# Widscreen **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 2, 2003, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/widscreen/152194 "2003-02-02T00:10:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/widscreen/152194/21 "2003-02-03T14:57:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > **You’re missing the point of my example. _Titanic_ was not shot in widescreen. It was shot with full frame. The widescreen effect came only later in the lab, where the theatrical prints were black matted at the top and bottom of the frame to create a widescreen effect.** I think you’re missing _my_ point. The film was shot with the intent that it would later be matted, and the matting was done with the approval (and likely the supervision) of the director and cinematographer. Therefore, that’s the way I want to see it. What I don’t want to see is the second-rate frame shuttling of some Scorsese wannabee at Warner Home Video. Matting the frame under the direction of the filmmakers is just part of the process of making a complete film, no different from editing or looping dialogue. > [@](#): > > \*\*And full screen on the DVD _is_ the way that director James Cameron wanted. There is no pan and scan on the DVD because none is necessary: it was not shot in widescreen. On the DVD of _Titanic_ you are seeing not only the **full width** of the original image, you are seeing tops and bottoms of the frame that were matted out for theatrical prints. \*\* What you describe is _preferable_ to traditional fullscreen transfers (since nothing is cut out), but still not the way I want to watch the movie. Perhaps we should make a distinction between “fullscreen” and “pan and scan” transfers. Fullscreen of the type you describe is fine, I suppose, but I’d still rather see it as the filmmakers originally intended, and typically they don’t want the stuff under the mats to appear on the screen. One notable exception to all this is Stanley Kubrik, who, I understand, shot his movies with 4:3 screens in mind and preferred releasing his movies in that aspect ratio when they went to home video. Since that’s what he wanted, I don’t have a problem with it. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/widscreen/152194/22 "2003-02-03T17:41:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Max Torque \* > \*\*Fullscreen of the type you describe is fine, I suppose, but I’d still rather see it as the filmmakers originally intended, and typically they don’t want the stuff under the mats to appear on the screen. > > One notable exception to all this is Stanley Kubrik, who, I understand, shot his movies with 4:3 screens in mind and preferred releasing his movies in that aspect ratio when they went to home video. Since that’s what he wanted, I don’t have a problem with it. \*\* And I’ll repeat, director James Cameron, like Stanley Kubrick, preferred that the home video release of _Titanic_ be full screen, not widescreen. And **yojimboguy** , I said the _Titanic_ was shot in full screen, meaning what is called [Academy Standard](http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/apertures.htm). I did not specify a screen ratio of 4:3, which hasn’t been used in Hollywood feature production since 1931. But to be specific, _Titanic_ was [shot](http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0120338) in Super 35 (except for the underwater documentary footage of the wreck, which was shot in Techniscope). [Super 35](http://jkor.com/peter/super35compare.html) shoots with a regular, non-anamorphic, spherical lens on an unmatted 35mm negative. This was discussed in the home video section of _Entertainment Weekly_’s issue of 11 September 1998. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/widscreen/152194/23 "2003-02-03T17:51:36Z")
Director James Cameron [discusses](http://www.theasc.com/magazine/dec97/titanic/pgs35/pg1.htm) using Super 35, in _The American Cinematographer_ magazine. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/widscreen/152194.md?page=1)