Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
As one can see from the attempts to discuss this issue here a definition is hard to produce.

No it's not: Pan and scan - when the original film image has been cropped to fill a 4:3 or 16:9 screen.
Wasn't that hard.

Quote:
I have been pushing the industry for many years now to update this definition and so far they have not

  Why don't you ask your "good friends" Chris [Columbus] and George [Lucas] to have a word? 

 

You are violating the Terms of Service to this site with continued harassment of other users, were I ken I would take immediate action, I hope he is listening.

Skip

Edited out

That seems rational. Dan.

Skip

You must be one of the few who missed out on all of the internet discussions (complaints is probably a more accurate term) on the T3 release to DVD.

The wide screen version of T3, released on dvd is NOT the same as you saw it in the theater. It was cropped for the DVD release. For one prime example, watch the scene at the beginning where he is sitting at the overpass drinking a bottle of beer. He tosses the empty bottle and it bounces off of the overpass and lands in the water.

At the theater, you saw the the bottle hit the overpass. On the DVD, it hits the bottom of the screen and you don't know what it hit until they "pan down" to reveal the overpass and then the water. There are plenty of other examples as well.

The original was not 2.40:1.

T3 was filmed in 185:1 (35mm) and was cropped differently for each of it's releases; 1) theatrical, 2) Widescreen DVD, 3) Fullscreen DVD. If you want a little voyeuristic fun, get the Foolscreen DVD and watch the scene where the female machine arrives in the "past" and walks across the street toward the camera.

Quoting bigdaddyhorse:

Quote:
What is modified on the WS Terminator 3 dvd? That looked the same as what I saw in the theater. Unless you're just referring to the FS of that and part 2. Maybe a third modified opition called "Super-35 modification" or something like that. It's not really P&S and it's far from OAR. Casino and The Matrix would fall into this catergory as well (judging by the cable broadcasts I've seen).

A release in Super-35 would be considered OAR, OAR should be defined as any aspect ratio that is how the director originally intented to film to be seen.  It's no different than 1.85:1 release where the frame is matted to fit that aspect ratio, a film intentend to be seen at 1.85:1 would be the OAR for that release.

Now if your talking about a movie that is filmed in Super-35 and the Full Screen release is them just opening the Mattes to expose the full frame.  That isn't always the case many times they still pan & scan to remove things that they never intented you to see such as boom mics and other items.  Also when special effects are designed many times those are rendered in the aspect ratio of what the film is going to be shown in theaters OAR.  So those scenes have to be either cropped or pan & scanned.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Would it not be simpler to just add an extra tickbox? So you would have:
Pan & Scan (4:3)
Pan & Scan (16:9)

Although I suppose the problem is in theory you could have an Open Matte (16:9) too... 

The problem is at the moment the pan & scan and open matte tickboxes are used by Profiler as shortcuts to create a 2nd fullscreen video track when widescreen info is also added.
Any alteration to the tickboxes would break this and so we would need another way of recording that piece of info.

Yes a film that 1.85:1 film that used soft matting could easily be matted to 1.78:1 if they so inclined.

Why...thank you, Dan.    

Skip

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Actually, the better option is to remove (4:3) from the choices altogether. I only left it there because so many of you seem to associate Pan&Scan with 4:3 exclusively. Just so you know, Pan & Scan is not limited to the 4:3 format.

I'm well aware that pan & scan is not limited to 4:3. I'm not the one who's been claiming that there is an industry standard that states otherwise.
And removing 4:3 from the choices would work but that would still leave us with the problem of how to record DVDs that contain both 4:3 and 16:9 versions of a film.

The reason I didn't rehash the dual format scenario for Ken is that it seemed unnecessary. I'm sure he is capable of retaining the ability to list both formats for the same release as is done now. After-all that would be a coding issue for him.

On the other hand, if you feel that I am suggesting we remove functionality, you are mistaken. That was not my intent.