Slashdot Mirror

Stanley Kubrick shot 2001 using Super Panavision 70-- no mattes, spherical lenses.

Your natural tendency is to look left and right, not up and down.

True, and paradoxically, that's the problem. The western world reads left-to-right. So everything is arranged left to right. So all these things must be stacked, which is where the problem comes in. On my Mac right now, I've got a menu bar at the top of the screen, then Safari's title bar (holding the close/minimize/useless green buttons and the page's title), then my buttons (prev, next, refresh, etc) and the location bar in the next row, then my bookmarks bar, then my tabs, then finally this page's content, then Safaris' status bar (why it's off by default I'll never know), then my Dock. Yes, I could put it on the side, but I prefer it horizontal. That's a lot of chrome top to bottom. Looking left to right, the only chrome is the scroll bar. And that is (part of) why I prefer more vertical real estate.

And 4:3 screens don't just give you more vertical real estate, they give you more real estate, period. Everyone who's ever taken geometry knows that the closer you get to a square, the more area you have, other things (perimeter or diagonal length) being equal. Compare a typical 20" 4:3 monitor to a typical 20" 16:10. Yes, they can be manufactured however the builder wants, but you'll typically see 1600x1200 for the 4:3 and 1680x1050 for the widescreen. That's a whole 150 pixels hacked off the height and a mere 80 pixels added to the width in the change from 4:3 to widescreen. That's 1.92 million pixels versus 1.764 million pixels--the 4:3 gives you almost 10% more total screen area. Sure, we could have higher-res screens (Apple went from 1440x900 to 1680x1050 on their 17" widescreen laptops a year or two ago) but the same could be done with a 4:3 screen. It simply comes down to marketing--wide screens look "cooler" to most people and at the end of the day all that matters to any company is what sells the most.

A final problem with widescreen is dealing with the proliferation of aspect ratios. Apple's iSight camera shoots video at 4:3 so when you run iChat in full-screen mode on a widescreen display the picture gets stretched horizontally. HDTV is 16:9 but computer monitors are 16:10 so you still get letterboxing, and film is never shot at 16:9 anyway. Apple's iPhone is 3:2. (480x320.) At one time Apple made screen in four different ratios: 4:3 (12" iBook and PowerBook), 5:4 (17" Studio Display), 3:2 (original PowerBook G4) and 16:10 (20" and 23" Cinema Displays.)

In the end it's just a matter of personal preference. I do equal parts design and code and I prefer to have one large 4:3 monitor than a widescreen or multiscreen setup. Unfortunately, widescreens are the way of the future and it looks like we'll never get past 1600x1200 in 4:3 LCD. If I want to go larger it'll have to be 24" or 30" widescreen. Would I really want a 30" 4:3? It might truly be too tall to look at top-to-bottom. Guess I'll never find out.

And sometimes, you can see things that you really aren't supposed to which detract from the movie.

There was an article on here a year ago about MGM admitting that their widescreen versions of movies were the pan&scan versions with the tops and bottoms chopped off. Here is a blogcritics page detailing the settlement. I was also able to find this page to give some examples of what they're talking about. Can't seem to find the original slashdot article though.

2.35:1 is not unwatchable, especially if you have a constant height setup. Usually this sort of thing involves a 16:9 projector, equipped with an anamorphic lens, and some sort of digital scalar.

Star Wars is a good example of a 2.35:1 film.

My concern is what kind of DVD it would be. I don't mean factory-pressed versus DVD-R. I mean, it is the same kind of DVD that I would see in the retail store or is it some kind of Comcast-branded version?

More than that, the majority of pay-per-view that I see is in pan-and-scan/open-matte format. For example, if a movie was intended to be seen in 2.35:1 widescreen, that's how I want the DVD. Since most pay-per-view that I've seen is 1.33:1 (and a few 1.77:1 here and there), would the DVD be in its intended 2.35:1 aspect ratio or would it be in the pay-per-view 1.33:1/1.77:1 AR?

