change in store for DVD

[catman]

A person in california has filed a lawsuite against MGM studios . The charge is that the DVDS do not show full screen . 90% of the people do not want to watch movies that are cut off .

[Chris Blount]

Link please?

[Mark Lamutt]

DVDs do not show full screen? Meaning that the picture does not fill up the tv screen, or that the sides of the image are cut off so that the tv screen is filled?

[sampatterson]

Is this the same person who sued McDonalds for the hot coffee being too hot?

[bkwest]

Well it all sounds like bull to me. The DVD has the aspect ratio printed on the box. Sounds like stupid people in large numbers are at it again.

[Rick_EE]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hollywoodreporter/television/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1778416

The suit alleges that some DVD's billed as widescreen did not contain the complete theatrical image.

[Jasonbp]

Okay...why doesn't the guy do what any normal person would do. If you don't like it, take it back! Maybe nex time I'll sue Meijer when my chips are smashed.

[Chris Blount]

The guy is full of crap and doesn't know anything about film making.

Some movies are shot with whats called a "soft matt". What that basically means is that the images are composed for 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 but photographed with full frame. When shown in theaters, the top and bottom are not seen since the screen is wide.

When transferred to widescreen DVD, the full screen image is cropped to the proper proportions the way the director intended. When transferred to full screen VHS or DVD, the top and bottom are opened up BUT this portion of the image was never meant to be viewed!

Warner knows this and if this suit ever actually gets to court, the plaintiff doesn't have a chance.

Here is an excellent web page that explains all of this.

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/index.html

[MarkA]

Yup, the guy's an absolute idiot as far as I can tell. Open matte movies are 1.33:1. But I think (not sure) Chris may be wrong on one small detail also. I don't think they ever shoot open matte 1.33:1 and crop to an intended aspect of 2.35:1 like Chris is claiming (What that basically means is that the images are composed for 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 but photographed with full frame.). The resulting image would be of poor quality. 2.35:1 is, AFAIK - ALWAYS anamorphic filming. I may be wrong Chris, so don't take that comment personally and if you know of any non-anamorphic 2.35:1 movies I'd be very interested in seeing them so I can see how bad they do look:)

[MarkA]

PS Chris, one thing I have heard of (don't remember what format it is) is to shoot an anamorphic 1.85:1 ratio open matte and crop to 2.35:1. If that's what you're thinking. But that wouldn't explain the guy's lawsuit as technically that's a widescreen version cropped to be wider screen. But again, if you know of any 1.33:1 open matte framed to 2.35:1 I'd love to see them. 35 mm looks bad enough on it's own. I'm not sure I want to know how bad that would look...

[Chris Blount]

There are a lot of them but THE ABYSS first comes to mind. James Cameron is notorious for shooting that way. Also, it should be said that most special effects shots are done with a Vista Vision camera or other widescreen process so even though an open frame is used for most of a movie, the special effects shots must be panned and scanned on full screen video no matter what.

[MarkA]

Hmm, very interesting. Thanks for the information. I'll try to look up others on IMDB (I haven't seen that). It seems to me like a really dumb way to shoot?!?!?! You're losing half the film resolution and enlarging grain... I guess it does make for a better full screen release, but who cares?

Again, thanks so much Chris for the great information! Guess I learn something new everyday:)

[Mike123abc]

Soft matts are used a lot because they transfer to VHS easy. Although occasionally you see a microphone or other item that shoudl not be there, it is a way to get the full width in and not having to do Pan and Scan.

[Martyva]

85% of all movies shot for theatrical release were shot at 1.85:1, 2:1 or 2.35:1 aspect. Most transfers to TV involve pan and scan, or for a better word frame annihilation.

[MarkA]

Guess I just learned something about filmmaking. According to IMDB, it's Super35. Which is, yes, open matte. But Super 35 isn't open matte from 1.33:1. It's open matte from 1.66:1 (the same format once popular in Europe and still used for many Disney cartoons like The Tigger Movie, and Lilo and Stitch).

Or at least that's what I thought about Super 35. I've done some more research and was surprised to find that, depending on the exact version and implementation, Super 35 can be made from an original frame of 1.33:1 (as you said) or 1.5:1. Thanks so much for encouaging me to do some research on this! Have a great day Chris!

[Martyva]

While both hard and soft matting have been used, most theatrical releases have been done with anamorphic lens and usually state so on the disc description

[catman]

I want the movie to fill the screen . I don't want that cut off on top and cut off on bottom .

[MarkA]

catman, get yourself a video tape player. Let those of us who want the original theatrical aspect ratio and the best possible technical presentation have it!

[pez2002]

Look @ what the DVD Box Says :)

[MarkA]

Besides catman, while a minority of movies are open matte. The majority are hard matte or anamorphic, meaning the full screen version is the one with stuff cut off. Even on open matte movies, special effects scenes have the sides cut off in a full screen, as do certain other scenes. Do yourself and us, the movie fans, a favor. Buy a VHS tape player or learn to love widescreen...

[spanishannouncetable]

I'd rather watch THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN on a widescreen DVD than THE MAGNIFICENT FOUR on pan-and-ruin VHS.

Or maybe THE DIRTY DOZEN vs. THE DIRTY SEVEN & 1/2

Or SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS vs FOUR & 1/2 BRIDES ...

Ah, you get the point :p

[Mike123abc]

Wide screen will become more popular with the masses once the majority of the screens become 16:9, then they will all be complaining about the black bars on the sides.

[MarkA]

I don't know why the time for widescreen isn't now?!?!?!?! Almost all TVs on the market in England (except for really tiny ones) are widescreen? Why is it not the same here?

[gcutler]

Originally posted by Zac
I don't know why the time for widescreen isn't now?!?!?!?! Almost all TVs on the market in England (except for really tiny ones) are widescreen? Why is it not the same here?

I think the British are more literate about their entertainment and have either as a whole accepted the benefit of Widescreen. While I think most Americans (as we have stated here) look at widescreen and think it looks odd (or they are somehow losing something). So now the opposite of Widescreen on regular TV they would look at a regular show on a widescreen TV and say "Look at the borders on the left and right, we are wasting that space" We need a TV that adjusts itself so that there is no empty space on the screen (or maybe like Theatre Curtains that you see move a little between Trailers and the Feature) :D