Wrong way letterboxing?!?: The Black Hole Fotomat Beta vs Anchor Bay VHS

[tripletopper]

I finally got my UHF broadcaster to broadcast old school media so we don't have to lug stuff upstairs and plug things in.

I decided to test it out on an Anchor Bay copy of the Black Hole on VHS

It's advertised as widescreen edition. Ideally according to the movie theorists it should contain more information than the 4x3 information on VHS.

Well I played it and technically it is 2 35 to 1 but I think they missed the point of doing that by instead of zooming out and showing the whole film they took the 4x3 of a videotape version and zoomed in and cut off the top and bottom.

I remember on the Fotomat Beta copy, I remember the opening scene with the computer vector graphics displaying the black hole on the introduction, I distinctly remember in addition to the credits there were computer displays that would be represented on a normal ship if one was in such a situation like "apporaching black hole" or a gravity reading, or something.

First of all is that just me and my active less than 5 year old imagination remembering those display warnings in the Fotomat version? Or were they really in there?

If they were in the original theatrical scene, which I would have been way too young to see and remember, then chopping off the sides of a 2.35 to one to down to 4x3 whatever removed some of the sides but apparently the panners and scanners thought that was important information in the movie so they somehow put that in.

So if my memory is cracked then this Anchor Bay version is actually a "wrong way letterbox copy" where you get to 2.35 to 1 by subtracting film data instead of adding film data.

I also noticed I bought a few clearances on letterbox copies of a few movies on DVD about 17 years ago which were Last Action Hero, Adventures in Babysitting, UHF, and My Stepmother is an Alien.

One time I got some money back from MGM for buying UHF even though my memory wasn't that particular until I compared the preserved scene with the outtakes. the outtakes next to The preserve scenes definitely show that they did letterboxing by subtraction.

And then I noticed a certain shot that I noticed well that was completely gone in the widescreen version but was in the VHS version and the basic cable version. I assume Best Buy was closing out of those because those were considered illegal widescreen versions where they did widescreen by subtraction not addition.

I remember in the days of HD DVD versus Blu-ray that one of those two coalitions had a rule that everything must be in their maximum "film data" mode preserving the entire film and using black bars to adjust the ratios so that the whole film is preserved. If that was the Blu-ray coalition's original policy and it got abandoned once HD DVD bit the dust, then the brand name Blu-ray doesn't mean anything anymore. I can understand if that was the HD DVD coalition's policy and then Blu-ray coalition thoughts that that was one aspect of their victory. (By the way the difference in the HD movie disc by players sold was to 3 significant figures the difference between PlayStation 3s sold versus Xbox 360 add on adapters sold)

Is there a way you could tell whether they do letterboxing by addition or letterboxing by subtraction? I noticed too many of the shows on basic cable that were originally 4x3 get zoomed in to fit in 16 by 9 and make some of those pictures awful. Both in terms of pixel quality and in terms of artistic composition.

Maybe if this generates a lot of talk that could be a permanent category called letterboxing by subtraction which you discuss movies to warn people that the so-called preserved movie actually only preserves the donut hole and not the dough.

[Fodderstompf]

You really, really need to read more on aspect ratios, theatrical masking of 35mm, the history of video transfers and film itself based on the above.

[ProfXtacy]

That response is very condescending.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ProfXtacy

That response is very condescending.

And yet no less true for it.

[ProfXtacy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And yet no less true for it.

That may be but obviously the original poster doesn’t understand about aspect ratio’s and he’s asking for advice, and instead of either ignoring his questions, or giving some advice, the person responding gives an extremely rude and condescending response.

We were all in a position when we were new to the hobby at one point and people should remember that.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ProfXtacy

That may be but obviously the original poster doesn’t understand about aspect ratio’s and he’s asking for advice, and instead of either ignoring his questions, or giving some advice, the person responding gives an extremely rude and condescending response.

We were all in a position when we were new to the hobby at one point and people should remember that.

But that's the thing, the way that matey is flinging around technical facts (though I use the word facts lightly, the bit about a "film data" mode is hilarious) and figures it doesn't seem like this is his first rodeo, even mentioning HD DVD vs Blu-ray which was like 15 years ago. Yet he's never come across the concept of matting in all his years on the planet? Like never ever? Huh. And he's not aksing for advice, he's seeking to have his pre-determined viewpoint confirmed and boy he's not gonna get that here

Edit: in fact I remember this guy, he's like a mad inventor and won't give up the idea of 2D TVs being adapted for 3D with the aid of an add-on. Keeps getting told no, but won't let the dream die. So the very best of luck in trying to explain to him that we're not supposed to see every last shred of what was shot on a camera negative.

[ronand]

It a bit late to be looking for the money back...

[ProfXtacy]

Originally Posted by ronand

It a bit late to be looking for the money back...

It just popped up today, I think because someone liked the post of the person who replied, although I really don’t see what there was to like about it.

