|
|
Post by snsurone on Mar 13, 2017 1:16:56 GMT
This is the procedure where movies (usually epics like BEN HUR and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA) are "formatted" in order to fully fill TV screens.
The result is that side views are eliminated, and what we see is a close-up of what remains.
As Martin Sorcese said on a TCM interview, it was like the movie had been re-directed.
Fortunately, DVDs and classics shown on TCM now use the "letter-box" format, which allows the viewer to see the film as it was meant to be seen.
I wonder if other stations still use that "formatted" formula.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Mar 13, 2017 1:29:06 GMT
Sadly, in this age of widescreen TVs, the reverse is becoming common: Old TV shows and pre-1950s films shot in 4:3 are being cropped into fake-widescreen, usually resulting in a degraded image.
Ugh. That's just as bad as pan-and-scan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Mar 13, 2017 1:30:01 GMT
I watched a pan and scanned copy of the British 'comedy' "Three Men in a Boat" yesterday on the UK channel Talking Movies Channel.
In two scenes the characters in the middle of the screen were seen reacting to things that were invisible to this viewer (as the relevant parts had been cropped by the pan and scan process!)
Very unfunny film by the way. Too many pratfalls etc. and not enough wit.
|
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Mar 13, 2017 2:00:46 GMT
Media should never be cropped. If there has to be bars on the sides, or, bars on the top & bottom, fine!
But it can all be confusing.
If you want to watch an older TV show. 4x3 fullscreen is what you want.
If you want to watch widescreen media. Enhanced for 16x9 TVs, or, Anamorphic Widescreen is what you want. There are several different terms.
As noted, stay away from Pan & Scan. that crops the sides off... And it can actually Pan back and forth, making one queasy.
Avoid "Letterbox". That was a way to show widescreen movies on fullscreen TVs. That was a format that physically attached Black Bars to the top and bottom, so the image would be in 4x3 fullscreen ratio. It looks like crap on a widescreen TV, because those black bars can not be removed. Black Bars must be added to the sides to maintain the aspect ratio. Then you see a big black border surrounding your movie. And the picture quality is degraded. This is what Star Wars fans received in 2006, when the original trilogy theatrical editions were released from the Laserdisc masters on to DVD.
And then you have that stupid OPEN matte 1.85 ratio that was common in the 1980s. This happened with the Back To The Future trilogy, and caused that famous DVD framing fiasco.
Movies are filmed at 4x3 Fullscreen format. But are cropped on the top and bottom to a ratio of 1.85 for theatrical releases. You actually saw more video, when it was shown on TV. But, that is not what was intended by the director.
Then there is the weird CROSS format. I have a few movies on DVD that offer both Fullscreen & Widescreen. But neither is complete. All four corners are missing.
Why can't there just be two ratios?
And which classic Disney cartoon film was it that had two official releases? First there was Fullscreen. Then later there was one in Widescreen, and additional animation & characters were added to fill in the sides...
It's no wonder, so many people are confused...
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 13, 2017 2:10:20 GMT
This is the procedure where movies (usually epics like BEN HUR and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA) are "formatted" in order to fully fill TV screens. The result is that side views are eliminated, and what we see is a close-up of what remains. As Martin Sorcese said on a TCM interview, it was like the movie had been re-directed. Fortunately, DVDs and classics shown on TCM now use the "letter-box" format, which allows the viewer to see the film as it was meant to be seen. I wonder if other stations still use that "formatted" formula. The FOX movie channel, running their own home-grown corporate product (made by the studio that introduced CinemaScope, no less) still displays a disappointing number of films in this way. Just last week, they had two 4:3 P/S showings of their 1956 23 Paces To Baker Street, a very satisfying thriller that reworks premises of both Sorry, Wrong Number and Rear Window (and also anticipates later ones such as Blow-Up, Wait Until Dark, The Conversation and Blowout) in which blind playwright Van Johnson overhears a crime being plotted and can't convince authorities or anyone else of it. I haven't yet seen it in its proper A/R, but it's only just been released that way on NTSC Blu-ray and DVD after many years of complete unavailability. In the days when widescreen films were first showing up on broadcast TV, and presumably before the P/S option had been settled upon, a Los Angeles station aired The High and the Mighty in a true letterboxed format. Must have been around '58 or '59. I vividly recall my mother remarking that each time an exterior shot of the airliner-in-distress depicted it gradually descending, she kept mistaking the black bar at the bottom third of the screen for the sea into which the plane was expected to ditch. |
