.

Years back when widescreen laserdiscs first came out, I had some friends over to watch a film, and they couldn't understand why anybody would deliberately cut the top and bottom of the picture off (it was a 'scope film), and that it looked like trying to watch TV through a venetian blind!

Yep, my Mom and Dad feel the same way, though they might have gotten used to letterboxing by now. I thought of making a black box for the front of the TV so they wouldn't notice the bars on the screen.

Then there's Eyes Wide Shut ...

... and here's a link (http://www.technosound.co.uk/nav.php?pageid=hcg_widescreen) that adds more technical info to the discussion.

For the most part, people do seem to have gotten the message about pan-and-scan with scope films.

Unfortunately, I think too many of them have misinterpreted the message when it come to matted films. We've explained to them that, when they saw the pan-and-scan movie, they were losing image and the letterboxing restored it. Therefore, they have taken that message to mean that "more is better".

They just don't understand that some images simply are not meant to be seen with the complete frame in view.

I recently got a new camera that uses a sensor shaped differently than most cameras. It's very well matched to 8x10 size prints but not so well matched to 4x6 size prints. Yesterday, I took a telephoto picture that I planned to print at 4x6. In order to get maximum magnification, I included a bit of barbed wire fence in the full frame because I knew it would be cropped out at 4x6.

The messge being that the image recorded in the camera is not always intended to be seen in it's entirety. But some people hold to the idea that, if it's on the film, then that's what the director intends to be seen.

Editing in Example:

The top photo shows the 4x3 (1.33:1) ratio used by the sensor in my camera. The bottom photo shows the 4x6 (1.50:1) ratio used in most small photo printers. Does anybody actually think the top photo with the blurry barbed wire looks better? Of course not. I took the photo with the full knowledge that the barbed wire was there but would not appear in the print. If I had waited until the jet completely cleared the wire, I would have been pointing my camera into the sun and lost the shot. So I took the shot knowing that the wire would be cropped out. The fact that the full image was recorded on the sensor doesn't give anybody the right to see the whole image and it doesn't make it a better photo.
http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/6974/asex32gh.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

I agree, there's simply no excuse these days for a DVD release not to have the same aspect ratio as the original theatrical presentation. By now most people understand, at least vaguely, that the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen don't mean you're "missing" anything, and conversely, "open matte" or "full frame" shows stuff you aren't supposed to see.

Just to give the dead horse a few more lashes, I refer you back to posts #20 and #21 on this page:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=146281&page=2

BTW, I find it rather interesting that the widescreen matte is so often used to make actors appear to be naked.

What's the big deal? :confused:

The director can always release a special edition with CGI effects covering up the initial flaws and changing the story so that it's much better than the original.

I love it when Brent goes off on a rant and includes visual references!!!!

The messge being that the image recorded in the camera is not always intended to be seen in it's entirety. But some people hold to the idea that, if it's on the film, then that's what the director intends to be seen. I think this is a left-over from the era of "drug store" photo processing when what you shot is what you got. For myself, I used to shoot a lot of B&W and used my Grandfather's darkroom a lot in the Summers, so the concept of the image as "raw data" is a pretty ingrained (had to slip that in). I shoot with my digital even more so: I'll include even more in the frame so that should I choose to highly edit the picture, I've got a lot of extra image to pull from. I imagine that kids today who are taking digital art, advanced TV production and doing a lot of image manipulation on their computers have a better grasp of image format than our parents did.

John O.

. . . I'll include even more in the frame so that should I choose to highly edit the picture, I've got a lot of extra image to pull from. I imagine that kids today who are taking digital art, advanced TV production and doing a lot of image manipulation on their computers have a better grasp of image format than our parents did.Those of us in the printing and graphic arts trades are also quite familiar with cropping and editing images. The surplus picture information that gets cropped out is technically known as "slop."

A buddy of mine worked in a film lab. One woman picked up her snaps and asked why Uncle Fred wasn't on the print. My buddy checked the neg and sorry, Fred wasn't in the shot. The woman insisted that Fred was there, and that my friend could just slide the film over (or something) to reveal Fred. Since he was there.

My friend saw another person carrying a film canister slowly and gingerly to the lab as if it were nitroglycerine. When she gently passed it to him, she said he should be careful not to jostle the canister. If he did, it would come out all blurry. She had seen it happen before.