Same with audio. If a movie is Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS but the PPV version is two-channel, is the DVD going to be in the intended audio format or the PPV format?

The article didn't mention how these particular issues would be handled and it needs to be a concern, not only for those of us who want to see movies in the way that the film makers intended but also for the opposite. What if someone who doesn't like widescreen watches a pan-and-scan/open-matte PPV movie then receives a widescreen DVD? What if someone who tolerated the non-widescreen version on PPV expects to get the widescreen DVD and instead gets the pan-and-scan/open-matte (euphemistically called "full frame") version? Will customers be given the option of the widescreen or P&S/OM version?

Unfortunately, TFA doesn't address these issues. I think that a lot of people will want to know this before they decide whether it's a good thing or not. This is an idea that we in the home theatre community have discussed for several years; but Comcast needs to make its customers very aware of what kind of DVD they will be getting or else Comcast risks getting a lot of complaints and returns.

My concern is what kind of DVD it would be. I don't mean factory-pressed versus DVD-R. I mean, it is the same kind of DVD that I would see in the retail store or is it some kind of Comcast-branded version?

More than that, the majority of pay-per-view that I see is in pan-and-scan/open-matte format. For example, if a movie was intended to be seen in 2.35:1 widescreen, that's how I want the DVD. Since most pay-per-view that I've seen is 1.33:1 (and a few 1.77:1 here and there), would the DVD be in its intended 2.35:1 aspect ratio or would it be in the pay-per-view 1.33:1/1.77:1 AR?

Same with audio. If a movie is Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS but the PPV version is two-channel, is the DVD going to be in the intended audio format or the PPV format?

The article didn't mention how these particular issues would be handled and it needs to be a concern, not only for those of us who want to see movies in the way that the film makers intended but also for the opposite. What if someone who doesn't like widescreen watches a pan-and-scan/open-matte PPV movie then receives a widescreen DVD? What if someone who tolerated the non-widescreen version on PPV expects to get the widescreen DVD and instead gets the pan-and-scan/open-matte (euphemistically called "full frame") version? Will customers be given the option of the widescreen or P&S/OM version?

Unfortunately, TFA doesn't address these issues. I think that a lot of people will want to know this before they decide whether it's a good thing or not. This is an idea that we in the home theatre community have discussed for several years; but Comcast needs to make its customers very aware of what kind of DVD they will be getting or else Comcast risks getting a lot of complaints and returns.

Who the hell is the nut sack who thinks that this is some Microsoft invention?! This was first talked about FIVE YEARS AGO! In fact, Disney has already released discs that are of basically the same technology, called EZ-D, except that the disc dies after 48 hours. Sure, it wasn't one-play, but it was the same type of process.

http://www.widescreen.org/commentaries/2000_spectr adisc.shtml

http://www.widescreen.org/commentaries/2003_06_jun e.shtml

Now, if fairness I could not RTFA because it got slashdotted, but I'm assuming that a chemical reaction from the laser striking an added film layer is what's making the disc "read once". But, again, this technology was discussed by SpectraDisc back in 2000! No one "invented" it in 2005, particularly not Microsoft!

Who the hell is the nut sack who thinks that this is some Microsoft invention?! This was first talked about FIVE YEARS AGO! In fact, Disney has already released discs that are of basically the same technology, called EZ-D, except that the disc dies after 48 hours. Sure, it wasn't one-play, but it was the same type of process.

http://www.widescreen.org/commentaries/2000_spectr adisc.shtml

http://www.widescreen.org/commentaries/2003_06_jun e.shtml

Now, if fairness I could not RTFA because it got slashdotted, but I'm assuming that a chemical reaction from the laser striking an added film layer is what's making the disc "read once". But, again, this technology was discussed by SpectraDisc back in 2000! No one "invented" it in 2005, particularly not Microsoft!

