Why are so many pan and scan releases "taller" than the widescreen releases? Wouldn't it make sense to just crop off the sides? If widescreen was the intended aspect ratio then why did the VHS releases always have slightly more vertical detail.?
Why are so many pan and scan releases "taller" than the widescreen releases...
John Long
Other urls found in this thread:
forum.blu-ray.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Blake Powell
Depends on the scene, but here it would look like a shitty close-up
Xavier Hill
That's called "open matte". Some movies like Back to the Future are filmed without anamorphic lenses, which squeezes a wide picture onto a standard piece of film. Instead they film with a 4:3 ratio but frame it for widescreen, so there's extra information at the top and bottom. That's intended to be cropped out, so the widescreen version is the "proper" version. But for home media releases film studios would just uncrop the image for fullscreen so they wouldn't have to cut any information from the sides and normies wouldn't see any black bars.
Anthony Reyes
This exact thing is why you can find a HDTV 1.78:1 version of Top Gun that is better than the 2.39:1 theatrical blu-ray
David Garcia
Weird, was just about to make a thread about this. So now you have Pan and Scan (using the widescreen cropping and panning left and right) and the open matte as seen in your pic
See this site forum.blu-ray.com
heres another example. final OAR
Jack Adams
Open matte version
Oliver Cooper
>slightly more vertical detail.?
Stuff gets filmed,stuff gets cut.
You know they film scenes more than once right? But you never see it because it gets cut.
Just a fact of life you need to accept it.
Isaiah Evans
reminds me of tv shows shot on film in widescreen for a 4:3 release, and now that widescreen is standard you can see microphones and shit in the pic
Carson Rivera
>File: Titanic.1997.Open.Matte.1(...).jpg (430 KB, 2560x1440)
>Image
that is still widescreen though
Brandon Hill
Yeah its 16:9 but not 2:35. You can clearly see more on the top and bottom in the second shot. This is what some fullscreen movies would use to make their version
Elijah Murphy
>gains vertical detail
>loses horizontal detail
Just why.
Nicholas Adams
you dont lose any horizontal detail thought, all they did was remove the black bars aka the "matte"
Samuel Perry
Nope, check the left side, they cut off part of the boat.
Juan Flores
why is there no version with all the picture info
Jack Gray
>that weird "pan/scan" effect when the "camera" moves across the screen (especially when it's two people talking to each other)
I never get tired of it
Joshua Scott
No human brain could handle it
Gavin Hernandez
?
Angel Edwards
get laid, nerds
Nathan Hernandez
I got laid, now what?
Jace Nguyen
Is there anything more annoying than "partially filmed in IMAX?" Yeah, I sure do love it when a film switches aspect ratios. The only time it's justified is when it's meant to represent different time periods like Grand Budapest Hotel, or it's shrinking to 4:3 to represent a video camcorder.
Sebastian Edwards
Was anyone else seriously confused the first time they saw 2.35:1 on a 16:9 TV? I kept thinking their was something wrong with the TV and tried to zoom in to get rid of the black bars.
Anthony Rivera
>black bars
it's a black backdrop
Zachary Sanders
i dont know what its called but old pan and scan vhs released movies had a weird effect. When two characters talked to each other on the widescreen they would be in the same shot (camera didnt have to move)
in "Pan and scan" they would focus on one guy talking and then "move the camera" over to the other guy talking but the movement was really weird.
couldnt find an example on youtube as i have no idea what its called
i just rememeber it happened all the time when id watch ghostbusters on tv
Joshua Campbell
It's in the damn name, that's panning