It is currently 27 Jan 2020, 19:44




 Page 1 of 2 [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2016, 05:19 
True fan
True fan
User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 00:50
Posts: 429
Location: United States
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
The database often lists films as P&S when it's likely the film was shot non widescreen, particularly direct to video 80s films. So actually, it should listed as academy standard, unless there is some knowledge I'm unaware of that the film was shot non widescreen THEN panned and scanned. Am I wrong?
_________________
"You who are reading me now are a different breed, I hope a better one." (POTA 1968)
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2016, 05:49 
Absolute fan
Absolute fan
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2010, 10:23
Posts: 1595
Location: Sweden
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times
There's a common misunderstanding between academy ratio, pan&scan and open matte. Let me explain...

Academy ratio: OAR is 1.37:1 (or 1.33:1).
Pan&Scan: The image is cropped on the left and right side to fit a less wide AR (and panned throughout the feature).
Open matte: The image isn't matted for its proper AR. Instead it's shown in its negative ratio.

Since every film shot on spherical 35mm with an OAR of 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 has a negative ratio of 1.37:1 there was usually no need for Pan&Scan for all those titles, yet it certainly happened that they made a Pan&Scan master from a matted source. It would take years to control all of those films on LD.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2016, 06:02 
True fan
True fan
User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 00:50
Posts: 429
Location: United States
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Yes, I'm aware of the differences between the two. But, let me ask you this: I haven't seen films prior to 1955 that were academy ratio get pan and scanned when released to video. There would be no need for it. Yet, you are saying that films shot 1:33 in later years were pan&scanned. I believe you , but it is absolutely bizarre that this would be done.

Isn't it also possible that films shot in the 80s (direct to video, tv pilots) were simply put on LD the way they were shot, 1:33? My point is if they were put on LD this way, why would the database call them p&s if they really don't know that to be the case?
_________________
"You who are reading me now are a different breed, I hope a better one." (POTA 1968)
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2016, 06:49 
Absolute fan
Absolute fan
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2010, 10:23
Posts: 1595
Location: Sweden
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times
remington wrote:
Yet, you are saying that films shot 1:33 in later years were pan&scanned. I believe you , but it is absolutely bizarre that this would be done.

It was actually rather common, though probably not as common as releasing the films in open matte. Since film prints were mostly matted, there was no other choice if those were used as a source. I know for sure that it was the case for Rain Man and The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Also note that open matte doesn't give you the proper ratio. I.e. in Bound for Glory you can see the boom mic during the fight scene if seen in 1.37:1. Luckily it's presented in its OAR (1.85:1) on both DVD and Blu-Ray.

Quote:
Isn't it also possible that films shot in the 80s (direct to video, tv pilots) were simply put on LD the way they were shot, 1:33?

They most certainly should and therefore it counts as video, since it was primarily produced for distribution to homes.
Quote:
My point is if they were put on LD this way, why would the database call them p&s if they really don't know that to be the case?

Direct to video, music videos etc. were pretty much never pan&scanned on LD, nor have I seen any inaccurate information in the database regarding these specific genres. However, with feature films, you have to compare it against the proper ratio to make a conclusion of whether it's open matte, pan&scan or is supposed to be shown in academy ratio. For many years it was taken for granted, mostly due to the fact that few people know just how dominating matting actually was.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2016, 07:28 
True fan
True fan
User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 00:50
Posts: 429
Location: United States
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
There are tons of films from the 80s that went direct to video and are listed on lddb as pan and scan. I'm not sure what you mean that you haven't seen it. I can only assume these films were panned and scanned because they were put on the old 80s and 90s 1:33 tv's.

Look at tv movies from the 70s on VHS for example.. They weren't panned and scanned . They were put on video according to the aspect ratio they were shot in. And again, if you watch a film like The Thing 1951, it's not panned and scanned for video. It doesn't have to be, the same way a direct to video movie doesn't need to be p&s, yet you say they did that. Maybe we are missing each other's points.
_________________
"You who are reading me now are a different breed, I hope a better one." (POTA 1968)
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2016, 08:29 
Absolute fan
Absolute fan
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2010, 10:23
Posts: 1595
Location: Sweden
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times
Could you give me any examples?

