Another Warner complaint...

[rock-ranger]

Well, could somebody tell me why Warner often crops the image to fit a 1,78:1 TV set?

This really sucks!

This happened on SD DVD's (e.g. The Time Machine - old Version - which was cropped from 1,66:1) as well as on Blu Ray (The Fugitive, cropped from 1,85:1).

This is really unnecessary and I think most people would rather see the "whole" picture instead of a cropped one just to avoud the bars.

I don't want to start a new widescreen discussion but please be aware when you buy a Warner Movie which is shot in 1,66:1 or 1,85:1, you might get a cropped version...

Revently bought the Blu Ray of Open Seasons and it shows little bars on the top and the bottom and they really do not disturb the experience at all...

So please Warner, don't do it!

[gamer4eva]

i dont really care about the movie filling the whole screen or not as long as it luks gud its fine with me..........
my complaint with warner is that they favour HD DVD alot rather than being equal with gud movies such as troy and matrix already set for HD DVD they r nowhere to be seen on blu ray
SERIOUSLY out of all the studios who support blu ray the 1 dat i h8 the most is Warner

[rock-ranger]

Originally Posted by gamer4eva

i dont really care about the movie filling the whole screen or not as long as it luks gud its fine with me..........
my complaint with warner is that they favour HD DVD alot rather than being equal with gud movies such as troy and matrix already set for HD DVD they r nowhere to be seen on blu ray
SERIOUSLY out of all the studios who support blu ray the 1 dat i h8 the most is Warner

O.K., I respect your point of view. But I can't understand why you don't care...

In times where people are buying HD material and Full HD panels I'm sure most of them will expect the full picture. This damn overscan should be history soon.
We're living in the 21st century and people's expectations are growing!

But you're right, Warne should not support HD DVD in first place, for me it's a dying format and finally even ignorants like Universal have to understand that they have bet on the wrong horse...

[WriteSimply]

1.78:1 (HDTV) is about 3% of 1.85:1. Most modern movies have since been shot to accomodate this so that the matte can be opened up for a HD transfer.

3% of 1.78:1 will let you see a small black bar at the top and bottom of the screen. And it's not just Warner that's doing this. It's most of the studios, if you care to look at other BD titles.


fuad

[Deciazulado]

It's not cropped in width, it's open matted vertically. You end up seeing more image vertically than in the theater. If your set has no overscan, that is. If it does, you see more or less the correct 1.85 height.

And if you see the movie in an European 1.66 screen you see even more height (about 10% more) than 1.85.

Didn't I just post this today? Woa. There must be a glitch in the matrix

[rock-ranger]

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

1.78:1 (HDTV) is about 3% of 1.85:1. Most modern movies have since been shot to accomodate this so that the matte can be opened up for a HD transfer.

3% of 1.78:1 will let you see a small black bar at the top and bottom of the screen. And it's not just Warner that's doing this. It's most of the studios, if you care to look at other BD titles.


fuad

Well, if the film is shot in 1,85:1 (acording to IMDB) I wonder how it could be open matted to 1,78:1...
Sure there would not be much information missing, but the cover also says 1,85:1 which it definately isn't.

And it's the same for 1,66:1, if there are no bars the image is cropped on the sides (e.g. North By Northwest, think I have read about the missing information in a review back in the day...)

Anyway, the Image of The Fugitive is very soft on Blu Ray which could also be a sign for a downconvert to 1,78:1. But who knows...

[rock-ranger]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

It's not cropped in width, it's open matted vertically. You end up seeing more image vertically than in the theater. If your set has no overscan, that is. If it does, you see more or less the correct 1.85 height.

And if you see the movie in an European 1.66 screen you see even more height (about 10% more) than 1.85.

Didn't I just post this today? Woa. There must be a glitch in the matrix

I live in Germany, that could be the glitch in the Matrix :-)

It's 11:12 a.m. local time now...

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by rock-ranger

Well, if the film is shot in 1,85:1 (acording to IMDB) I wonder how it could be open matted to 1,78:1...
Sure there would not be much information missing, but the cover also says 1,85:1 which it definately isn't.

And it's the same for 1,66:1, if there are no bars the image is cropped on the sides (e.g. North By Northwest, think I have read about the missing information in a review back in the day...)

Anyway, the Image of The Fugitive is very soft on Blu Ray which could also be a sign for a downconvert to 1,78:1. But who knows...

no. you got it wrong my friend. :> 1,66 format doesn't crop the sides it shows more height, and most 1,85 films are not shot in 1,85 they are shot in regular 1,37 sound cameras and composed within that frame for 1,85

You wanna see an extreme case?

