| LaserDisc Database https://forum.lddb.com/ |
|
| Why are so many scope films cropped to around 2.0:1? https://forum.lddb.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=11200 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | sdraper [ 30 Jan 2024, 08:53 ] |
| Post subject: | Why are so many scope films cropped to around 2.0:1? |
I’ve noticed over the years that a number of scope films are cropped to about 2.0:1. At first I thought it was just because of early letterbox masters but it still happens occasionally on later discs. Super wide films or the original 2.55:1 CinemaScope films were regularly cropped to 2.35 until years later but it’s still really weird seeing cropped but still nice looking versions of scope films. This is similar to how 70mm blowups would necessitate cropping of scope 2.35 to 2.21:1. For Your Eyes Only is one of these, and I just watched Romancing the Stone which is another one. The worst is the first letterbox pressing of Flatliners which is actually cropped to 1.85:1 or so. I suppose that’s why it had a quiet second pressing reissue. |
|
| Author: | chrisw6atv [ 31 Jan 2024, 06:11 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why are so many scope films cropped to around 2.0:1? |
I do not understand why "semi-wide-screen" versions of movies were released. Either you use the original aspect ratio, or you do not. I remember being happy that "Ghostbusters 2" was in wide screen, until I noticed at the end that they had used the proper 2.35: 1 ratio, for the end credits only. |
|
| Author: | admin [ 31 Jan 2024, 12:14 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why are so many scope films cropped to around 2.0:1? |
sdraper wrote: For Your Eyes Only is one of these, and I just watched Romancing the Stone which is another one. The worst is the first letterbox pressing of Flatliners which is actually cropped to 1.85:1 or so. I suppose that’s why it had a quiet second pressing reissue. Would that be specific to US releases? Could you clarify which releases? (assuming the data is correct and the ratio was not only reported for opening credits) For Your Eyes Only (1981) [ML101725] USA => 2.10:1 For Your Eyes Only (1981) [NJEL-52737] Japan => reported at 2.35:1 Romancing the Stone (1984) [1358-85] USA => 2.35:1, wrong? Romancing the Stone (1984) [PILF-1603] Japan => reported at 1.95:1 Flatliners (1990) [50386] 1st LTBX Flatliners (1990) [79036] 2nd LTBX Julien |
|
| Author: | takeshi666 [ 31 Jan 2024, 17:17 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why are so many scope films cropped to around 2.0:1? |
Was Vittorio Storato involved with any of them? |
|
| Author: | admin [ 31 Jan 2024, 18:12 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why are so many scope films cropped to around 2.0:1? |
takeshi666 wrote: Was Vittorio Storato involved with any of them? Not for these post-production matting targeted for home video. His Univisium 2:1 came later for mainstream productions, starting from 1998. Most likely they didn't like how wide the letterboxed black bars were and did some zooming/matting to "fill up more of the screen" to please studio executives? Of course keeping opening and closing credits properly framed so that no ones' name would get cut. Julien |
|
| Author: | signofzeta [ 31 Jan 2024, 22:55 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why are so many scope films cropped to around 2.0:1? |
Yeah. A “mild letterbox” seems pretty common on LD. Back when TVs were small and square the loss of resolution and size was more important than aspect ratio. NTSC kinda sucks…and at 2:35 to 1 you have half-NTSC basically. |
|
| Author: | substance [ 31 Jan 2024, 23:03 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why are so many scope films cropped to around 2.0:1? |
takeshi666 wrote: Was Vittorio Storato involved with any of them? I was thinking him too. I think these uncommon aspect ratios were a European thing. At one point 1.66:1 was advocated in Europe. Paul Verhoeven’s Robocop was framed 1.66:1 in some European cinemas. Criterion later chose that aspect ratio too as the director approved version. I think 1.66:1 was chosen because it was a good compromise between the back then common 4:3 TV aspect ratio and the 16:9 widescreen for cinemas. Hence 2.0:1 is a good compromise between the now common 16:9 TV aspect ratio and 2.35:1 scope ratio. After watching a couple of films in IMAX ratio, I believe the very widescreen is overrated. At typical screen distances, I don’t believe the human vision is that wide spread. I can see on some special occasions like in the Lawrence of Arabia when filming the very flat desert, a super wide aspect ratio could be very immersive but in general 1.66:1 to 2.00:1 is more adequate. |
|
| Author: | rein-o [ 01 Feb 2024, 00:12 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why are so many scope films cropped to around 2.0:1? |
My only guess is due to the fact that widescreen was still new, people were still thinking they were actually loosing image with black bars in some cases, and you didn't have places like IMDB to find out the correct aspect ratio so it would be OK to miss the mark a little. Another thing is, could it be from the transfer equipment? Or taking into consideration the CRTs of the time and even monitors used when transferring? Disclord would have known 100% but not sure if we will ever know. |
|
| Author: | admin [ 01 Feb 2024, 03:12 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why are so many scope films cropped to around 2.0:1? |
substance wrote: I can see on some special occasions like in the Lawrence of Arabia when filming the very flat desert, a super wide aspect ratio could be very immersive but in general 1.66:1 to 2.00:1 is more adequate. That's also how NHK came up with their 5:3 ratio, based on human eyes/vision angle, in the 70's. I don't think 2.35~2.55:1 was required but it boosted tickets sales with their panoramic screens, triple-synced projectors (Cinerama, Kinopanorama), 70mm reels (Super Technirama, Super Panavision, Ultra Panavision) to bring an experience that felt different from TV sets. Then the whole home video frenzy started and VHS changed the game, people didn't want to "waste" screen space with black bars, so we zoomed, cropped, panned, pleased the customers. Super 35 was born from this era. Julien |
|
| Author: | substance [ 01 Feb 2024, 03:49 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why are so many scope films cropped to around 2.0:1? |
admin wrote: I don't think 2.35~2.55:1 was required but it boosted tickets sales with their panoramic screens, triple-synced projectors (Cinerama, Kinopanorama), 70mm reels (Super Technirama, Super Panavision, Ultra Panavision) to bring an experience that felt different from TV sets. Julien A French man did this first. Abel Gance’s Napoleon had its ending projected onto 3 different screens. 
|
|
| Author: | ace2184 [ 02 Feb 2024, 23:53 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why are so many scope films cropped to around 2.0:1? |
On some releases I've always wondered if it was just the editing process. Even on discs released in the "correct aspect ratio", there is information missing. I noticed on Ghostbusters, in the ballroom scene, you can't see all the goggle/display graphs when Ray is looking for Slimer. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|