• Cut out two rectangles of black construction paper in the ratio 1:6.8.
• Tape them across the top and bottom of your teevee screen.
• Sit back and enjoy your now shortless/mikeless movie.

Thank you for the clarification! The Matted Widescreen link above happened to point to something I could check for myself: John Cleese' nude scene in A Fish Called Wanda. My DVD is FS/WS double-sided, and I've compared the shots; sure enough, in the FS version you see him wearing a pair of shorts. I saw Wanda in the theater and I'm sure I'd have noticed such an obvious editing gaffe, so indeed the "butchered" version appears to be more true to the theatrical release.

Open frame filming would also explain a peculiarity I've noticed in my FS/WS copy of The Fifth Element (Columbia/Tristar, not MGM). The FS version has definitely been trimmed on the sides, but in at least some shots, the FS frame is noticeably taller than the WS frame. Apparently in creating the FS version, the studio picked shots in which they could maintain more of the original width by adding cropped areas from the full frame. Notably, I've not found any of these expanded FS frames in effects shots, only in relatively effects-free interior shots.

On the other hand, what happened to Terminator 3 (Warner)? I don't have a FS version, but my WS DVD seems to have less picture top-and-bottom than I saw in the theater. For instance, near the beginning when John Connor drops a beer bottle off a bridge, the bottle bounces off something out of frame before falling in the water. It looks distinctly peculiar, and I don't remember such a distracting moment in the theater. Can somebody check if their FS version shows a girder or something (not that that would prove anything)?

So you like seeing microphone booms and such that were masked off the original negatives because the director composed the shot for widescreen, not fullscreen? See Matted Widescreen for examples.

Several people have asked whether MGM has applied open matte to something that was originally filmed in 4:3 or to something filmed wider that was pan-and-scanned. I've checked my copy of "A Fish Called Wanda," and done a bit of a Web search, and I believe that this one, at least, was filmed in 4:3 and matted properly for the DVD's wide-screen side. (This DVD has both versions on one disc.) Specifically, a Google search turned up several sites that use "A Fish Called Wanda" as an example of the perils of open matting:

http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml

http://www.rexer.com/cine/oar.htm

Checking my DVD for the scene that's used as an example on these sites, I see that both the "widescreen" and "full-screen" sides show what the Web sites say they should show. In other words, the DVD of "A Fish Called Wanda" does not seem to be matting of a pan-and-scan version. I have no cause for complaint on this one.

Of course, this says nothing about the other titles. "A Fish Called Wanda" happens to be the only one I own from that list.

If the director didn't intend for me to see something, it wouldn't have ended up on film.

That's the whole point - the 4:3 have "extra" stuff (at the top and bottom) that *DIDN'T* appear in the theatrical screening, because it was matted out. The director *DID NOT* intend for you to see it, and yet it was *STILL* part of the film.

As an example, check out this. Are you suggesting that the director intended you to see the boom mike in Princess Bride, or that he intented you to see that John Cleese had pants on?

Please do some reading on the subject.

The picture at http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml demonstrates exactly what is wrong with my copy of Spaceballs (which is on the "defective" list). The picture is the width of the blue box and the height of the red box, with black bars at the top and bottom.

I honestly don't understand the cinematography, but calling the DVD "widescreen" was definitely misleading at a minimum.

The problem is not that they chopped the top and bottom of pan and scan movies. The problem is in the deceptive pacagking making it look like every widescreen movie was in a 2.35:1 ratio.
From: http://www.widescreen.org/commentaries/2005_01_jan .shtml/
Before any of you start to worry, the realistic side of me says that this was indeed a frivolous lawsuit - to an extent. MGM misrepresented the facts, but no harm was really done, either mentally or physically, to anyone. The whole idea behind widescreen, regardless of how MGM misrepresented the widescreen examples, is the sustaining of artistic integrity for those who spent a great deal of time making that movie - a hell of a lot more time than someone who sits and watches the final results in the form of a $20 DVD. MGM was a tad too over-zealous in representing 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 movies, but the final result was the same - the aspect ratio of what was seen in theatres. Their widescreen DVDs appear on the TV screen exactly as they should. I don't see that a lawsuit in this case was really necessary.