Go to this post and see a 2,39 film shot open matte in a silent 1,33 camera

So technicaly that film on the 4:3 VHS can have its "matte opened" from 2,39 to 1,33 with no problem. Or at least that specific shot can.

That's what open matte means: for a 11,33mm x 20,96mm 1,85 film, to get that in 1,78 you could increase the height (open the matte) slightly to 11,79mm to show a 1,78 wide image and fill the screen.

(Also go through the widescreen hub threads if you wanna read more droning from me and others about this stuff )

Now there are some 1,85 movies that have been shot with a hard matte on the camera and their image is then burned permanently to 1,85 in the negative (and true anamorphic-shot movies are 2,39 or its variations) and those would have to be cropped if they are shown in another ratio. But most 185 movies aren't . (That's one of the reasons they can be shown in European 1,66 screens (showing a 12,62mm height) with no problem)

[NutsAboutPS3]

My LCD TV has significant overscan on the HDMI input anyway, so there's no way I could tell if they've cropped a 1.85:1 movie to 1.78:1, as even if it were 1.85:1 on the disc, the tiny black bars would be lost in the overscan area.

[rock-ranger]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

no. you got it wrong my friend. :> 1,66 format doesn't crop the sides it shows more height, and most 1,85 films are not shot in 1,85 they are shot in regular 1,37 sound cameras and composed within that frame for 1,85

You wanna see an extreme case?

Go to this post and see a 2,39 film shot open matte in a silent 1,33 camera

So technicaly that film on the 4:3 VHS can have its "matte opened" from 2,39 to 1,33 with no problem. Or at least that specific shot can.

That's what open matte means: for a 11,33mm x 20,96mm 1,85 film, to get that in 1,78 you could increase the height (open the matte) slightly to 11,79mm to show a 1,78 wide image and fill the screen.

(Also go through the widescreen hub threads if you wanna read more droning from me and others about this stuff )

Now there are some 1,85 movies that have been shot with a hard matte on the camera and their image is then burned permanently to 1,85 in the negative (and true anamorphic-shot movies are 2,39 or its variations) and those would have to be cropped if they are shown in another ratio. But most 185 movies aren't . (That's one of the reasons they can be shown in European 1,66 screens (showing a 12,62mm height) with no problem)

Hmm, yes I am aware that many films are shot in the way the director can compose the image frame. And I agree with most of your explanations.

Maybe you're right about the Fugitive, I cannot verify in which way it is originally shot. IMDB says that it has been shot in several ways so I think we got a mix up here. So leave that one. The final "composed" film print should be in 1:85 to 1 as far as I understand it, and in this case the image is either cropped or there was a new transfer made from the original negative and re-composed from scratch. To be honest I doubt that it has been re-composed from the original negative as the image (and the print) does look not too sharp and washed out as well so I still believe that it was taken from a 1:85:1 film print and cropped a little bit... Correct me if I'm wrong

Would be great to know about North By Northwest. Unfortunately I can't find the old review I saw back in the day. Maybe someone can sort this out as I'm curious now. I think it was shot in VistaVision...

A similar story we got on the first three Bond movies (which were usually seen in 1,66:1) IMDB says that the negative is shot in 1,37:1 but the film was shown in 1,66:1 (Europe) and 1,85:1 (US)
So there are different composed prints around I guess. Personally I would prefer to see a full frame 1:37:1 image for these flicks instead of the matted one's (or at least both versions as an option)

[thunderhawk]

Sorry for being off topic.. But I just wanted to add.. I'm a distortion in the matrix then. Some bug or glitch.
The Architect is a human... I'm his human error. I am Neo.

Just wanted to add that.


About the Warner complaints... Send a mail to their customer department. http://www2.warnerbros.com/web/main/...er_service.jsp

[rock-ranger]

Originally Posted by thunderhawk

Sorry for being off topic.. But I just wanted to add.. I'm a distortion in the matrix then. Some bug or glitch.
The Architect is a human... I'm his human error. I am Neo.

Just wanted to add that.


About the Warner complaints... Send a mail to their customer department. http://www2.warnerbros.com/web/main/...er_service.jsp

:-)

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by rock-ranger

Maybe you're right about the Fugitive, I cannot verify in which way it is originally shot. IMDB says that it has been shot in several ways so I think we got a mix up here. So leave that one. The final "composed" film print should be in 1:85 to 1 as far as I understand it, and in this case the image is either cropped or there was a new transfer made from the original negative and re-composed from scratch. To be honest I doubt that it has been re-composed from the original negative as the image (and the print) does look not too sharp and washed out as well so I still believe that it was taken from a 1:85:1 film print and cropped a little bit... Correct me if I'm wrong

