Pan and Scanning on Blu? - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-19-2009, 05:17 PM
Krawk's Avatar
Mod, Staff, Movie Buff
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,816
Lightbulb Pan and Scanning on Blu?

As a result of the AMZ price adjustment thread I have a curious question and don't want to give the studios any ideas.
Ruvic mentions Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) (3pc) (Full Ws)

What is Full Ws? That gave me a disturbing thought. Now that many people have 16x9 screens (1.78:1 in movie terms) what will the studios to to films that are really wide, Star Wars for example (2.35:1)? Will they leave it in the proper aspect, let the usual people that had 4:3 screens that always bought FS versions of films, now complain about black bars on their 16:9 tv and have the studios cave to a whole new pan and scan using a 16:9 window instead of the old 4:3 window, thus no black bars but missing much of the picture still and all that Full WS or WS FS.

I have already seen Paramount (Truman Show and others)stretch the picture vertically to fill the screen, which is unacceptable, I wouldn't doubt some studios 'zoomed in' on a few titles already to fill the screen top to bottom but lose the sides a little bit and still consider that acceptable as well. As BD buyers we need to put our foot down, possibly maintain a visible list somewhere of titles not presented in their proper aspect ratio, let the studios know we won't take it. There will always be those that buy the title no matter what but hopefully a good enough message comes out of the thread that the studios take notice BEFORE they pull these stunts.

I suggest we discuss our opinions in this thread and start another thread with a list of noncompliant titles, make it a pinned list so it stays at the top always.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-19-2009, 05:50 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 57
Default

Are you going by Amazon's listing? Because this is a three disc set with the 2008 remake in 2.35:1 and the 1951 original in 1.33:1.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-19-2009, 05:53 PM
wormraper's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,132
Default

is it coming with the DVD of the original or the blu that just came out??? Basically are both movies on blu or is the original movie just a dvd add on??
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-19-2009, 06:13 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wormraper View Post
is it coming with the DVD of the original or the blu that just came out??? Basically are both movies on blu or is the original movie just a dvd add on??
Disc one is the Blu-ray special edition of the 2008 remake, disc two is the digital copy disc for iTunes and Windows Media, disc three is the 1951 original.

But there is a bit of a rub...its not known if the third disc is a DVD or a Blu-ray Disc.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-19-2009, 08:03 PM
Josh Z's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krawk View Post
That gave me a disturbing thought. Now that many people have 16x9 screens (1.78:1 in movie terms) what will the studios to to films that are really wide, Star Wars for example (2.35:1)?
There are several hundred movies already available on Blu-ray with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. The few discs that were altered from their OAR are anomalies, not the rule. I don't think you have anything to worry about.
__________________
Josh Z
Former Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest
My opinions are strictly my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-19-2009, 08:09 PM
krylonman's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,694
Default

Zooming in 1.85:1 movies to 1.78:1 is, I think, acceptable if they really want to do it. I'm a big whiner about OAR, and this difference is too negligible to get worked up about. Paramount's stretched titles don't seem to have been done with any purpose in mind but are just mistakes--'The Truman Show' fills the screen now after being stretched horizontally, but 'Event Horizon' is still around 2.35:1, just stretched vertically a little in a way nobody caught.

In other words, I don't think we have to worry about pan & scan Blu-rays...yet. The listing at Amazon is probably just their usual bang-up job at listing specs; they still list BDs as being "Region 1." "Full" probably refers to the original 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' being 1.37:1, even though that isn't a screen-filling ratio in this context.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-19-2009, 08:10 PM
squall4008's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krawk View Post

I have already seen Paramount (Truman Show and others)stretch the picture vertically to fill the screen, which is unacceptable, I wouldn't doubt some studios 'zoomed in' on a few titles already to fill the screen top to bottom but lose the sides a little bit and still consider that acceptable as well. As BD buyers we need to put our foot down, possibly maintain a visible list somewhere of titles not presented in their proper aspect ratio, let the studios know we won't take it. There will always be those that buy the title no matter what but hopefully a good enough message comes out of the thread that the studios take notice BEFORE they pull these stunts.

I suggest we discuss our opinions in this thread and start another thread with a list of noncompliant titles, make it a pinned list so it stays at the top always.
Truman was a weird exception where they stretched it(probably because when they open it up it reveals a lot equipment in some scenes like the broadcast version ive seen) but normally Paramount and i think Warner Brothers open up 1.85:1 films to 1:78 because the difference is pretty negligible but in terms of wider aspect films i doubt they will start cropping them because for everyone who doesnt really understand why films have the black bars there(which is discussed WAY too much, i dont understand why people cant figure it out) but most TVs and now some BD players have a zoom function so they can just use that.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-20-2009, 12:01 AM
Josh Z's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krylonman View Post
Zooming in 1.85:1 movies to 1.78:1 is, I think, acceptable if they really want to do it. I'm a big whiner about OAR, and this difference is too negligible to get worked up about.
When movies are altered from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1, they usually aren't zoomed. The mattes are lifted to expose a sliver more picture information at the top and bottom of the frame. In this case, the difference is a few scan lines, and doesn't at all affect the compositional intent of the photography.
__________________
Josh Z
Former Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest
My opinions are strictly my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-21-2009, 12:29 AM
krylonman's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,694
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
When movies are altered from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1, they usually aren't zoomed. The mattes are lifted to expose a sliver more picture information at the top and bottom of the frame. In this case, the difference is a few scan lines, and doesn't at all affect the compositional intent of the photography.
Yep, that's right. I just used "zoomed" as a catchall because it seemed like an unnecessary complication to add "naturally I only mean 'zoomed' if it's a hard matte 1.85:1 movie, or if they zoomed it instead of opening up a soft matte movie for some obscure reason. Otherwise it's opened up because..." etc. etc.

At any rate, opening up "safe areas" and cutting off the sides is equally damaging to the image, in my opinion, and in this case equally not much of an issue.



(I love the expert articles, by the way! Keep 'em coming!)

Last edited by krylonman; 02-21-2009 at 12:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-24-2009, 06:36 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 127
Default

I would be very surprised if The Studios do this in the US or UK. It has happened in other territories on DVD (the UAE, for example often zooms in on 2.35:1 to make 'em 16:9), but this is very much the exception.
Remember, movies originally shot in Super Techniscope (or similar) like GREYSTOKE, OUT OF AFRICA or SILVERADO can have masters made at any ratio, even though they were originally released theatrically at anamorphic 2.35:1.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UltraViolet media locker may allow DVD scanning for access towergrove High Definition Smackdown 37 03-19-2011 02:43 PM
First review of Le Labyrinthe de Pan ('Pan's Labyrinth') HD DVD Master X HD DVD Imports Subforum 21 11-23-2009 08:51 PM
WTB: Pan's Labyrinth and I am Legend tienvg HD DVD Disc Exchange 0 06-15-2009 01:29 AM
Pan DMP BD30 wont play and movies alktrainer Blu-ray Hardware General Discussion 9 01-13-2008 07:06 PM
Little Yellow Minivan Vs Panís Labyrinth and the Oscars. nelll Film Forum 19 03-11-2007 08:13 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off