This idiot will give me a heart attack. This is the same guy who precipitated my initial post in this thread. He continues to argue the "logic" of his thinking . I'm an cutting-and-pasting his actual words:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"At least with Open you get the same picture as 1:85 (or whatever) but more picture as a bonus. What you will see is how it was filmed minus the screen reduction (matte) done for theater viewing.

Put some black strips of paper at the top and bottom of your screen if you want it OAR"

His next post:


"I am only thinking logically here and may not be the opinion of others. Which would you rather have... a 1:33 film that has been matted to 1:85 and loose some of the picture on the top and bottom or a film that was matted to simulate 1:85 (the above) and that matte removed to give you more of the picture hidden under it on the top and bottom? That is what I am thinking."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see in his "logic" one of the problems. He uses the term "simulate 1.85". Of course, matting doesn't doesn't "simulate" 1.85. It produces a legitimate, 1.85 widescreen image. I've seen a lot of these half-wits call 1.85:1 films "fake widescreen". Considering that every major studio has been presenting films in matted widescreen for 50 years, you would think they would have figured out that it's the real deal.

There are a few nice Foghorn Leghorn sound bites at this link that you should send to this cereberal tour-de-force. Unfortunately I can't link to individual sound bites directly, but just to a general listing.

http://www.dailywav.com/ln.php

Like:

"Any of this gettin' through to ya son?"

"I keep pitchin' 'em, and you keep missin' 'em".

"That boy's as strong as an ox.....and just about as smart".

"Any of this gettin' through that little ol' blue bonnet of yours?"

"Pay attention son, this is for your own good".

"Pay attention to me boy! I'm not just talking to hear my head roar!"

Huzz

Bag of hammers reporting in. have I missed something?

Oh Hi Brent

Brent and I have spoken about this issue before.

It is entirely within the studios power to matte the film with honking great black bars on the actual print of the film. This removes the 4 x 3 option entirely.

The fact that they don't do that in the majority of (these argued about) cases can't be laziness or cock ups after 50 years can it?

As I have said else where this gives the consumer choice in how they view the film
.
Brent seems to be unable to accept 'choice' as an option, and gets very heated about these things.

Jim

To me, its akin to arguing that when attending a live play, one should also see all the workings that are going on behind the scenes to move set pieces around and the like. After all, they are all there, just hidden by the curtain and the stage from view.

Isn't that exactly the same as what the matte does to a movie filmed in open matte and subsequently presented in widescreen?

So, in a movie that was presented in the theatre in a matted widescreen, one should also be able to see the full photographic print.

Sorry, but I disagree. When I buy a DVD, I want to see it the way the director intended me to see it. As much as I want to see This Island Earth on DVD, I want to see it in the correct aspect ratio and I have serious reservations about buying this release of that film.

I want to add one more VERY important point.

I'm almost reluctant to do this but I must again raise the complicated (for many) and occassionally disconcerting spectre of anamorphic enhancement.

When a movie is presented full frame on DVD, it can't be enhanced for widescreen TVs.

So there is more to this than simply seeing too much picture. The picture that we do see will be at less resolution than the DVD is capable of delivering.

I'll again mention the Paramount film CONQUEST OF SPACE because it is a direct contemporary of THIS ISLAND EARTH (both from 1955 IIRC). The DVD of CONQUEST OF SPACE was presented on an anamorphic DVD and it's a beautiful print and a well done disc (no extras...but it looks terrific). For whatever reason, Paramount "get's it". Even though CONQUEST OF SPACE is relatively low-appeal movie for the great masses, they understood that it was a widescreen movie and they did a proper transfer of the film. This was not entirely well-received by people who've been watching the movie on 4x3 TV's for 50 years. But watching a movie the wrong way for 50 years still doesn't make it right.

Universal introduced matted widescreen the mass market (no, I'm not saying they "invented it"...they just made it standard practice). If anybody should be doing their 1950's catalogue in widescreen, it should be Universal.

So we get both the wrong aspect ratio and no widescreen enhancement.

And what about "3-perf"?

AAAGGGHH! Here we go again!!

This may also be good time to repeat one of my new favorite sayings. I heard somebody say this about two weeks ago and I think it does a nice job of expressing an important reality:

"Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but they are not entitled to their own facts".

Well said.

Opinions are subjective by their nature. They express a personal preference. They need not be right or wrong.

