I believe that was due to incorrect matting, though.

On the widescreen DVD the framing is focused right around Kristanna Loken's head; nothing below the neck. In the open matte version that runs on HBO, her breasts are definitely visible, though somewhat obscured by strategically placed hair.

However, as I think back on the presentation in the theater, the scope framing was not nearly so tight. Seems they messed up the DVD; I remember reading about the cropping error on a review site.

That being the case, I'm still thankful to have my widescreen copy. I choose OAR every time, even though open matte does show considerably more at times. My only problem with open matte is, when I watch scope movies filmed in Super 35 and reformatted for 4:3, I get accustomed to all the extra picture information. Then when I watch that same movie in its OAR, the picture can feel a bit cramped. But I'm still an OAR purist.

--THX

Or he could just close his eyelids slightly.

Narrow screen for the narrow minded.

your just trying to enrage me to make me HULK out

Yup, I have a bunch of fullscreen Dvds, they are 16x9.

Mostly, though, I have OAR (where possible).

(and your recent posts are in the 'wtf' mode, but you probably know that.)

It's not incorrectly framed.

I was involved in a discussion about this when the DVD came out. The reason why some people thought it was incorrectly framed was because a screengrab from both the 4:3 and WS copies showed that the 2.35:1 image on one scene was cropped on all 4 sides. However, a screengrab from a bootlegged "camcorder in theater" copy showed the exact same thing.

A few other comparisons showed some slight reframing between theatrical and DVD. However, nothing was reframed that drastically, and there's the strong possibility that the reframing was intentional, possibly by the director himself.

True, there are some P&S and 4x3 movies (I refuse to use the misnomer "fullscreen") that are not yet available in widescreen . . .

. . . and I am happy to say I refuse to spend my money on any of them.

Full screen is better because it focuses on the important stuff. The latest edition of the Harvard Journal of Medicine says that the human brain can only process box-shaped images anyway. Since I read the article I've traded all of my WS for FS and I couldn't be happier.

It's not that hard for your eyes to shift 5 degrees to the left or right to see the rest of the picture that widescreen gives you. I don't get any headaches watching widescreen. Instead, I get frustrated when the screen's frame is too small because I feel like I'm looking through a square-ended tube with no peripheral vision.

Fixed... to take into account the famous "MISCHIEF argument" for fullscreen.

I'd say that article by the less-so esteemed Harvard Journal of Medicine is severely flawed. The sole reason why the widescreen image was adopted by cinematics is because the human eye sees in a 'widescreen' shape. Think about that. When watching a 4:3 TV, is that image all that you can see? If it is...you have tunnel vision. When I look at my 4:3 TV, I see all this surrounding area. And I usually sit no further away from it than 6 feet. The human eye is much more complicated than a 4:3 camera lense.

Bush? Ewww...I prefer camel toe.

Karate Kid FS has more image than Karate Kid widescreen

If the brain can only process box-shaped images, then God should not have given us peripheral vision . . . but of course God didn't go to Harvard, so what does he know.

It's not about which has more image, it's about which has the correct image. I don't need more image if it's crap I was never meant to see.

Not exactly. There was definitely more picture in the theatrical framing of the scene in question:
http://www.angelfire.com/moon/daehkcid/t3.html


But to that

I'm not sure if any of these were the shot I was thinking of. It might've been the 3rd shot down, but I'm not positive.

Here's the 4:3 version of the 3rd screengrab (possibly NSFW):
http://sj.outnow.ch/images/kristanna_1.jpg

One thing to note is that on the angelfire page, the last 2 screengrabs clearly show more information on the sides, while the 3rd shot shows that the Don Burgess credit moved on the WS DVD version, which suggests it wasn't simply a misframing, but deliberate reframing.

I prefer FS Anchorman, but that's only because its the only way to see the theatrical cut, which is a shade better than the director's cut. Also, it has a totally different (unadvertised) commentary track on it.

