What sucks is that many Horror LDs and DVDs are P&S. The Leprechaun series has only teased us with presenting the 2nd movie in Widescreen. This keeps me from buying any of the uncut 80s slashers on LD b/c I would rather have the cut, but WS DVDs.

I kinda differ with you there.

Even though the DVD releases of Return of the Living Dead 1 & 2 are widescreen, I still prefer the Laserdiscs as they have the original soundtrack.

They are open matte, so luckily you're not missing anything.

I believe all the leprechaun movies after part 2 were straight to video so its possible 1.33:1 is the original aspect ratio for those. I actually like those movies and for me each one through part 4 was better than the last.

I think there's confusion about the difference between P&S and cropped films. But that's understandable since the terms tend to be used interchangably.

The common 35mm film stock aspect ration was called Academy Ratio of 1.37, and it had been that for decades. The advent of TV pushed the film studios and theaters to try different things, one of which was to present films in a "widescreen" format. The easiest and cheapest way to present a film in widescreen format was to simply use a projector with a "matted" aperature (and different lens) to block the top and bottom of the 1.37 aspect ration and make it appear to be widescreen to the audience, in a format of 1.66, 1.78 or 1.85 typically.

These films actually had more image on the film stock that was just not shown to the audience, and the camera operator would see a marking in his camera showing the "safe area" that the audiences would not see. So sometiomes a boom mike or such would wander into view, but not into the actual "widescreen" marked area. These 35mm films would not be subject to Pan & Scan treatment because it wasn't really all that necessary. They were already close enough to TV ratio to just put them on as is with cropping, usually transfered to 16mm stock first. These are the ones that are called cropped and they don't lose a large amount of image when done right.

The other widescreen fromats did actually do something else to make the aspect ratio greater than 2.0, such as using an anamorphic lens, running 35mm film sideways, using 70mm film, etc. A film of a ration of 2.35 or 2.55 would need P&S treatment in cases where focus tended to be all on one side or the other of the screen, or quickly shifting from one side to another. These are the films that suffer most from this formatting treatment, losing much of the image consequently.

But just as bad as cropped or P&S for TV are DVDs that take an already altered TV image and then matte the tops and bottoms to give it a faux widescreen effect. This is not unusual for DVDs of older, "less important" films where it's easier to reuse an old HQ TV master than do a remastering, but the DVD releaser wants to say "widescreen" on the DVD case.

rixrex: I'm glad you wrote about the many films that fell into the matted category and did not need much alteration for early tv presentation (1:33). Other films, consider the late 50s biblical epics, did have the scan and scan process done to them before being broadcast. Pan and scan goes further back than the home video formats use of it. As you stated cropping which was done on many movies too, is different than p&s. Unfortunately p&s is still chopping up films and they are being shown on our modern 16:9 tvs!!

Some cable channels like FX and a few others are still on the wrong page. One of the biggest culprits is cables "On Demand" which I have yet to see a widescreen presentation on. I don't watch a lot of that so there may be some shown now. To be using p&s in this day and age is hard to comprehend. Even in the past though, film, for home presentation, was not regarded as an art form worthy of proper treatment. Sadly, it still lingers.

You're right.

And the ONLY reason the general public even has any kind of consideration about widescreen format now on DVDs is because of people like the ones here on this forum who love the LD format basically DEMANDED that LDS be released with a film's correct aspect ration, meaning the aspect ratio it was meant to be by the director and cinematographer.

I don't think that's an overstatement either. In fact, I'd go so far as to state that it is thanks to this enthusiasm for widescreen or letterbox LDs that led to the eventual adoption of the widescreen standard that exists today. Original HD TV plans were to keep the 1.33 ration and just use letterboxing rather than anamorphic images.

Of all the old formats I like, only the LD format and its fans can lay claim to being the precursor of modern HD standards. One of my projects in the 70s when in college getting my broadcast science degree was a theoretical development of an anamorphic TV broadcast system. It really wan't all that hard to envision, but I recall laughing faculty members saying it would never be. Ha!

I personally would never buy a Scan & Pan movie, I would however watch a Pan & Scan movie. If I want to see it I can put up with the stuff.

Fortunately most films that were P&S on LD were also released in their correct aspect ratio. I'm talking here about the actual P&S films that had original aspect ratios of greater than 2.0, as the other widescreen film aspect ratios are cropped, not P&S, and many of those that were not
A-grade studio films were not released in original aspect ratio.

A recent DVD I got was a real annoyance. I had the 1.33 version of Die, Monster, Die on LD, the only way it could be had on LD, and the DVD release notes stated it was to be in widescreen format on the MGM Midnight Movie double DVD with Dunwich Horror. Imagine the disappointment when I got it and it was the P&S version matted to be widescreen 1.78! My LD had more original image visible than this DVD release.

