You know what would be fun? Take one of Spectrum’s movies, project it on a screen and reshoot in in Super 8 at 1:1, then add MST2K-type comments over it. 
Okay, but can we fast-forward through the boring parts?
Daniel
I haven’t made any professional films yet. I’m a film student. I’m mostly a writer, but in a pinch I’ll do cinematography and editing, as I did for my boyfriend’s film project recently.
It is personal. While I’ll never be a professional cinematographer, I actually respect their work, unlike those who want to hack up their art to make it “fit the TV.” IT’S NOT A TV SHOW! Why the hell should it fit the TV screen when the film industry rejected the “Academy format” for soft matting over 50 years ago?
And as for Clear Play, crap like that makes me wish America had copyright laws akin to those of France, where that sort of thing would be illegal without direct consent from the film’s director.
Not exactly, since his 4:3 formatting would be the full 35mm frame, while the “letterbox eliminator” 4:3 formatting would be a reduction of the (already cropped) widescreen image.
I suspect Ellroy would not be so happy if Reader’s Digest created a condensed version of his novel to make it “more easily consumable” for the general public. That is a much more appropriate analogy than your apples/oranges submission.
So if you haven’t made any professional films yet, then perhaps you should avoid writing statements such as, “I make films. The thought of someone ripping apart one of my films so that the unwashed hoi polloi don’t have black bars on their screens makes me want to vomit.”
Well, for those of us who have 16:9 TVs, widescreen movies do fit the screen. In any event, I’m with you on films being released in OAR. Hack and scan is just . . . wrong.
Few directors have final cut, so really it should be illegal without consent of the copyright holder. It’s one thing to make a butchered copy of a film for yourself; but marketing a “sanitized” copy of a film has to be wrong because you’re infringing on copyright.
Except that I do. I make student films. Just because they’re not commercial doesn’t mean that they’re not real. Plus, a lot of that was hyperbole. I like hyperbole. It’s a vice, I know.
I think that people buy the movies first, then take them in to the sanitizer, in which case it probably falls under Fair Use?
It is indeed :). Just be aware that some of us don’t cotton to being called the hoi-polloi by a film student because we look for different things in film than that film student likes to put in them.
Daniel
Hmmm…the last time a doper made grandiose claims about his “artwork” in this forum, it turned out to be a jpeg of a naked woman in handcuffs swiped off the internet, with Britney Spears’ head pasted on it.
I’ve never quite understood why the original DVD specs didn’t solve this problem from the get-go. Pan 'n scan is just a 3:4 ratio “window” into the wider-screen original, right? So why not simply add an extra data track to the disk that specifies in real-time where that window is. The disk then contains all of the data needed to show the wide-screen version, but can show full screen as well, should you so wish. Voila! One disk contains both versions, and everyone is happy.
Strong Bad advocates widescreen format
Pan and scan format is not always the widescreen image with the sides chopped off; sometimes each format cuts some portions and preserves other portions of the original filmed image. Check some of my links for examples.
Okay, as much as I hate to continue the Kubrick hijack (who am I kidding? It’s a lie) I gotta say this:
According to “Mr. Steadicam” Garreth Brown, Kubrick did not frame The Shining with a view to an eventual 1:1.33 transfer – camera operators were instructed to frame for 1:1.85 (although the film ended up matted for 1:1.66.)
I’m mystified as to why Kubrick opined that laserdisc prints of The Shining should be unmatted full-screen. I think he was drunk. It’s kind of bizarre that there are still no OAR releases of The Shining decades later, when a 27" inch TV is within easy reach of us po’ folk, and monster TV’s are becoming standard furniture for anyone with a bit of coin, which puts us a long way from where the general public was in the late eighties.
At any rate, it’s an overstatement to say that the film was framed with a view to a little square screen. Kubrick decided, in a post hoc sort of way, that including extraneous image to fill up the screen was prefereable to appyling a matte which would reflect the original composition.