It's pretty obvious that The Thing from Another World has never been shown in P&S, since the film was produced before widescreen even was a thing. I've never said that direct-to-video productions were pan&scanned, but I am saying that several feature films (that were primarily made for the big screen) were pan&scanned even though they had a negative aspect ratio of 1.37:1. Please note that the negative aspect ratio and original aspect ratio are quite often not the same thing.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2016, 12:18 
Advanced fan
Advanced fan
User avatar

Joined: 05 Jul 2011, 15:10
Posts: 903
Location: Norway
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 4 times
I've changed several titles in the database that have been erroneously added as P&S, which were actually open matte. Latest one I submitted a change for were probably Hardware (1990) (Uncut) [NALA-10028]. It was fairly obvious it were open matte since the mic boom shows several times, shades for the camera lens, head (eye) positioning in the frame etc. Guess many people automatically assume 4:3 ratio = P&S.
_________________
Player: Pioneer HLD-X9 and CLD-2950
My LD collection
Recently started collecting some anime on LD
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2016, 15:50 
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 03 May 2004, 19:05
Posts: 6108
Location: United States
Has thanked: 172 times
Been thanked: 184 times
samaron wrote:
I've changed several titles in the database that have been erroneously added as P&S, which were actually open matte. Latest one I submitted a change for were probably Hardware (1990) (Uncut) [NALA-10028]. It was fairly obvious it were open matte since the mic boom shows several times, shades for the camera lens, head (eye) positioning in the frame etc. Guess many people automatically assume 4:3 ratio = P&S.

And then you select the zoom feature on your TV and its now a matted 1.85 film.

If i own an open matte i will just zoom but would rather see the top and bottom extra even boom mic.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2016, 16:41 
Advanced fan
Advanced fan
User avatar

Joined: 05 Jul 2011, 15:10
Posts: 903
Location: Norway
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 4 times
Yep, it does happen I zoom on the movies, but most of the time I just leave it as is. :)
_________________
Player: Pioneer HLD-X9 and CLD-2950
My LD collection
Recently started collecting some anime on LD
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2016, 20:59 
True fan
True fan
User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 00:50
Posts: 429
Location: United States
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
nissling wrote:
Could you give me any examples?

It's pretty obvious that The Thing from Another World has never been shown in P&S, since the film was produced before widescreen even was a thing. I've never said that direct-to-video productions were pan&scanned, but I am saying that several feature films (that were primarily made for the big screen) were pan&scanned even though they had a negative aspect ratio of 1.37:1. Please note that the negative aspect ratio and original aspect ratio are quite often not the same thing.


You quoted me when I said:
"Yet, you are saying that films shot 1:33 in later years were pan&scanned. I believe you , but it is absolutely bizarre that this would be done."
Then you responded with:
"It was actually rather common,though probably not as common as releasing the films in open matte. Since film prints were mostly matted, there was no other choice if those were used as a source."

In this recent post you are saying you didn't say direct to video productions were panned and scanned. Im not looking to argue, just to get clarity. As to examples there are hundreds. Look at a film like "Deep Red" from the early 90s. It's listed on lddb as p&s, yet, is it really? It was shot non widescreen.That would be very similar to academy standard. It's possible that they took the non widescreen negative and panned and scanned it, but why? With academy ratio it would have appeared fine on a 4:3 tv. Why go through the extra step of p&s ? P&S was reserved for widescreen film that were put on 4:3 tv's because it fit the screen "better" . They didn't do letterboxing on tv in those days.
_________________
"You who are reading me now are a different breed, I hope a better one." (POTA 1968)
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2016, 00:15 
Absolute fan
Absolute fan
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2010, 10:23
Posts: 1595
Location: Sweden
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times
The thing is that like I said pretty much every single film you will ever find, shot on 35mm, that has an OAR of 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 was in fact shot in 1.37:1. It's extremely common that people confuse the intended aspect ratio with the negative aspect ratio, and thus a matted print would need to be Pan&Scanned for home release unless they wanted to use letterboxing. That's what I meant and now I'm talking theatrically distributed features.

I am fully aware of that TV movies and features produced for this format was 1.33:1 for a very long time, since it was the standard. Those features were never Pan&Scanned to my knowledge, thus any LD of this category listed as P&S is most likely incorrect.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2016, 01:22 
True fan
True fan
User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 00:50
Posts: 429
Location: United States
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
That's why I'm saying there are tons of LDs from the 70s, 80s and 90s that are listed as pan and scan when it's more likely that they are not, they were simply shot 1:33, and should be listed accordingly. It's not only misleading, it's completely wrong.
_________________
"You who are reading me now are a different breed, I hope a better one." (POTA 1968)
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2016, 03:22 
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 03 May 2004, 19:05
Posts: 6108
Location: United States
Has thanked: 172 times
Been thanked: 184 times
remington wrote:
That's why I'm saying there are tons of LDs from the 70s, 80s and 90s that are listed as pan and scan when it's more likely that they are not, they were simply shot 1:33, and should be listed accordingly. It's not only misleading, it's completely wrong.

