This is topic Are these titles 16x9 enhanced? in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000455

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-25-2005, 11:41 PM:
 
I just received a few new DVDs for Christmas, and I'm wondering (before I open them) if they're anamorphic. Does anyone have these?

Forrest Gump (Pretty sure this one probably is)
Dead Poets Society
Home Alone

Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-26-2005, 12:32 AM:
 
You'll have to read the print on the back of the box. If they are dual-inventory, they'll say either WIDESCREEN or FULLSCREEN on the top of the front of the box. Chances are they are widescreen anamorpic or some crap like that,
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-26-2005, 01:22 AM:
 
"Dead Poets Society" - was in 1.85/1 (flat)
"Home Alone" - 1.85/1 (flat)

Look for the "enhanced for 16/9 Television" statement on the package (Disney's are pretty good about releasing their product for 16/9 playback). Otherwise, these will be formatted for the 4/3 standard TV, even though they'd be widescreen reproductions (if possible).

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-26-2005, 01:13 PM:
 
Stuff like Nightmare Before Christmas (just for example) is 1.66 or some retarded format like that, so instead of cropping and doing true anamorphc widescreen, it just automatically zooms in to fill the picture on a 16:9 tv. I hate that! I guarantee no theater showed the movie in 1.66. Just create a 1.85 version and give us a true version of NBC!
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-26-2005, 02:36 PM:
 
Joe, actually there are a many theatres that, given the option will show a "flat" film in 1.66 rather than 1.85 due to the better headroom. The other reason is perhaps just to ensure that Joe is wrong on his statements...either way is equally valid! I have had an increasing number of people requesting 1.75 formated plates to have a half-way between the over-cropped 1.85 and the touch-and-go frame lines of 1.66.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-26-2005, 07:40 PM:
 
They're all widescreen versions, but they don't indicate that they're anamorphic, so I think I'll wait and not open them until I have confirmation one way or the other. I don't really have much use for a non-anamorphic widescreen DVD.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-27-2005, 05:37 AM:
 
I doubt that they are anamorphic since those titles were probably formatted to be presented in widescreen (black bars above and below) on a normal TV screen (being the 4/3 screen). If shown on a 16/9 screen device, the unit would have to be programmed for 4/3 presentation. Otherwise the imagery on the screen would be massively stretched, and that's including "Gump", if not enhanced for 16/9 viewing.

What really sucks is that these two "flat" features were lensed in 1.33/1 full frame during shooting and then for print release (since I've ran them both on the big screen), and the trickery of DVD marketing has "apertured" them down to a widescreen (1.85/1) playback format-looking like what one would see these features on the movie screen.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-27-2005, 12:18 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Joe, actually blah blah blah blah....

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

I doubt that they are anamorphic since those titles were probably formatted to be presented in widescreen (black bars above and below) on a normal TV screen (being the 4/3 screen). If shown on a 16/9 screen device, the unit would have to be programmed for 4/3 presentation. Otherwise the imagery on the screen would be massively stretched, and that's including "Gump", if not enhanced for 16/9 viewing.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

What really sucks is that these two "flat" features were lensed in 1.33/1 full frame during shooting and then for print release (since I've ran them both on the big screen), and the trickery of DVD marketing has "apertured" them down to a widescreen (1.85/1) playback format-looking like what one would see these features on the movie screen.

---

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

but maybe you can help me out on that.

---

..these two titles should have been released on DVD in fullscreen format (1.33/1) to fit the standard TV (4/3) screen.

Interesting that these are Region 2 DVD's though. Big time incompatibility issue there. I believe Region 2 is South America or Europe.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-27-2005, 01:33 PM:
 
But just because they were shot in 1.33, doesn't mean they were meant to be screened that way.

For example, if you showed "Powder" in 1.33, you'd have full frontal male nudity in one scene.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 12-27-2005, 03:30 PM:
 
Agreed. I've seen a few flat films misframed so that a boom mic is visible in the top of the frame (but isn't visible if framed properly).
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 12-27-2005, 03:46 PM:
 
I recently bought a region 1 (ntsc) DVD of Flash Gordon (1980) (off ebay) that apparently came from South America. The labels are in Portuguese but there are no subtitles and it plays with english sound track. When I play it in progressive scan I have two choices of "framing" either "zoom" or "full" either way it doesn't play quite right. Either the actors are slightly fat or slightly thin. I don't know exactly why this is other than it was not transfered correctly. I guess I could adjust the display unit and get it right, but then all my other dvds would be goofed up. It's not enough to make it unwatchable but is a curiosity
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-27-2005, 04:00 PM:
 
Here's a shot of two frames from Men In Black II that I cut out because of the horrible Crap Code gone wrong problem. As you can see, these are 1.33 frames, and they weren't meant to be seen that way (note the microphone).


 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-28-2005, 12:00 AM:
 
..then, it makes one wonder when manufacturers do DVD's that the original is shot through a 1.66/1 aperture to cut off the "microphone" goofup, then giving the choice (or do both) of taking was was shot through the 1.66/1 aperture, either "full frame" (in which some side imagery is cut off), or the "widescreen" version of the same imagery.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-28-2005, 12:24 AM:
 
Actually, those flat frames look taller than 1.33(1.37). THey could very well scope apeture shots, so that when masked for standard full screen TV/video versions, that mike might still be invisible.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-29-2005, 11:25 AM:
 

quote: Paul Linfesty

---

Actually, those flat frames look taller than 1.33(1.37). THey could very well scope apeture shots, so that when masked for standard full screen TV/video versions, that mike might still be invisible.

---