The result is a lot of clutter:
Image (Possibly not work safe – female nudity)
The toilet mucks up the composition. (Likely not a big concern for all the folks who will be fixated on the titties, of course.)
Image
Hey, more porcelain that shouldn’t be in the frame.
Image
All Frame and No Matte Makes Jack an Awkward Shot
All Frame and No Matte Makes Jack an Awkward Shot
All Frame and No Matte Makes Jack an Awkward Shot
Those example frames you provided certainly have a lot of headroom! I defer to your obviously more well researched position Larry Mudd, Kubrick must have been hitting the sauce when he decided to release the 1:1.33 Laserdisc. Would you know what markings were on the ground glass used during filming? Was it just 1:1.85, or were there also 1:1.33 markings? I suspect there may have been 1:1.33 markings also, otherwise there would likely be a lot of booms in the 1:1.33 frame… but there’s no way I’m gonna argue with Garreth Brown! If you read his comments on line I would be very interested in a link.
dig dig
Can’t find anything online from Garreth Brown, but here’s something from assistant editor Gordon Stainforth:
Where did you get the 60% number from? I’ve spent even more time than that watching letterboxed movies on my rptv for the past 5yrs with no burn in, and in home theater circles it’s well known that properly adjusted brightness and contrast levels can almost eliminate burn-in.
All bets are off if you keep your TV in torch mode, however.
I won’t watch anything but letterbox.
My wife on the otherhand “doesn’t care” and doesn’t understand why I get mad if she brings home a Fullscreen version.
She’s also one of those people who watches a movie while doing a cross-stitch and only glances up once and a while to “see” whats happening and doesn’t mind leaving the room several times during the movie then had the audacity to say “I didn’t care for that film.”
Ahhhhhhhhh! I think i’m going to pit her!
How to let childhood trauma stemming from the grisly death of a mother turn one into a misgynist jerk?
He’s a good writer, but his women are either victims, whores, or both.
If you’ve seen interviews with him and read his autobiography, he would be as reliable a source for reality as R. Crumb.
I get my info from my Mitsubishi owners manual. I own a 60" rptv, and forgive me for following the recommendations on a failry expensive piece of equipment. I watch the letterbox format because I rarely watch movies. Something like two per year, plus some letterbox HBO programs.
It’s hardly a leap to warn people about burn in. Are tv’s less prone to it now? Sure. Can contrast and brightness being jacked up speed it up?
Hey, your tv is either less prone, or you watch more full screen stuff than you know.
Don’t pop hit and runs like you are trying to discredit someone who is simply using the mfgrs suggestions in the owners manual of a $2000 tv.
I think you’re a little confused there, Philster – I’ve got a 55" widescreen Mitsubishi RPTV (HDTV-ready, no less), and the warning about excessive wear for black bars is for watching window-box images. That is, when watching a conventional 4:3 image on my TV, I have the option of using “window box” mode, where there are black bars on the left and right sides of the screen. The widescreen 16:9 stuff fills the entire frame without problems.
In any event, even though I don’t use window box mode very often, my understanding from other RPTV owners is that the risk of burn-in is exaggerated, primarily to deflect liability if someone were to watch video that had a static element for 20 or 30 hours on end. Video-game players are the best source of information on this, since most games do have static elements that sit in the same place for a long time, and the ones I’ve talked to haven’t had any problems with burn-in, either.
But turning down your brightness and contrast definitely helps. A good TV-adjustment DVD will do the job, IME.
I find your comparing a fine work of art to the trash currently displayed as movies rather disturbing.
Also I thought the OP was about letterbox vandles - letterboxes is a game sort of like geocaching, where someone hides a small box, provides clues, hopeing someone will find it. I know geocaching had has some vandels in the past.
Actually, I remember when DVDs were first introduced, this was supposed to be one of the big features. I did a quick search to see if players actually support doing this, but I couldn’t find anything about it. I don’t personally know of any movies that use this technique. I wonder why they don’t, it sounds like a great technology to solve many of the problems being debated in this thread.