DVD: Fullscreen -v- widescreen

[caliburncy]

Hi,

I haven't posted here on the Movie list in ages, but I figured I 
might be able to help out with this.

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "joanne0012" <Joanne0012 at a...> wrote:
> It's been my understanding that the "full screen" editions of
> movies are usually created by lopping off the sides of the wide-
> screen edition.

Right, this is a technique called "panning-and-scanning".  However, 
this is not the technique being used by the HP DVD.

This is difficult to explain without pictures, so you'll have to bear 
with me.  If you want pictures, check out 
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/

His explanation might be easier to understand than mine, too--I don't 
know.  I have tried to simplify mine, and make it address more 
closely the matter at hand, but I may not have succeeded.

Now then, let's start from the beginning before we move on to Harry 
Potter:

You see, it used to be that widescreen movies were generally filmed 
either with an anamorphic lens or a hard matte.  This meant that all 
the picture area that made it onto the film was all the area that you 
would see in the theatre.  There was no extra.  So, when it came time 
to convert to a T.V. aspect ratio, they had no choice but to lose 
picture off the sides (the aforemention "pan-and-scan").  The 
downside here should be obvious, in that we are losing picture we 
were supposed to see.

Then there was soft matting, which meant that there was extra picture 
area being filmed above and/or below the picture that was actually 
used in the theatre.  (i.e. a whole square area of picture is filmed, 
but only a rectangle that fits *inside* that square is what goes to 
the theatre)  This means there was extra, ununused material, which 
they can now add back in when they convert to a T.V. aspect ratio (so 
this doesn't count as "pan-and-scan").  The downside to including 
this extra picture is that it was not altogether uncommon early on 
for microphones and other things you're not supposed to see to show 
up in that extra picture area.  It also frequently ruined the proper 
sense of perspective you would get from the widescreen version, since 
the extra picture tended to be superfluous.

Then there is Super 35, which I believe is the type of film that was 
used for Harry Potter.  Now, Super 35 has an aspect ratio that is 
different from both standard theatre ratios and from a T.V.'s aspect 
ratio (it's inbetween the two at about 1.6:1 ).  So, when a film is 
being shot in Super 35, the director generally films it in such a way 
so that he can get both the picture he wants for the theatre version 
*and another version* for the T.V. version, by leaving off some of 
the filmed material in *both* versions.  Which is why, as you will 
see on GulPlum's page, the widescreen version has picture that the 
full screen version does not have, but the fullscreen version *also* 
has picture that the widescreen version does not have.

See http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml#Super35
for further demonstration and elaboration.

This has made everyone's life very difficult.  It used to be that the 
choice was obvious: one wanted the widescreen version, because it 
preserves the theatrical experience.  Technically, this is still 
true, even with movies filmed on Super 35.  But the reason 
enthusiasts wanted the widescreen version was not just the 
preservation of the theatrical experience, but also the preservation 
of the artistic vision.  Unfortunately, with directors being careful 
to make, effectively, two versions of the same film, the distinction 
of which one is really the "integrity-upholding version" is more 
difficult to determine.  With the vast majority of directors, the 
answer would be that the widescreen version was almost certainly 
their intended medium for the integrity of what they wanted to have 
on film.  This presumption is upheld by interviews with most of them.

But with Columbus, it is entirely possible that he is the exception 
to the rule (we don't know without talking to him), since looking at 
GulPlum shots show that several scenes were designed to display 
particularly well in the "full screen" version (even at the slight 
expense of the widescreen version).  Of course, there are many shots 
that are clearly intended to display better in widescreen, as well, 
but as GulPlum notes, these seem a tad less frequent (although when 
they display better, they display *much* better, like the 
invisibility cloak screenshot).

So, anyway, we film enthusiasts are still most certainly going to buy 
the widescreen version, if for no other reason than to dissuade home 
video distribution companies from perpetuating this nonsense 
with "full screen" stuff in the first place.  But I can understand 
why, for the less film-obsessive, the decision would be less clear, 
since there is no matter of principle to be upheld.  For these, 
people, you can get whatever looks better to you, I suppose.  But if 
you want what you saw in the theatre, that's the widescreen version.  
The "full screen" version may be better or it may be worse, but 
either way it *is* different.

The only other distinction I am aware of between the two versions 
besides what GulPlum's site has shown you is that, supposedly, the 
master and/or transfer used for the widescreen version has a cleaner-
looking picture.  Apparently, neither transfer is quite up to the 
best of DVD reference quality standards, but the widescreen transfer 
is allegedly better in this regard.  I don't know to what extent, 
probably not too terribly much.

Good luck!  And I hope that actually made some sense, but knowing my 
meagre explanatory skills, it probably didn't.

-Luke