I haven't seen the Fugitive, much less projected it, but I have seldom had in my hand a print of an 1.85 movie that is "composed" (I assume you mean printed) with 1.85 black thick frames (what's called hard matted) (only maybe for some SFX shots) for most of the live action. They are variously from 1.37 camera aperture (<-about 5% taller than the projector aperture) all the way to some being in 1.66 camera aperture (mostly European films)

If you took out the Projector Aperture plate while an 1.85 movie is running you'd see the 1.37 height image spill into the curtains above and below showing up to 40% more height than should be shown. You have to understand this: If a movie is gonna be shown in European 1.66 screens, it can't be 1.85 in the print. The projector plate combined with the projector lens' focal length is what "creates" the 1.85 height on the screen, it's not blackened on the print. On any print.

If it was, everytime a print was shipped to Europe for a 1.66 screen or shown in any theater that's not set up correctly anywhere (I saw Shrek yesterday in 1.66) you'd see a LETTERBOXED 1.85 image on the movie on your 1.66 theater screeen and that's a no no . There are no separate 1.66 and 1.85 prints, they all are the same print, and one theater shows more height (the 1.66 theater) even when it's not supposed to. The opposite happens with an European film composed for 1.66 in mind: on a US 1.85 theater it loses about 10% of its height when projected.

As I mentioned, yesterday when I went to the theater, I ended up in one that had a 1.66 screen. Several 1.85 trailers from Scope 2.39 movies, that crop the 2.39 image into 1.85 (so they are hard matted into 1.85) were being shown on this 1.66 screen and they were letterboxed in 1.85 on the screen showing black bars, which proved clearly this wasn't a 1.85 screen but a 1.66 one. But the other trailers, those from the 1.85 "shot" movies, were being shown filling the 1.66 screen height, and when Shrek started, it also filled the 1.66 screen.

So the negatives are not being recomposited from scratch, they are (or used to be) printed by contact printing so what you get on the print is what's on the negative 99% of the time. And the negative is almost always taller than 1.85 , normally 1.37 for the live action scenes. And you can see cushions for stunts or camera booms in the prints if you take out the 1.85 projector aperture plate.

So when it comes to transfer these films to 4:3 video, they might use that whole negative image or most of it. For 1.78 they can just transfer straight open matte with no worries in 99.9% of the cases, because the photography was probably protected for up to 1.66 screens (meaning they make sure no boom mikes, or dolly tracks, whatever, show in the 12.62mm 1.66 projector aperture vertical area of the image, for European/1.66 shoewings) (in fact probably up to the "theoretical" 1.66 "camera aperture" vertical area which would be about 13.25mm) even though the image was composed for the 11.33 mm height of the 1.85 format.

Transfering the 1.85 movie to 1.78 HDTV then is just a matter of showing an extra 0.46mm more (4%) than the proper 11.33mm height to fill the full 1080 x 1920 frame. Do I think this is correct? No, as when I watch 1.85 movies like this they seem to be a little loosely framed, (and you lose 4% bitrate efficiency too ) but hey if i want to I can always put tape on my screen, or zoom the projector lens a little (of course then you need at least a 1.85 wide projection screen)

Originally Posted by rock-ranger

Would be great to know about North By Northwest. Unfortunately I can't find the old review I saw back in the day. Maybe someone can sort this out as I'm curious now. I think it was shot in VistaVision...

Yes it was shot on VistaVision so the camera negative area is 1.50, but prints should be shown cropped down to 1.85 (if you saw a Paramount VistaVision print it had markings burned on the image to assist projectionists when framing them into 1.66 screens,1.85 screens and 2.00 screens) (I dont know about the DVD, but you could see those on the 10 Commandments Laserdisc video transfer)

I remember that the widescreen Laserdisc transfer I had of N by N had some shots framed too low or too high like the guy passing as gardener outside the mansion? Too much empty space above his head (sorry haven't seen the disc in 10 years) but VistaVision films are shot in horizontal traveling 35mm and then optically copied onto regular vertically traveling (normal) 35mm so there are lots of chances of errors in framing and transferring along the way. That's why we need knowledgeable persons doing transfers

Originally Posted by rock-ranger

A similar story we got on the first three Bond movies (which were usually seen in 1,66:1)

In Europe maybe, not in the US, in the US chances were they were shown in 1.85. I've seen them only on 1.85, on theaters.

