|
It is currently 29 Mar 2024, 15:33
|
View unsolved topics | View unanswered posts
|
|
|
|
remington
|
Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard Posted: 16 Dec 2016, 06:02 |
True fan |
|
|
Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 00:50 Posts: 432 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)
|
|
|
|
|
nissling
|
Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard Posted: 16 Dec 2016, 06:49 |
Absolute fan |
|
|
Joined: 24 Jun 2010, 10:23 Posts: 1645 Location: Sweden Has thanked: 11 times Been thanked: 79 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.
|
|
|
|
|
samaron
|
Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard Posted: 16 Dec 2016, 12:18 |
Advanced fan |
|
|
Joined: 05 Jul 2011, 15:10 Posts: 898 Location: Norway Has thanked: 0 time Been thanked: 5 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
|
|
|
|
|
rein-o
|
Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard Posted: 16 Dec 2016, 15:50 |
Jedi Master |
|
|
Joined: 03 May 2004, 19:05 Posts: 8093 Location: Dullaware Has thanked: 1218 times Been thanked: 841 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.
|
|
|
|
|
remington
|
Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard Posted: 16 Dec 2016, 20:59 |
True fan |
|
|
Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 00:50 Posts: 432 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)
|
|
|
|
|
rein-o
|
Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard Posted: 17 Dec 2016, 03:22 |
Jedi Master |
|
|
Joined: 03 May 2004, 19:05 Posts: 8093 Location: Dullaware Has thanked: 1218 times Been thanked: 841 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.
|
|
|
|
|
nissling
|
Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard Posted: 17 Dec 2016, 05:07 |
Absolute fan |
|
|
Joined: 24 Jun 2010, 10:23 Posts: 1645 Location: Sweden Has thanked: 11 times Been thanked: 79 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.
|
|
|
|
|
rein-o
|
Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard Posted: 17 Dec 2016, 06:09 |
Jedi Master |
|
|
Joined: 03 May 2004, 19:05 Posts: 8093 Location: Dullaware Has thanked: 1218 times Been thanked: 841 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.
|
|
|
|
|
blam1
|
Post subject: Re: Pan&Scan vs Acadamy Standard Posted: 20 Dec 2016, 19:35 |
Advanced fan |
|
|
Joined: 21 Dec 2002, 18:44 Posts: 959 Has thanked: 0 time Been thanked: 122 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|