Well, for some movies. Pan & scan takes the full height of the availible image, but only whatever width that will fill the width of the transfer.

So, the VistaVision sequences of WFRR are roughly 1.50:1. So, it'll get the full height that's on the frame, but not the full width. However, for normal open matte 35mm, the 1.33:1 transfer takes the FULL height and almost the full width... notice that the 1.37:1 image is slightly croped so that the image can fit in 1.33:1.

More image may be revealed by a 1.33:1 transfer of a 1.85:1 film, but that image on the top and bottom is useless. It's not part of the intended 1.85:1 frame.

HOWEVER, this is only for films made in the same format. Films shot in CinemaScope, Panavision, Todd-AO, 65mm/70mm, Techniscope, etc require no cropping outside of normal framing.

So, a 1.85:1 film like Roger Rabbit needs to be matted on the top and bottom to be correctly presented. On the other hand, films such as Braveheart (2.35:1 Panavision) or Lawrence of Arabia (2.21:1 Super Panavision 70mm) aren't like this. The 1.33:1 versions crop the sides, but keep the full height of the image. This is what pan & scan is best known for.

While some older open matte transfers did this, the 1.33:1 transfers usually crop on all 4 sides. This has to be done in theaters AND on video for ANY FILM because splice lines, frame lines, sprockets, etc would be visible.

Whether it's a 16mm film like The Evil Dead presented at 1.33:1 or a Cinerama film (3 panel 35mm, 2.59:1), the image WILL be cropped in order to present correct framing.

What you happen to purchase for your collection is merely anecdotal. Super35 accounts for at least 50% of all 2.35:1 production, and is only going to increase in time.

Facts to support this?

At one point I saw a list on some web site that showed every scope movie that came out and whether it was anamorphic or Super 35. I can't find it now, though.

The use of Super 35 has definitely been increasing, though. At this point, though, I don't know if it would continue to win over new converts, or if people that shoot anamorphic are going to be set in their ways.

For me, whenever I'm watching a movie and you can see that it was anamorphic, it just makes it feel more expensive and high-class, somehow. I don't really know why, since so many high-budget movies are Super 35 these days... Just my personal prejudice.

There are roughly 440-470 2.35:1 Super-35 films as of 2004.

Also as of 2004, there's roughly 2650 films which were shot in anamorphic 2.35:1 formats such as CinemaScope and Panavision.

Even if you counted SuperScope and Techniscope productions in the Super-35 number, it's still not even remotely close to the amount of anamorphic productions.


While Super-35 is becoming more popular, it has only been used since the 1980's (again, not counting SuperScope or Techniscope) while anamorphic has been used since the 1950's.

Patrick,

That's exactly what I thought.
Thank you.

I'd like to know what the stats are for movies that came out in 2003. How many were Panavision as opposed to Super 35.

For those that are against matting, do you go see films in theatres? Those films are matted. They are cutting off the top and bottom portions of the frame to display them in the correct aspect ratio.

Sometimes, if misframed, you can see boom mikes and such at the top of the screen.

Matted DVDs do exactaly what the projectionist does, cut off the space you aren't supposed to see. The image in the film print is a lot more than what is seen on the screen.

Widescreen Review used to regularly publish a list of all 2.35:1 movies and the film format they were shot in. I don't know if they still do this, as I stopped subscribing a long time ago.

You're counting "All Time" stats. I'm talking about current productions.

Currently, the Super35 format is at least as popular if not moreso than anamorphic photography. It's much more flexible, uses smaller lenses that can be easily manuevered in tight spaces, allows for tight close-ups from short shooting distances without geometric distortion, and is easier to transfer to home video.

Why are we arguing semantics over this, anyway? The point is that a whole lot of movies are photographed with matting in mind.

Remember, the sig says it all.

Noone is arguing with your statement. A badly framed film at the theater can certainly ruin things!

I think you are missing what the OP is saying. He says there are films which are P&Sed from a widescreen image to a 4:3 image, and then instead of mastering from the WS original print, the P&Sed 4:3 image is then matted to be widescreen. So the image loses first in the P&Sing then loses more in the WS matting.

That is what I was trying to say.

No semantics. You made a statement. I didn't necessarily believe it as true and wanted it backed up by facts. Pure and simple.

I agree that a very large portion of movies are 1.85 and are matted...probably the majority at this point. So that might be true. But you were talking about Super 35. That's a different aspect ratio and a different story.