Facts are an objective statement of truth.

THIS ISLAND EARTH is a widescreen movie. Universal did not exhibit movies at the full Academy ratio in 1955. Variety reviewed THIS ISLAND EARTH and stated the aspect ratio as 2:00:1. Universal published the aspect ratio as 2:00:1. Interestingly, even the IMDB lists it as 2:00:1 (I just discovered that a few minutes ago)


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047577/technical


THIS ISLAND EARTH is a 2:00:1 movie. That is simply a fact. It's an objective statement of the truth.

People who want to argue for a full screen DVD want to make this a matter of one opinion versus another opinion. It is not. Nobody should care about my opinion. And I don't care about anybody else's opinion. We can all have opinons but only the truth matters. THIS ISLAND EARTH is a widescreen movie and a DVD which is not widescreen is in the wrong aspect ratio.

http://ziz.250free.com/images/crop.jpg

Granted, this is the other side of the issue at hand, but the logic is the same and applies to the same group of people.

I think this is symptomatic of a more general problem. There seem to be a lot of peoople who look at movies as medium for dispensing information. They feel that more is better, despite what effect it may have on the emotional impact of the film (which is why we watch movies in the first place). "They should have included that character/scene from the book." (Even though it would have added nothing to the movie but time.) "They should have given us more background on that character." (Even though we don't need it to understand the film.) "I want to see all the picture on the frame." (Even if the filmmakers didn't intend for it to be seen.)

The most important point about "flat" widescreen movies is that the shots were composed for the widescreen. Therefore, for the most part, they simply look better in widescreen. And this isn't just some aesthetic consideration. The composition of the shot has an impact on how the movie is perceived.

For example, I have seen NORTH BY NORTHWEST a number of times with an audience. Sometimes it was shown open frame, sometimes properly matted. There is a scene just before the famous crop duster sequence, where Cary Grant is standing at a bus stop in the middle of nowhere. A car pulls up on the other side of the road and a man gets out. Grant thinks this is the man he was supposed to meet. There is a shot of the men standing on either side of the screen in the middle of this flat, barren prairie. When the film is shown widescreen, this shot gets a laugh. When it is shown open frame, it doesn't.

. . . Of course, matting doesn't doesn't "simulate" 1.85. It produces a legitimate, 1.85 widescreen image. I've seen a lot of these half-wits call 1.85:1 films "fake widescreen". Considering that every major studio has been presenting films in matted widescreen for 50 years, you would think they would have figured out that it's the real deal.To give the "half-wits" the benefit of the doubt (which they probably don't deserve), their perception of 1.85:1 matte as "fake widescreen" may be due to bad experiences with incorrectly projected films. Some years ago, a local art house showed the classics Metropolis and Things to Come — and literally butchered both films by projecting them with a widescreen mask! Everyone's heads and feet were cut off (on screen, that is). And then there was that mutilated 1967 re-release of Gone With the Wind as a "widescreen" picture. Each shot was cropped top and bottom, optically enlarged and printed on 70mm stock. Gadzooks! Victor Fleming, David Selznick and even Hattie McDaniel must have turned over in their graves!
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special/gwtw.htm

There may be no getting through to some. Brent's right...move on.

More Foghorn..

You got a hole, I say, you got a hole in your glove boy. I keep a'pitchin' 'em and you keep a'missin' 'em. Try to keep up son.

That boy -- I say that boy's about as sharp as a bowling ball!
Qapla'

SSB

http://ziz.250free.com/images/crop.jpg

.

Somebody matted the Da Vinci Code?

Somebody matted the Da Vinci Code?

Actually, that's just Da Vinci. No Code.

Yep, my Mom and Dad feel the same way, though they might have gotten used to letterboxing by now. I thought of making a black box for the front of the TV so they wouldn't notice the bars on the screen.

Then there's Eyes Wide Shut ...

... and here's a link (http://www.technosound.co.uk/nav.php?pageid=hcg_widescreen)that adds more technical info to the discussion.


I'm sorry to be Dense Sir but Would you mind elaborating on that statement "Then There's Eyes Wide Shut..." Why? Is that shot in some Strange Ratio? Thanks For explaining Steve.

John/Lonfan

Well, apparently Kubrick wanted it to be seen 4:3. When some viewers saw it that way, they assumed that it was originally shot widescreen, but actually transferred pan & scan, and that the rest of the frame was cropped off the sides. This was not the case.

There should be a little more info in that link.

Some years ago, a local art house showed the classics Metropolis and Things to Come — and literally butchered both films by projecting them with a widescreen mask! Everyone's heads and feet were cut off (on screen, that is).

This is the point I have tried to make to Brent before.

Many cinemas now can no longer project 4 x 3. The tabs and the lenses and the masking plates wont allow it.(as for 50 yrs they havn't needed to it seems unreasonable to expect cinemas to keep this ability)

As these films come on to DVD and thats how cinemas show them, I presume Brent want's the 'full cinema experiance' when watching his DVDs?

With the rise of 16x9 and fall of 4x3 tvs no one will make 4x3 DVD transfers as there wont be a demand. All DVDs will be 16x9 as a matter of course.
You will be able to trust the studios, look at the bang up, great job they do with DVDs at the moment :)

Jim

Many cinemas now can no longer project 4 x 3. The tabs and the lenses and the masking plates wont allow it.(as for 50 yrs they havn't needed to it seems unreasonable to expect cinemas to keep this ability)Unreasonable for your neighborhood multiplex, maybe, but you'd think an art house that regularly shows older films would be equipped, and would have its projectionists trained, to present them in their correct aspect ratios.
With the rise of 16x9 and fall of 4x3 tvs no one will make 4x3 DVD transfers as there wont be a demand. All DVDs will be 16x9 as a matter of course.
I think it's safe to assume that DVD transfers of older (pre-1954) movies will continue to be presented full frame, just as they have been since the introduction of the DVD medium. Nobody wants to see movies with people's heads and/or feet cut off! Except for some real sickos, maybe. . . :tongue:

I think it's safe to assume that DVD transfers of older (pre-1954) movies will continue to be presented full frame, just as they have been since the introduction of the DVD medium. Nobody wants to see movies with people's heads and/or feet cut off! Except for some real sickos, maybe. . . :tongue:

Well we can hope!

If you watch a lot of documentaries, you'll notice that new 16x9 documentaries when featuring old clips from tv and film tend to reformat stuff to 16x9 (badly) instead of matchboxing (bars top and bottom and left and right) stuff. Most people dont notice now.

My wife watches stuff stretched that shouldn't be, and doesn't notice.
It annoys me the instant I see it.

Jim

Masks, matte black bars....gee, why not just use Duct Tape!

Pull it off your display when you want to see the whole image.;)

If you watch a lot of documentaries, you'll notice that new 16x9 documentaries when featuring old clips from tv and film tend to reformat stuff to 16x9 (badly) instead of matchboxing (bars top and bottom and left and right) stuff. Most people dont notice now.I thought that slightly shrinking the picture and framing it with black on all 4 sides (as is done with the opening title sequences of many older movies on cable and DVD, to avoid cutting off credits) was called "windowboxing."

Well we can hope!

If you watch a lot of documentaries, you'll notice that new 16x9 documentaries when featuring old clips from tv and film tend to reformat stuff to 16x9 (badly) instead of matchboxing (bars top and bottom and left and right) stuff. Most people dont notice now.

My wife watches stuff stretched that shouldn't be, and doesn't notice.
It annoys me the instant I see it.

Jim

As an editor of documentaries who is on the precipice of stepping into an exclusively 16x9 world - I have paid a lot of attention to the way other editors are handling 4x3 archival material in a 16x9 format. Basically, the approach is all over the map, as editors are challenged with creating a new visual language in dealing with almost two centuries of film and photographic material which were not captured in anything close to a 16x9 aspect ratio. It's challenging, and interesting, and new techniques will be introduced which will eventually become the norm. As always, the quality of the source material will often dictate the editor's approach.

I thought that slightly shrinking the picture and framing it with black on all 4 sides (as is done with the opening title sequences of many older movies on cable and DVD, to avoid cutting off credits) was called "windowboxing."

No, that's the term for growing pot in Toledo.

Wow, John. I can't believe no one else in this crowd didn't run with such a good Carlin reference.

Basically, the approach is all over the map,

Too true!
Mainly they will try to fill the 16x9 frame as thats the way it will be viewed (now) regardless of the original format.
Often the older 4x3 stuff still looks beter than the brand new ENG style stuff (even after the 4x3 has been zoomed and cropped)!

I think a rushed 'on-line' is often to blame (as it's so costly per minute).

Jim

Basically, the approach is all over the map, as editors are challenged with creating a new visual language in dealing with almost two centuries of film and photographic material which were not captured in anything close to a 16x9 aspect ratio.

TWO centuries? OK, about 150 years for photos, but film (movies) are barely over 100 years old, right? Maybe 110-115?

TWO centuries? OK, about 150 years for photos, but film (movies) are barely over 100 years old, right? Maybe 110-115?

Maybe I didn't phrase it exactly right, but yes, those basic timelines are what I was referring to. The Daguerreotype was patented in 1837, so, almost two centuries seems a reasonable assertion.

Reviving this thread in honor of the New York Times review of the THIS ISLAND EARTH DVD. This guy could be as dumb as two bags of hammers (or half a bag of hammers?)


"THIS ISLAND EARTH
DVD review for the NYT
By DAVE KEHR

... to just what aspect ratio it should be shown in — the classic, nearly square Academy ratio or the more elongated screen sizes that came into fashion when the film was first released. The Universal release offers the 1.33 image, which I think is the correct one ... In any case, those who disagree need only to push the zoom button on their remotes to transform the picture into glorious 1.85."



Well, to the aspect ratio: The guy is simply wrong. Why do people insist on believing that the aspect ratio of a film is a matter of their personal opinion? I realy don't care what this guy "thinks" is correct. I won't rehash the previous arguments in this thread because we know that Universal didn't release films for full frame projection in 1955 no matter what anybody "thinks".

Anyway, I was pleased to find this posted by Jack Theakston who is a true authority on this subject. This is a scan from a book containing prints of original VARIETY reviews as they appeared when the films first premeired. This is from 1955 and observe the posted aspect ratio:

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/8206/tiezi0.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

With the aspect ratio question put to bed, I note the NYT reviewers second comment that, "those who disagree need only push the zoom button on their remotes to transform the picture...".

Good lord, do we STILL have to explain anamorphic enhancement to reviewers in 2006? Yeah, I can push the zoom button and get a picture with HALF the resolution of a proper widescreen transfer. When I hear such nonsense, I'm reminded of the scene in City Slickers when Billy Crystal is trying to explain to Daniel Stern how a VCR works. After lisitening to the explanation for 4 hours, the late Bruno Kirby yells, "...SHUT UP! He doesn't get it, he's never going to get it...even the cows know how to tape a show".

It's like telling somebody that a 32" TV set provides the same picture as a 51" TV set...if you sit closer to it.

Having ranted about the bad review and the improper release, I still intend to buy THIS ISLAND EARTH on DVD. Normally, I'm a master at holding out for proper releases. Many poorly transfered films in the past have received proper releases and I've waited for them. At this time in history, I think it's save to say the this movie will never receive a correct transfer on standard definition DVD. We are moving into the HD era and Universal has committed some substantial resources to HD DVD releases. I do expect that THIS ISLAND EARTH will receive a corrected transfer someday. But that correct transfer will be in HD and, who knows, that could be 5 year from now (though, with my luck, it could be in 3 months).

I thought that slightly shrinking the picture and framing it with black on all 4 sides (as is done with the opening title sequences of many older movies on cable and DVD, to avoid cutting off credits) was called "windowboxing."No, that's the term for growing pot in Toledo.John, you are truly a genius; I bow to the superior intellect.

Good lord, do we STILL have to explain anamorphic enhancement to reviewers in 2006?Yes. Some reviewers, anyway. Your City Slickers/Bruno Kirby example perfectly explains why--some people are just never gonna understand it. Hell, my wife and I have a friend who still insists "Full Screen" DVD's are better than "Widescreen" DVD's "because the top and bottom of the picture aren't cut off." :freak:

One of the better ways of judging a movies proper aspect ratio is to inspect the credits.

People can always look at a movie and "cherry pick" scenes which they think might support their opinion. If a guys head is chopped at the hairline (yikes) people will claim that it should be full frame because the mattes are too tight (I don't know where people got the idea that everybody's head must appear in it's entirety in every shot).

I look at the credits and see what space is occupied by text. These are representative screen caps of the credits from THIS ISLAND EARTH (got the DVD today). Even that last credit with all of the copyright info is quite clearly placed in a defined central portion of the frame. If you look at an old movie...a true 1.33 movie...you'll usually see the credits run from the top of the frame to the very bottom. Here, we see rather obvious empty space at the top and bottom of every frame:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1748/tiecreditsxd3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

After watching some of it at 1.33:1, I bit the bullet and zoomed it for widescreen on my widescreen set. While obviously lacking anamorphic enhancement in this mode, the framing was very good and it was pleasant to watch.

I noticed that TWO versions exist at Amazon. One is 44 bucks,one is eleven bucks. WTF??? Whish is a better transfer?

The $44.00 DVD is the old Image disc (a worse transfer).

In the early days of DVD Universal didn't think the format would catch on (OOPS!) and they licensed much of their catalogue to Image. That deal fell apart very early (about 1999) and many of the Universal titles released on DVD by IMAGE (including THIS ISLAND EARTH) went out of production. The Image disc of this movie became very sought after because it was the only DVD version available for the last eight years. It commanded collector prices of up to $200.00.

With the release of the Universal disc, the old Image DVD only has value as an oddity...which makes it overpriced by about $43.00.

Brent - perhaps you could help me understand something.

As I understand anamorphic DVDs, when they are viewed on a 16x9 tv, the player can allow access to additional data which permits the television to fill the larger screen horizontally and provide a better picture through the aditional data that is not displayed on a 4x3 set.

I think I have that more or less right. Yes? No?

Now, in the case of a movie that was filmed years ago in 4:3, is there a reason why the disc cannot also be anamorphic? Like the Creature from the Black Lagoon for example. That is, it would contain additional data that would be used on the bigger televisions to display a sharper picture that would fill the screen vertically. I can't think of a logical reason (there may be technical ones) why 4:3 movies could not also be encoded to provide a sharper image on the larger displays. However, I'v never seen an anamorphic movie in a 4:3 aspect ratio.

Huzz

Brent - perhaps you could help me understand something.

As I understand anamorphic DVDs, when they are viewed on a 16x9 tv, the player can allow access to additional data which permits the television to fill the larger screen horizontally and provide a better picture through the aditional data that is not displayed on a 4x3 set.

I think I have that more or less right. Yes? No?

Now, in the case of a movie that was filmed years ago in 4:3, is there a reason why the disc cannot also be anamorphic? Like the Creature from the Black Lagoon for example. That is, it would contain additional data that would be used on the bigger televisions to display a sharper picture that would fill the screen vertically. I can't think of a logical reason (there may be technical ones) why 4:3 movies could not also be encoded to provide a sharper image on the larger displays. However, I'v never seen an anamorphic movie in a 4:3 aspect ratio.

Huzz
If I can jump in here. The anamorphic transfer does not contain more data than a non-anamorphic one. The reason anamorphic transfers of widescreen movies contain more image data is because less (if any) of the picture is taken up by the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. If you did an anamorphic transfer of a 4X3 movie, you would get black bars on the sides of the picture. It would actually contain less actual image data.

UPDATE: I just did some calculations to confirm it. If your original source is 9x16 and you do a non-anamorphic transfer, 25% of the image will be taken up by the black bars at the top and bottom. If you do an anamorphic transfer, the whole image will be used. If you have a 3x4 source and do an anamorphic transfer, 25% of the picture will be taken up by black bars on the sides. If you do a non-anamorphic transfer, the entire image is used.

On the DVD, all images are 480 x 720, an aspect ratio of 1.5:1. Non-anamorphic transfers take a 4x3 picture (1.33:1) and stretches it horizontally. An anamorphic transfer takes a 9x16 image (1.78:1) and squeezes it horizontally. It's all about how much wasted space is in the image.

Thanks!:thumbsup:


Huzz

I'm sorry to be Dense Sir but Would you mind elaborating on that statement "Then There's Eyes Wide Shut..." Why? Is that shot in some Strange Ratio? Thanks For explaining Steve.

John/Lonfan

Hey, Johns back. How ya feel'n boy.

Hey, Johns back. How ya feel'n boy.

It helps to look at the posting date. This is an old thread.

After watching some of it at 1.33:1, I bit the bullet and zoomed it for widescreen on my widescreen set. While obviously lacking anamorphic enhancement in this mode, the framing was very good and it was pleasant to watch.

You exercised your choice. Yay!

Jim