Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Are these titles 16x9 enhanced?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » Are these titles 16x9 enhanced? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Are these titles 16x9 enhanced?

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 12-25-2005 11:41 PM

I just received a few new DVDs for Christmas, and I'm wondering (before I open them) if they're anamorphic. Does anyone have these?

Forrest Gump (Pretty sure this one probably is)
Dead Poets Society
Home Alone

Thanks.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-26-2005 12:32 AM

You'll have to read the print on the back of the box. If they are dual-inventory, they'll say either WIDESCREEN or FULLSCREEN on the top of the front of the box. Chances are they are widescreen anamorpic or some crap like that,

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 12-26-2005 01:22 AM

"Dead Poets Society" - was in 1.85/1 (flat)
"Home Alone" - 1.85/1 (flat)

Look for the "enhanced for 16/9 Television" statement on the package (Disney's are pretty good about releasing their product for 16/9 playback). Otherwise, these will be formatted for the 4/3 standard TV, even though they'd be widescreen reproductions (if possible).

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-26-2005 01:13 PM

Stuff like Nightmare Before Christmas (just for example) is 1.66 or some retarded format like that, so instead of cropping and doing true anamorphc widescreen, it just automatically zooms in to fill the picture on a 16:9 tv. I hate that! I guarantee no theater showed the movie in 1.66. Just create a 1.85 version and give us a true version of NBC!

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-26-2005 02:36 PM

Joe, actually there are a many theatres that, given the option will show a "flat" film in 1.66 rather than 1.85 due to the better headroom. The other reason is perhaps just to ensure that Joe is wrong on his statements...either way is equally valid! I have had an increasing number of people requesting 1.75 formated plates to have a half-way between the over-cropped 1.85 and the touch-and-go frame lines of 1.66.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 12-26-2005 07:40 PM

They're all widescreen versions, but they don't indicate that they're anamorphic, so I think I'll wait and not open them until I have confirmation one way or the other. I don't really have much use for a non-anamorphic widescreen DVD. [Frown]

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 12-27-2005 05:37 AM

I doubt that they are anamorphic since those titles were probably formatted to be presented in widescreen (black bars above and below) on a normal TV screen (being the 4/3 screen). If shown on a 16/9 screen device, the unit would have to be programmed for 4/3 presentation. Otherwise the imagery on the screen would be massively stretched, and that's including "Gump", if not enhanced for 16/9 viewing.

What really sucks is that these two "flat" features were lensed in 1.33/1 full frame during shooting and then for print release (since I've ran them both on the big screen), and the trickery of DVD marketing has "apertured" them down to a widescreen (1.85/1) playback format-looking like what one would see these features on the movie screen.

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-27-2005 12:18 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
Joe, actually blah blah blah blah....

Unacceptable!! There is no excuse for shooting ANYTHING to be presented at mainstream theaters in a less-than-1.85:1 format. Though I could understand 1.78:1 if they wanted to perfectly fit into a 16:9 picture.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 12-27-2005 01:01 PM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
I doubt that they are anamorphic since those titles were probably formatted to be presented in widescreen (black bars above and below) on a normal TV screen (being the 4/3 screen). If shown on a 16/9 screen device, the unit would have to be programmed for 4/3 presentation. Otherwise the imagery on the screen would be massively stretched, and that's including "Gump", if not enhanced for 16/9 viewing.

If they're widescreen (letterboxed), and they AREN'T enhanced for 16x9, then they show up as a small box in the middle of my screen, unless I change my TV to non-widescreen mode, and zoom in on the 4x3 image, which I hate because it always looks like crap.

quote: Monte L Fullmer
What really sucks is that these two "flat" features were lensed in 1.33/1 full frame during shooting and then for print release (since I've ran them both on the big screen), and the trickery of DVD marketing has "apertured" them down to a widescreen (1.85/1) playback format-looking like what one would see these features on the movie screen.

I'm not sure why that sucks, but maybe you can help me out on that.

I did some checking around the net. Seems Forrest Gump is anamorphic, Home Alone is not (but region 2 is for some reason - and they both apparently suck), and Dead Poets also is not, but a special edition which IS anamorphic is coming out in a month, so I think I'll return this and wait for that version.

Thanks.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 12-27-2005 01:27 PM

quote: Mark J. Marshall
but maybe you can help me out on that.

..these two titles should have been released on DVD in fullscreen format (1.33/1) to fit the standard TV (4/3) screen.

Interesting that these are Region 2 DVD's though. Big time incompatibility issue there. I believe Region 2 is South America or Europe.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 12-27-2005 01:33 PM

But just because they were shot in 1.33, doesn't mean they were meant to be screened that way.

For example, if you showed "Powder" in 1.33, you'd have full frontal male nudity in one scene.

| IP: Logged

Jeremy Jorgenson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1002
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 12-27-2005 03:30 PM

Agreed. I've seen a few flat films misframed so that a boom mic is visible in the top of the frame (but isn't visible if framed properly).

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-27-2005 03:46 PM

I recently bought a region 1 (ntsc) DVD of Flash Gordon (1980) (off ebay) that apparently came from South America. The labels are in Portuguese but there are no subtitles and it plays with english sound track. When I play it in progressive scan I have two choices of "framing" either "zoom" or "full" either way it doesn't play quite right. Either the actors are slightly fat or slightly thin. I don't know exactly why this is other than it was not transfered correctly. I guess I could adjust the display unit and get it right, but then all my other dvds would be goofed up. It's not enough to make it unwatchable but is a curiosity

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 12-27-2005 04:00 PM

Here's a shot of two frames from Men In Black II that I cut out because of the horrible Crap Code gone wrong problem. As you can see, these are 1.33 frames, and they weren't meant to be seen that way (note the microphone).

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 12-28-2005 12:00 AM

..then, it makes one wonder when manufacturers do DVD's that the original is shot through a 1.66/1 aperture to cut off the "microphone" goofup, then giving the choice (or do both) of taking was was shot through the 1.66/1 aperture, either "full frame" (in which some side imagery is cut off), or the "widescreen" version of the same imagery.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.