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Mar 13, 2017 2:10:53 GMT
Sadly, in this age of widescreen TVs, the reverse is becoming common: Old TV shows and pre-1950s films shot in 4:3 are being cropped into fake-widescreen, usually resulting in a degraded image. Ugh. That's just as bad as pan-and-scan. Do you mean they're stretched like a rubber band to fill the screen? Ugh! How grotesque!! |
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Mar 13, 2017 2:43:47 GMT
Sadly, in this age of widescreen TVs, the reverse is becoming common: Old TV shows and pre-1950s films shot in 4:3 are being cropped into fake-widescreen, usually resulting in a degraded image. Ugh. That's just as bad as pan-and-scan. Do you mean they're stretched like a rubber band to fill the screen? Ugh! How grotesque!! No, he said CROPPED. They removed some of the top, and some of the bottom, of the image... so it fits a 16x9 screen TV. |
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Mar 13, 2017 3:53:42 GMT
Do you mean they're stretched like a rubber band to fill the screen? Ugh! How grotesque!! No, he said CROPPED. They removed some of the top, and some of the bottom, of the image... so it fits a 16x9 screen TV. ...as a matter of fact, there are many YouTube channels that DO use stretch-o-vision, thus making everyone look short and fat. |
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Mar 13, 2017 3:57:09 GMT
Stretching video should be a crime.
|
|
glenesq
Freshman
@glenesq
Posts: 61
 
|
Post by glenesq on Mar 13, 2017 7:33:47 GMT
I watched Son of Saul on a brand new disc player and was scrambling for the player's instructions to adjust the aspect ratio (movie IS 1.37 : 1).
|
|
|
|
Post by TheOriginalPinky on Mar 13, 2017 19:05:06 GMT
Sadly, in this age of widescreen TVs, the reverse is becoming common: Old TV shows and pre-1950s films shot in 4:3 are being cropped into fake-widescreen, usually resulting in a degraded image. Ugh. That's just as bad as pan-and-scan.  |
|
rick220
New Member
@rick220
Posts: 44
|
Post by rick220 on Mar 16, 2017 12:06:02 GMT
This is how 'I pan and scan' 11x3ft screen, projector set to 4:3 ratio Hey Duke   Hey Anita....  |
|
|
|
Post by pippinmaniac on Mar 16, 2017 13:53:05 GMT
Sadly, in this age of widescreen TVs, the reverse is becoming common: Old TV shows and pre-1950s films shot in 4:3 are being cropped into fake-widescreen, usually resulting in a degraded image. Ugh. That's just as bad as pan-and-scan. Agreed. You should be able to see the movie or show the way it was originally shot. I don't liked cropped off widescreen pictures and I hate it when they try to make something widescreen that wasn't meant to be that way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 14:18:58 GMT
This is the procedure where movies (usually epics like BEN HUR and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA) are "formatted" in order to fully fill TV screens. The result is that side views are eliminated, and what we see is a close-up of what remains. As Martin Sorcese said on a TCM interview, it was like the movie had been re-directed. Fortunately, DVDs and classics shown on TCM now use the "letter-box" format, which allows the viewer to see the film as it was meant to be seen. I wonder if other stations still use that "formatted" formula. Yea, it is dismal. ....equally dismal. But what amazes me? Is how many people don't even notice it! The most jarring example for me? Is going to a sports bar, watching a football/baseball game, and all the players look like munchkins. And, even when I point it out? No one knows what the hell I'm talking about! (<----they have the TV set to 'widescreen' even though the signal is correctly formatted!) |
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Mar 16, 2017 21:21:19 GMT
Happy St. Patrick's Day, mickee.
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Apr 8, 2017 16:53:45 GMT
The first time I saw GWTW (1968), it was the 70mm version.
Not only were tops and bottoms of scenes cropped, but the title had to be refilmed.
Instead of the letters "breezing" across the screen, there was just a one-shot.
Thank goodness, every other time I watched this movie it was the original 35mm format.
I'll never understand what makes people want to tamper with classic movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Apr 8, 2017 18:25:24 GMT
The reason Pan and scan came to be, and pls correct me if I'm wrong, People though there was something Wrong with their televisions, and kept calling their TV deliverer, Hollywood adjusted and hence Pan and Scan Was born
|
|
