Widescreen is better! (was Re: Wide/full screen/ DVD players)

[GulPlum <hp@plum.cream.org>]

illyana delorean wrote:

> Anyway, I know that this is totally off-topic, but I would really 
> like to reply, and I don't know if this person is on the OT list.

This is going even further off-topic, but I beg indulgence for one 
moment while I correct a few inaccuracies. (The original post has 
been snipped.)

> When a movie is filmed in widescreen (such as 
> both of the Harry Potter movies), pieces of metal are placed at the 
> top and the bottom of the gate on the camera - the gate is the area 
> of the camera where the film will be exposed while shooting. It is 
> basically the "shutter" of the camera - where the camera brings in 
> information. This process is called "gating." Although parts of the 
> film are not used during the filming, these pieces are not exposed 
> and, therefore, do not contain any information (they did not film 
> anything). This creates widescreen.

Not true. Super 35 exposes the full (roughly) 4:3 frame. Hence, as 
per PS/SS, there is information above and below the widescreen 
picture. What I found baffling about the PS/SS release was that the 
fullscreen version did not consist of the full Super 35 picture, but 
of a different sub-set of it, although there are exceptions (such as 
Harry's letter).

When composing their shots, the director and cinematographer will 
watch what the camera is seeing either through the camera itself or 
on monitors. Usually they see the full picture with the area that the 
cinema release will include framed within it. Others (such as 
Spielberg and his current cinematographer Janusz Kaminski) actually 
black out the non-cinema elements because they find them distracting.

This is where the whole point of widescreen -v- fullscreen comes to a 
head, because ultimately the widescreen picture is the one for which 
the framing, composition, lighting, etc. were designed. Even if there 
is more information on the full screen version (as is the case with 
Super 35 and similar processes), it's not what was *intended*; it's 
not what all the artistic decisions were geared up to.

> When you watch Harry Potter in the theatre, you are viewing 
> *everything* that the camera captured. When the movie is put onto a 
> DVD in widescreen format, you are seeing exactly what you saw in 
> the 
> movie theatre - *nothing* is cut out. However, when you watch the 
> full-screen version of Harry Potter on DVD (also referred to as 
> "pan-and-scan"), you are cutting out part of the film. The way they 
> make the fullscreen version of the DVD is that they enlarge the 
> image 
> to get rid of the "letterbox" (the black space at the top and 
> bottom 
> that is created by "gating"). In doing this, the left and right 
> sides 
> of the picture are pushed offscreen; therefore, you are *not* 
> seeing 
> everything that was shot. Pan-and-scan refers to the nauseating 
> effect that is created when something important occurs in the left 
> or 
> right areas of the film that was cut-off and the frame is moved 
> over 
> to one of these areas.

That is only true of widescreen films shot in Panavision, Scope or 
other similar processes. It is NOT true of most films shot on Super 
35 and similar. The widescreen version is as much "panned and 
scanned" as the full screen version, except that it's up and down 
rather than side to side. In a way, the widescreen vesion is even 
*more* panned and scanned than the full screen once, as the full 
screen usually is just that - the whole exposed frame, whereas the 
widescreen one is less than 2/3 of it. 

For en excellent demonstration of this, I recommend people watch one 
of the features on the "Seven" (special edition) DVD release, in 
which we witness Fincher, his editor and cinematographer, go through 
the process of re-scanning one scene for the DVD release. 

> This quote is taken from the back of my Harry Potter and the 
> Sorcerer's Stone Widescreen DVD box:
> 
> "Widescreen version presented in a "Letterbox" widescreen format 
> preserving the "scope" aspect ratio of its original theatrical 
> exhibition."
> 
> (The word "scope" is the name that Warner Bros. chose to give to 
the 
> aspect ratio that the movie was shot in)

No. It's the name of the aspect ratio in which the film was released 
in cinemas, which is exactly what that sentence means. It does NOT 
say the film was *shot* in Scope. To discover that the film was 
*shot* in Super 35, you need to watch the technical section of the 
end credits.

> Basically, Warner Bros. is saying that the information on this DVD 
is 
> exactly the same as what was presented in the theatre.

Quite. It is NOT saying that it is what the camera saw.

> 
> I would like to have the URL of this website you mentioned, because 
> there is *absolutely* no reason that someone's widescreen DVD 
> shouldn't contain everything that was shown on the big-screen. 
Plus, 
> if what you are saying is correct, Warner Bros. is basically lying 
in 
> that quote up there.

No, they're not. Basically, you have an incomplete understanding of 
the processes involved and the meaning of the quote.

Incidentally, as implied in my other post, lest my above comments 
give anyone the wrong idea, I am a huge fan of widescreen movies and 
there are valid reasons why an anamorphic widescreen DVD release 
(which PS/SS is) is technically better than the fullscren version, 
and not only artistically (the word "anamorphic" is key here; look at 
any site about DVD technology for more on the subject; the 
application of the word is slightly different when used about DVDs 
rather than celluloid).

P.S. Richelle - I see that our last two posts crossed. :-)