And how is this "trolling"? No, moderators, it's called "FACT".

Try reading here before using your all-mighty powers to reduce the karma of those who know better than you about the topic.

Not to tout my own site, but it's clear that a ton of people here need to educate themselves about "open matte" films. Just because a movie is called "widescreen" does NOT mean that it was filmed anamorphically.

Please ... before anyone else makes a comment about whether it was the correct aspect ratio or not, please read my section on matted widescreen as well as my comments on this matter and the various aspect ratios that are used in the film making process.

MGM was wrong not in the presentation but rather their explanation on how the "full frame" version compares. The widescreen DVDs in this list are NOT broken and do NOT need to be "fixed". The are shown in their CORRECT aspect ratio.

Not to tout my own site, but it's clear that a ton of people here need to educate themselves about "open matte" films. Just because a movie is called "widescreen" does NOT mean that it was filmed anamorphically.

Please ... before anyone else makes a comment about whether it was the correct aspect ratio or not, please read my section on matted widescreen as well as my comments on this matter and the various aspect ratios that are used in the film making process.

MGM was wrong not in the presentation but rather their explanation on how the "full frame" version compares. The widescreen DVDs in this list are NOT broken and do NOT need to be "fixed". The are shown in their CORRECT aspect ratio.

Not to tout my own site, but it's clear that a ton of people here need to educate themselves about "open matte" films. Just because a movie is called "widescreen" does NOT mean that it was filmed anamorphically.

Please ... before anyone else makes a comment about whether it was the correct aspect ratio or not, please read my section on matted widescreen as well as my comments on this matter and the various aspect ratios that are used in the film making process.

MGM was wrong not in the presentation but rather their explanation on how the "full frame" version compares. The widescreen DVDs in this list are NOT broken and do NOT need to be "fixed". The are shown in their CORRECT aspect ratio.

This class action suit is because MGM took the FULLSCREEN cropped 1.33 versions of the films, cut the tops and bottoms off and sold them as WIDESCREEN

HELLO!!! That's absolutely right! YOU are theone who is mistaken! They were filmed in what's called OPEN-MATTE where the movie is filmed on a full 1.33:1 frame but matted out during the theatrical presentation to achieve the correct aspect ratio.

YOU are the one who needs to RTFA.

Ben.

In fact, for quite a few movies the "fullscreen" version does contain more of the image than the widescreen version. Even in this case, however, there is an argument for the widescreen version, because the director composes a scene with widescreen in mind.

No, you have it backwards. The widescren movies are in their original aspect ratio of either 1.66:1 or 1.85:1. The DVDs are NOT broken. MGM got in trouble by misrepresenting the fact on how the "full frame" version compares.

Kindly educate yourself.

The guy over at widescreen.org posted something about this settlement a few days ago. Looks like some people thought that it was some kind of anti-widescreen attack when it's more about false advertising of full-screen, open-matte presentations.

Fortunately, it looks like MGM is probably going to be the only ones open to this kind of lawsuit. I'll bet the lawyers are really happy right now, though! $2 million for the lawyers! I'm in the wrong profession.

The guy over at widescreen.org posted something about this settlement a few days ago. Looks like some people thought that it was some kind of anti-widescreen attack when it's more about false advertising of full-screen, open-matte presentations.

Fortunately, it looks like MGM is probably going to be the only ones open to this kind of lawsuit. I'll bet the lawyers are really happy right now, though! $2 million for the lawyers! I'm in the wrong profession.

Pardon the dupe post: If you compare a widescreen DVD with the same movie on TV, you'll find that pan-and-scan doesn't just chop of the sides. They are forced to chop off less of the sides if they also reveal more of the top and bottom, since both changes make the frame closer to the 1.33:1 of TV. (Look closely at these FOTR examples.)

Directors know this is going to happen, and they have to account for it. They can't let a microphone or a dolly track appear right above or below the frame, though sometimes (as the parent indicated) one slips by. The viewfinders that they use don't have just one rectangle, but several: one for theatrical release, one for TV, and now ones for HDTV and other "future" scenarios, all superimposed.

This is a little sad because it means directors can't explore the edges of their frames any more. They're forced to compose every shot so that the characters appear in the intersection of all the rectanges -- in trying to please every distribution scenario, everything has to be in the boring center of the frame.

I'm glad the general public is starting to come around to letterboxing, so maybe we can eliminate pan-and-scan once and for all.

A side note too: the prints that are shipped to theaters aren't matted; it's up to the projectionist to use the correct lens (anamorphic or no) and the right set of physical mattes. Whenever you see a boom lower into the frame it's almost always the projectionist's fault. I actually went to complain to the usher at a neighborhood theater that the movie wasn't matted right, but she looked at me like I had two heads.

The second example from the bottom is enough to sell me on widescreen.

This site has some samples of movies in widescreen format and the result that one will get in the full screen format. widescreen.org.
The full screen version of LoTR is really bad because of its original screen ratio.

An issue near and dear to my heart:

First off, I bought an HDTV capable RPTV (rear-projection television) in April of 2002. It's a nice set, I mainly bought it because it was highly discounted as a customer return, a few scuffs, and nearly 40% off the normal price so I jumped on it.

My main motivation was to have a 16:9 format television because I love widescreen and can't stand mangled versions of movies designed to squeeze into the wrong sized screen. (See the Widescreen advocacy site for more info.).

This set has Y-Pr-Pb input (wideband component) which and supports 480p and 540p/1080i and upscales 480i beautifully. The results of this is gorgeous displays of widescreen DVDs.

My intent was to eventually have some HDTV to watch, but it hasn't happened. First, I live in an apartment. My cable company is clueless and does not carry any HDTV programming. There are some that do (Time-Warner Houston - 9 channels). My other options are satellite, or local broadcast. Neither of which really thrill me with the aspect of having to ask my landlord about installing stuff on his roof.

Aside from actually having the signal available, usually with satellite you need more than the basic receiver box you get for free when you sign up, you need one that goes for $400+ (last I checked it was 500). So that sucks.

So, net result, I own an HDTV set and still don't get to watch any high-res content. I'm happy though since my anamorphic widescreen DVDs look gorgeous. But I'd love to have some HDTV to watch. Eventually....

-------
Just a side note: The us "deadline" for digital TV does not mandate high definition, just that stations broadcast in digital format, which could simply be 480i upscaled to 480p (which is one of the standard digital formats).

An issue near and dear to my heart:

First off, I bought an HDTV capable RPTV (rear-projection television) in April of 2002. It's a nice set, I mainly bought it because it was highly discounted as a customer return, a few scuffs, and nearly 40% off the normal price so I jumped on it.

My main motivation was to have a 16:9 format television because I love widescreen and can't stand mangled versions of movies designed to squeeze into the wrong sized screen. (See the Widescreen advocacy site for more info.).

This set has Y-Pr-Pb input (wideband component) which and supports 480p and 540p/1080i and upscales 480i beautifully. The results of this is gorgeous displays of widescreen DVDs.

My intent was to eventually have some HDTV to watch, but it hasn't happened. First, I live in an apartment. My cable company is clueless and does not carry any HDTV programming. There are some that do (Time-Warner Houston - 9 channels). My other options are satellite, or local broadcast. Neither of which really thrill me with the aspect of having to ask my landlord about installing stuff on his roof.

Aside from actually having the signal available, usually with satellite you need more than the basic receiver box you get for free when you sign up, you need one that goes for $400+ (last I checked it was 500). So that sucks.