The only thing i can say is something like Let It Be was shot 1.33 played at the theater 1.85 transferred to LD as cropped
so its now pan and scan and do you lose a little on the sides.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2016, 04:58 
Honest fan
Honest fan
User avatar

Joined: 26 Jun 2011, 23:29
Posts: 86
Location: United States
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 0 time
As someone who has contributed to the LD database I have made a few mistakes inputting ARs, I usually get my info from IMDB which itself has many errors, If it states it's AR is 1.85 or wider I, by default selected pan and scan if the disc shows a full screen picture. I have learned the error of my ways. So that said, I would love the database to be perfect, but really how many collectors are concerned about movies they would never even watch much less own. If you are, please submit an update.

For me the "pan and scan" term is misleading, movies with an AR of 1.85 are usually just centered and the sides cropped for full screen release with no panning at all.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2016, 05:07 
Absolute fan
Absolute fan
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2010, 10:23
Posts: 1595
Location: Sweden
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times
remington wrote:
That's why I'm saying there are tons of LDs from the 70s, 80s and 90s that are listed as pan and scan when it's more likely that they are not, they were simply shot 1:33, and should be listed accordingly. It's not only misleading, it's completely wrong.

The only way to make sure if it's presented in open matte or pan&scan is to basically compare it against a reference. This has been a known issue for many years and if you've got the time to correct the inaccuracies, please do so. I have more important things do to.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2016, 05:34 
True fan
True fan
User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 00:50
Posts: 429
Location: United States
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Dude, I didn't say I'm looking to correct all the wrong entries. I just said it appears many of the entries are wrong. If you're hurt that I pointed it out there's little I can do about that.
_________________
"You who are reading me now are a different breed, I hope a better one." (POTA 1968)
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2016, 06:09 
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 03 May 2004, 19:05
Posts: 6108
Location: United States
Has thanked: 172 times
Been thanked: 184 times
There are also some instances where the film is not really open matte its sort of in between.
Producers, The (1968) [4058-80] is one of those.
Its not really open matte, you lose very little on the sides but get more image on the top and bottom.

Overall i feel that if the film is on LD and only listed as a pan and scan but in a correct aspect ratio of 1.85 or less i tend to keep the LD.
I just don't have enough money to keep buying all this stuff.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 19:35 
Advanced fan
Advanced fan
User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2002, 18:44
Posts: 852
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 62 times
I believe it's a matter of how the print master is made. Yes, all spherical film is shot 1.33, but it's what happens after the fact.

For example, "Back to the Future" is a true Pan & Scan film on LD. The image was shot at 1.33, but the SFX were all constructed in 1.85, so the prints themselves were hard matted to 1.85. The LD is a Pan & Scan of the 1.85 image.

On the other hand, "Lethal Weapon" was shot both 1.85 and 1.33 and the theatrical print would actually bounce between the open matte and the hard matte, but it was all hidden behind the projector framing plate. I cannot say if the LD is an open matte for the open matte shots and Pan & Scan for the hard matte shots, or Pan & Scan of the entire 1.85 "projected" image, but that certainly is possible.

On still another hand (how many of them have I got?) films that have no FX shots (ie, "Sister Act") the LD is 1.85 and the VHS is Open Matte, giving you more vertical information, with the same width.

Of course, there is the other extreme (Super35) where the 1.33 and the "widescreen" image (either 1.85 or 2.40) are built by completely re-transferring the image. The Special Edition of "Terminator 2" has an awesome segment on this, where the full 1.33 camera image is shown with different color boxes outlining the "Pan & Scan" and "Widescreen" images.

http://www.dvdactive.com/images/editorial/screenshot/2005/1/termsuper35b.jpg


Last edited by blam1 on 26 Dec 2016, 07:10, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2016, 21:43 
True fan
True fan
User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 00:50
Posts: 429
Location: United States
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
"Back To The Future" was shot 1:33? Do you mean it was transferred to that aspect ratio for video? I can't see BTTF being shot that way for theatres.
_________________
"You who are reading me now are a different breed, I hope a better one." (POTA 1968)
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2016, 07:27 
Advanced fan
Advanced fan
User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2002, 18:44
Posts: 852
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 62 times
It was shot full frame - like all "flat" films. However, when ILM produced the SFX, it was known that the projected image would be 1.85, so any SFX that would have occurred OUTSIDE the 1.85 frame were not generated.

I performed a quick side-by-side comparison from LaserDisc and confirmed my statements. Shots that do not include any special effects are open matte, providing more vertical information. Shots that contain special effects are a pan & scan of the 1.85 frame.
Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 2 [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: vectrex3000 and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: