| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 19, 2007 |  Posts: 700 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mithi: Quote:
Quoting oleops:
Quote:
Can be I am dreaming but my comprehension of Pan & Scan is that it has a kind of panning in it not just zoom. So its just pan&scan with very little pan. 
To clearly distinguish between a "just cropped" and and "pan&scanned" image you'd have to compare the whole movie to an OAR version, which you most likely don't have because otherwise you wouldn't have bought the chopped up version in the first place.
So while there might be a minimal difference between the two, the warning-function of the "pan&scan" checkbox applies to both, IMHO.
cya, Mithi Partly agree... But for example to call the 4:3 T2 edition for Pan & Scan would be as wrong as anything, just because it doesent have the OAR of the theatrical release it is not Pan & Scan. And Yes to be shure you have to have the original to compare... And another question when I mentioned the T2, what is OAR for this, DVD Profiler is not movie profiler it is DVD Profiler and Cameron has many Aspect ratios for his DVD issues, non of them Pan & Scan. | | | | We are all at the same age, only at different time... |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Was the 4:3 T2 open matte? You're right in that we can't currently document that accurately. "Full Frame" hints at it, but only if you know the OAR to start with.
And I'd really like to know where this definition that the result of a pan and scan must be 4:3 has come from. I've helped pan and scan plenty of movie clips for inclusion in TV programmes in my past and most of those programmes were made in 16:9 not 4:3.
Edit: while not a definitive source, here's a quote from Wikipedia:
"With the popularity of HDTVs increasing, films are now starting to be panned & scanned at 1.78:1 instead of 1.33. While there is not much loss for movies at 1.78:1, films at 1.85, 2.20, 2.35, and 2.39 still suffer from noticeable image cropping." | | | | Last edited: by northbloke |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Posts: 700 |
| | Posted: | | | | If I understand "Open matte" right then the T2 is that. It was filmed in full 70 x 70mm or "imax" format as everybody call it now days, espessially after Dark Night, and the preffered ratio was taken out of that. (To see all possible details in T2 you have to buy a lot of prints  ) | | | | We are all at the same age, only at different time... |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | T2 was filmed on Super35 and although 70mm (blow-up) prints exist it wasn't filmed on that. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 1,339 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mithi: Quote:
Quoting oleops:
Quote:
Can be I am dreaming but my comprehension of Pan & Scan is that it has a kind of panning in it not just zoom. So its just pan&scan with very little pan.
To clearly distinguish between a "just cropped" and and "pan&scanned" image you'd have to compare the whole movie to an OAR version, which you most likely don't have because otherwise you wouldn't have bought the chopped up version in the first place.
So while there might be a minimal difference between the two, the warning-function of the "pan&scan" checkbox applies to both, IMHO.
cya, Mithi I have to agree here... to me pan and scan is when the main portion of the picture is panned to and scanned to create a new aspect ratio... this is very different from just cropping off the sides to make the shorter ratio... Does the box indicate that "this film has been modified from it's original...." ? | | | | -JoN |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Posts: 700 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Patsa: Quote:
T2 was filmed on Super35 and although 70mm (blow-up) prints exist it wasn't filmed on that. Me bad  , was remembering the non anamorphic process and layed two and two together... Actually my memory has played this for years since I saw the making of on the LD box way back (when the mixed up situation started is blurry but it must be years and years...) , and I was pretty shure you where wrong until I blowed the dust of it again. Good that you corrected it  | | | | We are all at the same age, only at different time... |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 82 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ruineddaydreams: Quote:
Does the box indicate that "this film has been modified from it's original...." ? No, it just says Widescreen 16:9 (1,78:1). AFAIK such an indication was never used on any German release. | | | Bye,
Elwood |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 4,678 |
| |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,339 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Elwood Blues: Quote:
Quoting ruineddaydreams:
Quote:
Does the box indicate that "this film has been modified from it's original...." ?
No, it just says Widescreen 16:9 (1,78:1). AFAIK such an indication was never used on any German release. Typically in the US they would use that for P&S... | | | | -JoN |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 951 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Was the 4:3 T2 open matte? You're right in that we can't currently document that accurately. "Full Frame" hints at it, but only if you know the OAR to start with. No, the 4:3 edition was pan & scan the documentary on the Laser Disc and I think was also included on the Ultimate Edition DVD. Where they explained the super 35 process, a full frame image is matted for the widescreen release and for the 4:3 release they would pan & scan the full frame image depending on what they wanted you to see and not see from the full frame. Unfortunetly croping still exists in a number of widescreen releases. Couple of links that are an interesting read for those interested. http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special/caveat_emptor.htm http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/lbx.htm | | | Are you local?
This is a local shop the strangers you would bring would not understand us, our customs, our local ways. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 223 |
| | Posted: | | | | Of course the rules clearly state (for purposes of DVD Profiler) what Pan and Scan is:
Films that were shot at an aspect wider than 1.33:1, and then cropped to 1.33:1 for presentation on the DVD.
So, unless there is a change to the rules, Pan and Scan should not be used for any widescreen titles. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,678 |
| | Posted: | | | | Skip,
If this is what you meant when you talked bout the definition of P&S, you should have said so. I can't argue with that.
However, you made it sound like there was a general definition of P&S that limited it to 4:3 video. If there is, I'd like to know where that is defined. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Looks like the rules, as with most things, have failed to keep up with technology. Locally, as far as I'm concerned P & S means fubared OAR. Since its local, I get to be the sole judge.  | | | | Last edited: by mdnitoil |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mdnitoil: Quote:
Looks like the rules, as with most things, have failed to keep up with technology. Locally, as far as I'm concerned P & S means fubared OAR. Since its local, I get to be the sole judge. Bingo again!!!!! Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote:
Skip,
If this is what you meant when you talked bout the definition of P&S, you should have said so. I can't argue with that.
However, you made it sound like there was a general definition of P&S that limited it to 4:3 video. If there is, I'd like to know where that is defined. Gunnar: I have given up. I am not going to write a doctor's thesis on every topic. There are too many who think they know and know next to nothing. It is not up to me, you want tio argue then you need to bring more than YOUR opinion. You have absolutely no idea what the basis for the Rule was or even what the Rule said, yet you wanted to argue. Now you know what the Rule says, but you still have absolutely no knowledge relating to the basis or why, you simply want to argue and only from ypor opinion with no facts to back you up. Should the Rule be updated, not on this basis, since it is based on a standard that has not been changed yet. Should that standard be changed...perhaps but unfortunately that is way beyond the ability of ANYONE related to Profiler to achieve. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|