Hi,

the Jackie Chan film "Shanghai Noon" was recently released on Blu-ray in Germany by Highlight Video. The problem is that Highlight unfortunately decided to crop the film's aspect ratio from 2,35:1 to 1,78:1.
The question now is how to enter this in DVD Profiler because on the one hand it is still a widescreen image but on the other hand they basically used P&S to achieve the new ratio.

You simply enter it as widescreen with the aspect ratio found on the disk.  That way anybody who is interested will be able to note the altered aspect ratio.  This comes up often.  1.78:1 is the new 4:3 for film butchering purposes.  Thank god they don't manufacture triangular-shaped displays. 

I just recently came across an Amazon listing for an upcoming release of the Gulliver's Travels cartoon by Max Fleischer, from the 30's.  Digitally remastered with brighter colors, enhanced for 16:9. 

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
It's still Widescreen, just not OAR. There is NO Pan & scan  in Widescreen.

Skip

But it's also panned and/or scanned, just in widescreen. It's basically the same process, just with a different final ratio.

Do we now need a new tag for OAR, or a new check box for altered "widescreen"?

This process is even worse that old school P&S in my eyes. For the old style I understand why it was done, but with WS tv's and the small bars a scope film leaves (yet amazing how much you still miss from 2.35 to 1.78) and Blu's claim to perfect picture, it's unexcusable and all of these discs should be returned with angry notes whenever you get one. Enough come back, the studios will get the message loud and clear.

I'm counting on you guys to get this fixed before I go Blu, cause I will wig if any of my old favorites end up cropped cuz Joe Sixpack wants his whole screen filled (same old cause and effect too). I'll fill your screens for you...

No matter what is decided, there needs to be a huge freakin' warning on these discs, so I  and others feeling like me, can notice before unwrapping and being stuck with them.

I'm running into these problems myself where I'lll capture an HD (1080i) 16x9 cable broadcast and burn to a disc and the true aspect ratio for begining of broadcast ( i.e. League of Their Own) the opening/closing credits is 2:35  but the overall film itself is 1:78.. Looks good, isn't cropped to the eye, and the image is NOT squeezed.. Looks okay for a freebie but I'll change the OAR to 1:78 in video formats and then lock it off.

Quoting bigdaddyhorse:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
It's still Widescreen, just not OAR. There is NO Pan & scan  in Widescreen.

Skip

But it's also panned and/or scanned, just in widescreen. It's basically the same process, just with a different final ratio.

Do we now need a new tag for OAR, or a new check box for altered "widescreen"?

This process is even worse that old school P&S in my eyes. For the old style I understand why it was done, but with WS tv's and the small bars a scope film leaves (yet amazing how much you still miss from 2.35 to 1.78) and Blu's claim to perfect picture, it's unexcusable and all of these discs should be returned with angry notes whenever you get one. Enough come back, the studios will get the message loud and clear.

I'm counting on you guys to get this fixed before I go Blu, cause I will wig if any of my old favorites end up cropped cuz Joe Sixpack wants his whole screen filled (same old cause and effect too). I'll fill your screens for you...

No matter what is decided, there needs to be a huge freakin' warning on these discs, so I  and others feeling like me, can notice before unwrapping and being stuck with them.

True, bigdaddy. BUT Pan & Scan has a specific meaning relative to file and to date that definition has not been changed (updated) to encompass the new Widescreen displays.

I don't assume anything, oleops. Nor do I care about the process, it is simply a decades old definition that I will grant needs updating, but to date nothing has been done. Fortunately, i guess, I think i can count the number of these films on ONE hand, which might also explain why they haven't chosen to update things. The last one that comes to mind was Lord of War, which was listed on the box as 2.35 but had been cropped to 1.78, it caused a a stir and was subsequently corrected by the Distributor to its proper 2.35 OAR. About the only thing I can thin of that would be appropriate would be for Ken to include a checkbox for OAR, BUT that I fear would become problematic since it does require a rather intense knowledge base and research to determine what the exact OAR is for any given film, particularly the older ones. For example, William Wyler's Ben-Hur was shown in MOST theaters in the US at 2.55 which was the best the vast majority of theaters could handle, BUT there was a small number of theaters which were able to show it in the "state of the art" 2.77. So which would be the OAR. Kind of like if we wanted to argue over the original theatrical release of Star Wars !: The Phantom Menace was it film or was it digital, the majority of theaters, at the time, were only equipped to show it in a film format, but there was a few who showed the digital version, I was lucky I saw both, the digital was better...but i digress.

Skip

Skip

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
I'm starting to lean towards  making use of P&S, regardless of display dimensions.  I mean really, we already have the display dimensions in the drop down box.  Now it would be nice to know if what we have is OAR or P&S.  That would be the quickest indicator.

We can always argue OAR, but some things are just obvious.  2.35:1 movies hacked down to 1.78:1 is crap, and I for one would like to be made aware of it.  My rule of thumb would be if I can find any supporting evidence for the aspect ratio offered.  You can argue Ben Hur, but there is plenty of supporting evidence to suggest that Warner's aspect ratio that they offer is intended to be correct.  More to the point, it's not dead wrong.  But it would be nice to flag junk that is being offered that is dead wrong.  The P&S box seems like an easy way to do that.

Unfortunately Skip is right about the definition of P&S: it is based on 4x3 and not WS.
But a checkbox 'OAR yes/no' would be VERY nice indeed.

Now why am I not surprised.

Skip

Can be I am dreaming but my comprehension of Pan & Scan is that it has a kind of panning in it not just zoom.

Like in a 2.35:1 scene where a group of people whom is talking together is standing spread out in the scene or someone is moving inside the frame, the operator in Pan & Scan would move the new ratio sideways to capture the action.  Or he can decide to jump between the action...  how mutch effort and skills put into this make the results, in some cases it can be pretty darn good.

If the new ratio has a fixed position and just cutting of the sides, thats not Pan & Scan imho.

The wiki has a show of this that is very illustrative,  se it here

And I can still not see that this is not used for 16:9 today... ??



Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
and you are right: pan & scan refers to the process of zooming into an image to change it's aspect ratio. The resulting aspect ratio does not have to be 4:3.

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
True, bigdaddy. BUT Pan & Scan has a specific meaning relative to file and to date that definition has not been changed (updated) to encompass the new Widescreen displays.

I don't assume anything, oleops. Nor do I care about the process, it is simply a decades old definition that I will grant needs updating, but to date nothing has been done.

Quoting RaymondG:

Quote:
Unfortunately Skip is right about the definition of P&S: it is based on 4x3 and not WS.
But a checkbox 'OAR yes/no' would be VERY nice indeed.

Can you tell more about this "old" definition, Is it 4:3 specific?  and why is that?  Seems to be different opinion on this. 
Want to learn more...