It looks like Die, Monster, Die in the DVD release by itself (not the double feature) is back to the orignal 2.35:1 ratio. Are you positive the LD is P&S and not at least partially un-matted? Knowing some of the other internet forums I'm surprised there wasn't mass outrage back when this was released if they first chopped off the sides to get a 2.35:1 down to 1.33:1, then chopped off the top/bottom to get the 1.33:1 back to 1.78:1 for the DVD. That's losing nearly 58% of the original image.

There was a real ignorance (and still somewhat is) about aspect ratios and anything to do with the presentation of films. As some have already correctly stated, laserdisc made an effort to preserve and elevate films. I've always had a huge hang up about p&s. I'm glad to see that after my original posting most here are knowledgeable and supportive of proper aspect ratios.

Because of it's aspect ratio contributions, laserdisc is still relevant today. Although back in the day that may have actually hurt sales (again ignorance). This is the greatest format ever. It still holds up in this crazy world of super shrunken, over processed and quick buck packaged entertainment.
You can play a laserdisc (most) on any top of the line system and still get high quality sound and picture. I like some hi-def for various reasons, but I still like when a film looks like one.

Watching a film like Day Of The Triffids with uncompressed sound on a decent widescreen monitor is like being blown back to a theatre in 1962. It's the best of both worlds. That's the lure of laserdisc for those interested.

Yes, it's a P&S version on the LD double with Lust for a Vampire, which is better than just cropping it off. At least someone had to look at the film and decide where the focus was. The worst part of it is the one great fright scene where the young couple wander into the dark room where the mutations are. Then there's a slow reveal of the giant creature kept in there. A great scene in the theater, lessened by the P&S. I saw the single DVD release states correct aspect ratio, and I hope it is, and not another cropping.

As an aside, to show how ignorant many people still are, how many of you LD fans still see friends and relatives watching their TV sets with the aspect ration incorrect? Meaning, they have it set on ZOOM instead of STRETCH. or they have it set on STRETCH instead of 3:4 or Standard? I get so tired of going to my in-laws and see them watching people on the TV all stretched out and short. then fixing it, then going back and it's the same thing again. I show them it's only one button to cycle through and then they forget!? But they couldn't even program their VCR before, so what can I expect.

And then what's up with those who use the zoom on their DVD players to cut off the top and bottom black bars when they have them, and they think it's a great feature? As usual, technology and those who understand it have to carry the public forward unwittingly into the future.

Ah okay that sucks then. There is another double feature with Die Monster Die and The Dunwich horror that I believe uses the same transfer as the single release. Here's a page with some screenshots. I've never seen the movie but the framing looks pretty good.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdreview ... r_die_.htm

Shots are probably from the single DVD release that was done in the US. My DVD came from Canadian release. It even has a French language option.

Pretty good movie directed by Daniel Haller, who was Roger Corman's art director for many of the Poe films, so that can help tell you what to expect in the way of lush settings. Based on the great Lovecraft story, The Color out of Space, as was Dunwich Horror also from Lovecraft and directed by Haller. He doesn't have the storytelling ability of Corman or quick pacing, but other than Re-Animator, these are probably two of the best Lovecraft adaptations we'll ever see.

I never bought a pan & scan laserdisc of a true widescreen movie. I have bought unmatted movies, but only if a letterboxed version wasn't available. (Like the laserdisc of The Shining I have.) Pan & scan versions of movies have a claustrophobic look to me, since the actors seemed cramped in the frame.

I believe Manhattan was the first film released in widescreen across all formats. It was a contractual thing between United Artists and Woody Allen. I bought it Letterboxed on VHS long before I came across any other films Letterboxed on VHS.

As the emphisis of LD shifted from mass market to audiophiles/videophiles Letterboxing became much more common, although some studios released both a Letterboxed version and a Pan & Scan version at the same time. Paramount comes to mind.

STAY AWESOME!

And yet there are a few Japan discs in the database that are letterboxed with earlier release dates. Not sure if they are entered incorrectly.

Actually, Amarcord on CED was the first Letterboxed release on home video.

http://www.cedmagic.com/featured/amarcord.html

And the first home video to show letterboxing EVER was the Discovision release of Fellini's Casanova

http://laserdiscplanet.com/museum.html

Of course, the only thing that was letterboxed was the credit sequence!

As I was typing my previous post I thought that I remembered that CED had the first Letterboxed release on video, but I wasn't sure. My main point though was that "Manhattan" was the first film released on home video Letterboxed across all platforms. CED, VHS, Betamax, LaserDisc.

STAY AWESOME!

looking at my list of LDs i see i have some that are titled as P&S but most would have been 1:85
so they really wouldn't have been panning or scanning from side to side, you just lose the edges.

also many could have just been full frame open matte, but i do try to avoid larger than 1:85 in a general rule.


the only two that i know i own is the crippled masters, that was shot in 2:35ish but is croped and the dragon fist, which is croped but i can't remember what the full size should be.

they are still watchable and not too bad.

i also had the black hole that was total pan and scan, i totally forgot what it looked like since everything at the time on TV, LD or DVD was widescreen or full frame.

that's one of the discs that i sold in order to get the widescreen DVD.
i wish they made that in widescreen on LD