So, net result, I own an HDTV set and still don't get to watch any high-res content. I'm happy though since my anamorphic widescreen DVDs look gorgeous. But I'd love to have some HDTV to watch. Eventually....

-------
Just a side note: The us "deadline" for digital TV does not mandate high definition, just that stations broadcast in digital format, which could simply be 480i upscaled to 480p (which is one of the standard digital formats).

Link to some examples of the difference between Fool Screen, or Pan and Scam, and Widescreen that will show the amounts lost in the picture.

Of course, I'm sure I just latched onto a troll.

IMAX is the wrong aspect ratio for most movies.

The proportions are almost like TV (about 1.4:1), whereas most movies made in the last 50 years are much wider than that (some are more than twice as wide). Nearly all movies seen in theatres in the last 20-30 years are one of two aspect ratios -- 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. Fitting those wider frames into an IMAX frame presents exactly the same problem that showing them on TV does. You have to fit a rectangle into a square, rougly speaking. That means either letterbox or pan-and-scan.

However, Apollo 13 will probably transfer to IMAX fairly well, because it was shot in Super 35, which even though it usually is used to produce a 2.35:1 widescreen image, actually has a negative area that is much more squarish (again, about 1.4:1). So I would imagine that the IMAX transfer will make use of that extra image area. For more info on Super-35 see here, about 3/4ths the way down the page.

Still, many of the movies people mentioned in this article were shot in widescreen processes other than Super-35, and would have to either be severely cropped, or letterboxed within the IMAX frame, in order to be shown from IMAX projectors.

The right thing to do would be to bring back 5-perforation 70mm, which has a nice wide aspect ratio of 2.20:1. During the years from about 1976-1996, most major studio releases had at least some 5-perf 70mm prints struck. Chances are, if you went to the movies in a major US city during that time, you saw a number of films in 70mm six-track, perhaps without even knowing it. (The process was killed off by digital sound in the mid-to-late 1990s.) Everyone saying "I want to see Star Wars!" should realize that it has already been released in 70mm -- back in 1977.

Of course, 5-perf 70mm existed long before the years I just listed, but it was mainly used for films that were actually shot in 65mm. The time period I'm referring to is merely when 35mm->70mm optical blow-ups were popular. This new IMAX process sounds like a bit of a throwback to those days, but at the expense of correct aspect ratios. And the blow-up is now done digitally rather than optically.

Not only is IMAX the wrong aspect ratio for a lot of movies, it's also incompatible standard feature films in many other ways. 35mm feature films these days are shot with lots of tight close-ups and quick cuts, and if you look at the IMAX Filmmaker's Manual, they very clearly suggest that you not do things like that, because they are very jarring on the IMAX screen!

Due to the above problems, I think people are likely to be disappointed with this in the long run. IMAX is probably pushing this idea because they are hoping this will boost their stock price.

Yes, in a way it does actually. It means that the studio and director copped out. They were willing to sacrifice the artistic integrity of the movie in order to get a few more sales.

Movies are now starting to show up on DVD in Pan and Scan ONLY, and that's REALLY bothersome. Luckily this one was not the case. Here the studio could have taken the opportunity to educate the public on the reasons for preserving OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) on what will surely be a HUGE selling DVD, but instead they took the low road.

Instead of selling a pan and scan version, they could have put in a very short demonstration on the disc that showed the difference between pan 'n scan and OAR.

I've yet to meet someone who, once properly shown what is lost when the sides are chopped off, didn't understand and accept OAR (and yes, that sometimes means "not filling the whole screen").

There's excellent examples of the damage pan and scan does here and here.

-S

I think you are looking for http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml.

Here's some examples from Blazing Saddles, from a great "idiot convincer" site

Oh, and there is also widescreen-o-rama

Here's some examples from Blazing Saddles, from a great "idiot convincer" site

Oh, and there is also widescreen-o-rama