This is a pretty funny thread. But I have to admit, one breezy summer night while I was getting ready to go to sleep on the floor in front of the TV with the windows open, I decided to throw on the fullscreen side of Fright Night because it felt really nostalgic...like when I used to watch it so many times on TV when I was a kid (although, yes, I did see it in the theater initially, but it was just ingrained in my memory after seeing it so many times afterward in P&S). It made me feel all fuzzy, and then I fell asleep.

well, if i could just chime in here, for a second. firstly, kubrick filmed and framed his films in 4:3 because he believed that was how film was originaly meant to be seen. "fullscreen" refering to the whole of a 35mm cell. prior to the advent of television in the 50's all films were shot and framed for 4:3 ratio. as movie studios watched their profits plummet due to people staying in to watch this amazing new thing "TELEVISION!!".

studio bosses had to think fast, how can we get them back into the cinemas? many ideas were tried, but one that stuck and is still here today is "WIDESCREEN!" the studios could now sell their product to the masses, with the claim that you will see MORE at the cinemas than on your square tv sets. this is the reason films are now shot and framed for a widescreen ratio, even though they're still using FULL FRAME film stock. it's all to do with framing the shot the way the director wants. he could get any shot he wanted using a 4:3 ratio but the industry is locked into widescreen so the director has to get the shot framed for widescreen.

there is an article on the web somewhere that goes into more detail, but this is the jist of what it said. try and find it, it's well worth the read. i think it' called the great widescreen swindle or some such.

for the record i'm glad films are w/s. i don't own a single film in 4:3 unless that was it's original ratio. tv shows are a different matter as of course they're filmed for a 4:3 tv. that is changing now with the introduction of HDTV and digital tv. when it comes right down to the bottom of it, it just doesn't matter, it is what it is!

Being the perv that I am, the nudity argument is really the only one that might convince me to buy an FS version where a WS option existed. With this wonderful tool known as the internet, however, I can usually just download the scenes in question, so I have no moral dilemma.

With those saggy tits, I can see why the WS version cuts that part out.

You are an extremely fast typer.

K

Actually, Kubrick's intentions is debatable. As this recent thread shows, Kubrick composed The Shining for 1.85:1 while protecting the 4:3 frame:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=419899

It's possible that the same may be true for the other films as well, since his preference for opne-matte 4:3 was expressly for the home video versions, which had the standard frame of 4:3 when he made that statement.

Secondly, film doesn't have a standard ratio that is as it was "originaly meant to be seen." Film has undergone numerous aspect ratio changes from stills to motion. There isn't one right ratio.

"Full Frame" refers to the whole of a standard 35mm cell, while "fullscreen" would refer to the whole of a TV screen, although the two are used intergangably now. "Full Frame" is still misleading, since anamorphic widescreen uses the whole of the 35mm cell as well.

Another that stuck was the use of color.

Well, with anamorphic WS, they definately were seeing more than on TV. Even early matted WS was often shown P&S on TV, so the studios claims were true there. WS screens were often bigger as well, since it was easier to expand horizontally than vertically.

As for them still using 4:3 framed stock, they had to. There were thousands of movie projectors already in use with 4:3 as the standard. The two most popular ways to fit a WS image onto this 4:3 stock was anamorphic squeezing and matting. Anamorphic squeezing was nice because it allowed full use of the 4:3 frame while requiring only minor modification of the existing projectors, just a lens change to unsqueeze the image. Matting was even easier, since it didn't require use of different lenses at all.


Yeah, the director could frame the shot any way he wanted, as long as it was 4:3. The Academy Ratio was just as restricting as any other aspect ratio could be. In fact, widescreen was less restricting, since under the umbrella of "widesceen" there are actually 3 major aspect ratios: 1.66:1 1.85:1, and 2.35:1. And of course, some films are still made in 1.33:1. So widescreen offer more possibilities to directors, not less.

Couldn't find that article through a search. I do know of plenty of widescreen-advocacy pages though.

http://www.widescreenadvocate.org/
http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/

And here's an informative page on how film is transferred to video.
http://www.digieffects.com/frames/tr...lmtovideo.html

One has to wonder why widesceen stuck, when so many other inovations or gimmicks failed. The most obvious answer is that it stuck because it was successful in regaining viewers. The public responded favorably to widescreen, and has continued to do so.

It also has proved to be extremely popular with filmmakers as well. Kubrick aside, many directors have pushed for letterboxing of films on TV and showing them in what they feel is the proper aspect ratio, regardless of open-matte showing more image. This is why many Director's Cut DVDs are WS only, because the director gets to decide the aspect ratio, and they pick the one the prefer, the one they composed for.

Widesreen is not a swindle. While it started out as a marketing ploy, it has persevered because of its artistic posibilities and popular appeal. After all, adding sound to cinema was originally a marketing ploy as well.

as i said i like w/s, i was just giving you the jist of an article i read and thought would be of intrest to this thread.