Originally Posted by rock-ranger

IMDB says that the negative is shot in 1,37:1 but the film was shown in 1,66:1 (Europe) and 1,85:1 (US)

This is what I just been telling you for all standard widescreen (non anamorphic) movies

Remember: the Negative is shot in a 1.37 camera, but composed for 1.85 projection. (Btw if the European movie is made with US distribution in mind, it's composed for 1.85) (as in "Distributed by UA" )

Originally Posted by rock-ranger

So there are different composed prints around I guess

No! only one print, composed one way! This is what I've been telling you all through my post: All those movies have the same width in the negative/print. It's the height when projected that varies. They are composed for one aspect ratio only, and supposed to be shown in that aspect ratio only, but and there's only one image in the prints, it is shown however the projector/screen in your theater is set up, right or wrong. In the USA theaters and for US movies the theater should be set up for 1.85 as that's the standard.

Originally Posted by rock-ranger

Personally I would prefer to see a full frame 1:37:1 image for these flicks instead of the matted one's (or at least both versions as an option)

No that's wrong.The matted one is the composition the cameraman and director created and shot and that's the way it's supposed to be seen. If you open the matte too much you change the shots. Different movie. I call open matte versions, the -Making Of version Shot by an Invisible Virtual Cameraman "standing" 10 or 20 feet Behind the Real Camera Version-

Just look again at the 2 'versions' on that post . The widescreen image is the movie, the open matte 1.33 version below is the -Making Of version Shot by an Invisible Virtual Cameraman "standing" 10 or 20 feet Behind the Real Camera Version-

It looks as if it was shot from the other side of the street from 30 feet away!


(And this goes for Disney animated 60's and 70's films and Stanley Kubrick ones.)


REDRUM ! REDRUM !

[GasCat]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

So the negatives are not being recomposited from scratch, they are (or used to be) printed by contact printing so what you get on the print is what's on the negative 99% of the time. And the negative is almost always taller than 1.85 , normally 1.37 for the live action scenes. And you can see cushions for stunts or camera booms in the prints if you take out the 1.85 projector aperture plate.....

....if i want to I can always put tape on my screen, or zoom the projector lens a little (of course then you need at least a 1.85 wide projection screen)

....All those movies have the same width in the negative/print. It's the height when projected that varies.

Good post Deciazulado. Let me throw this one at you.

I believe that one cause of grain seen on HD movies is zooming in and cropping of the frame. Its a problem I've encountered doing B&W still prints.

Lets say you have a section of the frame which looks great but you don't want to see a kid waving at the camera. You'll zoom in on the area you want and crop the unwanted part of the negative. If you zoom in too much the silver particles on the negative will be noticeable on the final print. I haven't worked with color negatives so I am unsure if my theory is correct....are we seeing the same sort of problem when grain is seen on HD movies?

[aaronwt]

Originally Posted by rock-ranger

Well, could somebody tell me why Warner often crops the image to fit a 1,78:1 TV set?

This really sucks!

This happened on SD DVD's (e.g. The Time Machine - old Version - which was cropped from 1,66:1) as well as on Blu Ray (The Fugitive, cropped from 1,85:1).

This is really unnecessary and I think most people would rather see the "whole" picture instead of a cropped one just to avoud the bars.

I don't want to start a new widescreen discussion but please be aware when you buy a Warner Movie which is shot in 1,66:1 or 1,85:1, you might get a cropped version...

Revently bought the Blu Ray of Open Seasons and it shows little bars on the top and the bottom and they really do not disturb the experience at all...

So please Warner, don't do it!

Actually most people prefer the picture to fill the screen, J6P. The people getting Bd and HD DVD right now are the enthusiasts. Most people don't even have an HD set and of those people that do, most don't even watch HD content on it.

[DrinkMore]

I am one of those people that prefer the image to fill the entire screen.

Letterbox (the black bars top and bottom) don't bother me like they used to years ago. However, it is annoying to have this wonderful HDTV 42" of goodness only to have black bars.

Even then, there are movies that have even thicker black bars which really gets on my nerves to the point where I refuse to watch it.


IE - Lost for instance is HD and FILLS the ENTIRE screen. That's what I like.

[Knight-Errant]

You know, I was really hoping we were passed all this open-matte stuff and movies were now being released the way they were intended to be seen.

Guess not

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by Knight-Errant

You know, I was really hoping we were passed all this open-matte stuff and movies were now being released the way they were intended to be seen.

Some folks can't get over it.

[GasCat]

Originally Posted by Knight-Errant

You know, I was really hoping we were passed all this open-matte stuff and movies were now being released the way they were intended to be seen.

Guess not

You mean how each of us wants them to be seen.

Lets have multiple copies with different formats on the discs. Another way to sell Blu.

[aaronwt]

Originally Posted by GasCat

You mean how each of us wants them to be seen.

Lets have multiple copies with different formats on the discs. Another way to sell Blu.

They already do that to get the faux PIP commentary. It will be nice when they require two video decoders so they don't have to put two movie encodes on the disc to achieve the same thing as HD DVD.