As I say, instead of being insulting to people and demeaning them on a public forum, other posters should be explaining the situation.

Reading between the lines I’m assuming that The Black Hole was shot open matte and then letterboxed for theatrical release which presumably is what the Blu Ray release was. It’s a film I’ve not watched for years and keep intending to look up on Disney Plus.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ProfXtacy

It just popped up today, I think because someone liked the post of the person who replied, although I really don’t see what there was to like about it.

As I say, instead of being insulting to people and demeaning them on a public forum, other posters should be explaining the situation.

Reading between the lines I’m assuming that The Black Hole was shot open matte and then letterboxed for theatrical release which presumably is what the Blu Ray release was. It’s a film I’ve not watched for years and keep intending to look up on Disney Plus.

Black Hole was shot anamorphic so there's nothing extra that a pan and scan version would have, except for some real estate on the extreme left which was exposed on the negative but not composed for in 2.35 as it was where the soundtrack was intended to go on the prints. P&S versions often use this area providing there's no visible camera or lighting doodads. If matey recalls seeing something on a video from a lifetime ago but doesn't have the actual proof of it then he may have seen a bit of that extra soundtrack area or his mind is playing tricks on him, which he does acknowledge in fairness. But the rest of it? UHF the movie was shot for 1.85 so will have exposed a taller 1.37 frame (minus any in-camera matting) and it's this which is seen on whatever old 'full frame' editions. There is nothing "illegal" about a matted 1.85 version, it's what was intended to be seen.

[Fodderstompf]

Originally Posted by ProfXtacy

That response is very condescending.

I've got better things to do with my time than try and explain things to people who don't seem to have much of a knowledge base about a subject - I told him to read up on it, which remains my advice.

[ProfXtacy]

Originally Posted by Fodderstompf

I've got better things to do with my time than try and explain things to people who don't seem to have much of a knowledge base about a subject - I told him to read up on it, which remains my advice.

Yet you’ve time enough to be rude and ignorant. Just ignore people but don’t be so rude, it’s people like you with your superior attitude that drive people away from forums.

Don’t bully people.

[Stanis]

He wasnt rude, def not ignorant. This was posted in the DVD forum, so its off topic and should expect a little heat in response.

Oh and tl;dr.

[Fodderstompf]

Originally Posted by ProfXtacy

Yet you’ve time enough to be rude and ignorant. Just ignore people but don’t be so rude, it’s people like you with your superior attitude that drive people away from forums.

Don’t bully people.

I don't see you actually trying to help this guy. Perhaps my tone isn't to your liking, but suggesting that someone needs to educate themselves about a rather deep subject that they don't appear to grasp is more than you've offered. I really don't know where to begin with someone who doesn't seem to understand that a "fake widescreen" matte on a 4:3 transfer of an anamorphic shot film would leave almost no image left. Trying to answer this guy in full would amount to dunking on him several times over, so if anything I went easy on him.

[ProfXtacy]

Originally Posted by Fodderstompf

I don't see you actually trying to help this guy. Perhaps my tone isn't to your liking, but suggesting that someone needs to educate themselves about a rather deep subject that they don't appear to grasp is more than you've offered. I really don't know where to begin with someone who doesn't seem to understand that a "fake widescreen" matte on a 4:3 transfer of an anamorphic shot film would leave almost no image left. Trying to answer this guy in full would amount to dunking on him several times over, so if anything I went easy on him.

Just don’t reply to him then. You seem to think it’s acceptable to be rude.

And then young say you don’t have time to answer him, but you have time to put him down, and now you have time to put me down.

Perhaps you could invest that time in a basic lesson in manners.

[Fodderstompf]

Originally Posted by ProfXtacy

Just don’t reply to him then. You seem to think it’s acceptable to be rude.

And then young say you don’t have time to answer him, but you have time to put him down, and now you have time to put me down.

Perhaps you could invest that time in a basic lesson in manners.

Maybe take your own advice? It would be easy to ignore me, but here we are.

Drop by the Code Red or Vinegar Syndrome forums sometime, then tell me if anything I've done here qualifies as rude by comparison.

[Metro1962]

Originally Posted by ProfXtacy

That response is very condescending.

So true.

Some posters can be so high n mighty knows all and think lesser of other people,Maybe one day he will be needing some advice on something and when it is reversed he might not like it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fodderstompf

I don't see you actually trying to help this guy. Perhaps my tone isn't to your liking, but suggesting that someone needs to educate themselves about a rather deep subject that they don't appear to grasp is more than you've offered. I really don't know where to begin with someone who doesn't seem to understand that a "fake widescreen" matte on a 4:3 transfer of an anamorphic shot film would leave almost no image left. Trying to answer this guy in full would amount to dunking on him several times over, so if anything I went easy on him.

Exactly this. Your reply was brisk and to the point but not aggressive, not rude, some might say condescending, I'd say just very direct. There's so much there to unpick, so many weird bits, falsehoods and assumptions that an itemised reply wouldn't be worth the time when the OP could (and should) do themselves a favour and research what you prescribed because that would answer a lot of questions and just might blow the OP's mind.

[tripletopper]

But am I correct that just because it says widescreen doesn't mean full frame data?

By the way there was no VHS, Beta, LaserDisc or Select A Vision section so I assumed DVD was the best fit.

Yes I understand that 235 is a standard cinemascope wide screen. And most prince in order to fit on a 4x3 VHS or beta would have to chop off the sides of the screen if you want the top to bottom to contain film data.

The analogy would be Leonardo's the Last supper where in order to get the whole picture you either have to zoom out and put the black bars on the top and bottom which is letterboxing or you zoom in start the left and pan to the right which is called pain and scan, or you distort the image to make all the data fit but not in the proper proportion. I noticed that Jewel of the Nile on betamax had what we called "Skinnyscope" which was keeping the whole film so that the titles on the left and right side could appear, but as a consequence of that it made people standing straight up look like basketball players or if you want to use a street fighter reference, Sagat. The way that natively 4x3 material is presented on 16x9 screens who choose not to use black bars on the sides but keep the whole vertical picture makes them look like E Hondas.

I understand the difference of letterboxing by addition versus letterboxing by subtraction. The first one you zoom out get all of the picture but each individual detail is smaller. Or you could zoom in and chop off the top and bottom of the screen and still have true 235 to 1:00 yet film data is missing which means you basically made a zoomed in version of a 2.35:1 original print not a one-to-one version of the 2.35:1.

Yes I know that it's way too late to get my money back. And I know now there was a reason why Best Buy was closing out on a few widescreen and flipper DVDs.

And I talked to my brother and my dad who both remember the Fotomat Beta version of The Black Hole, and they told me if I didn't mention it they would have probably forgot about that but once I did bring it up they do distinctly remember that there were other things on the bottom of the screen other than just the names of the principal actors and other key figures that get before the film credits. It looked like what a spaceship would say on the computer display when it was approaching a black hole like "Danger: High Gravity."

So "technically" this 1997 VHS is 2.35x1 but it's a zoomed in version of a 2.35x1.

I just wondered if there was a forum pointing out versions of things that were "wrong way letterboxed". I know ideally, you're supposed to do letterboxing by addition not by subtraction. But if I saw the scene in 4x3 and saw something and then the 16x9 version I see the exact same thing except with that thing missing on the very bottom then wrong way letterboxing would explain that.

The only other possible explanation on how that could be a full 2.35x1 yet be missing something the 4x3 version has is if that was added specifically for the home version to fill out vertical space. If that was the case that was a clever way of dealing with black bars before the word letterboxing ever became a common word in home video.

I may be open to that possibility too so.

By the way those Fotomat Betamax videos were so well copy guarded that it affected a legitimate playthrough on a legitimate betamax. There was a lot of warping and warbling of the sound on the original Fotomat master. The copy guard was so strong it tainted a legitimate playthrough.

So my brother and dad remember that detail so either the Foromat copy added something creative to make letterbox happen in the title sequence, or they did letterbox by subtraction not letterbox by addition.

[Ernest Rister]

The *trailer* for The Black Hole has the "sensor data" text overlays on the opening animation, the film does not and never did. Here's what I think is confusing you:

The Black Hole - Trailer (HD) (1979) - YouTube

I have the Anchor Bay DVD of The Black Hole. It was released on March 30, 1999 -- it was the first release of the film in OAR on home video I had ever seen, and I bought it and my first DVD player at the same time for the privilege. It's a flipper disc, with the (non-anamorphic) widescreen version on one side and the pan-and-scan version on the other.



I also purchased the Anchor Bay "Limited Edition" VHS release of The Black Hole...it was a tin set with a book on the making of the film, the story problems with the climax, etc. It was an OAR release. I bought it as a present...



Meanwhile, Anchor Bay also released this version on VHS, which was pan-and-scanned.



So...
* The film never had computer ship info text during the opening "vector" animation. Film credits, yes, which resembled computer text, but not "ship sensor readout data". That was the trailer.
* The Anchor Bay DVD release had both aspect ratios. If you're watching it and it's in 4:3, flip the disc over to the non-anamorphic widescreen version.
* There were at least two Anchor Bay VHS releases, one was a limited edition in 2.35:1, the other pan-and-scanned for 4:3 televisions. Prior to that, I don't recall any home video release of The Black Hole in "widescreen". It's why I was so excited by the DVD release, which again, was in March of 1999.

If you're watching a VHS Anchor Bay release of The Black Hole and it's in 4:3, that's the pan-and-scan release. That isn't an error of "wrong way letterboxing".

If you want to see The Black Hole in "widescreen", you can simply watch it on Disney+ or purchase the blu-ray on the Disney Movie Club.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by tripletopper

But am I correct that just because it says widescreen doesn't mean full frame data?

No, you are not correct in this case.