Understanding Widescreen & Pan-and-Scan

[Phillip]

Because of the recent widescreen/pan-and-scan debate, Jamie has put together a great editorial. He highlights the differences between widescreen and pan-and-scan and the various positives and negatives of each format.

The editorial concludes with a comparative look at some famous Henson scenes in both formats. Find out what you may be missing!

http://www.muppetcentral.com/articles/editorials/widescreen.shtml

Let us know if you find this helpful!

 

[Drtooth]

I understand how it works. But what I don't understand is WHY they do it!

 

[Luke]

It's a nice article from Mr Carrol-Vier, especially the screenshot comparisons which are lovely and really bring out the article. Sometimes i feel like the widescreen debate takes some attention off what else has gone into the DVD (extras, packaging) but it is indeed an important issue and one that needs to be covered and it would be wonderful to see widescreen versions of these discs.

 

[frogboy4]

Thanx y'all. I agree that the issue can overshadow the rest of the release - and rightfully so, but there are some great extras mentioned in my widescreen article so that any future discussion from me can simply reference it instead of bringing up the debate again.

Why do they crop films?- Well, it was covered in the article. Some folks have small monitors and want the image to fill the area, but mostly it's about out of touch executives. It may also be a ploy by Disney to get people to repurchase the discs (they consider smaller releases) when widescreen monitors become the standard. Pure speculation there. It's primarily due to ignorance.

 

[radionate]

Jamie,

I have a question. I watched my copy of the Muppet Movie last night after reading the article, and my copy doesn't show Kermit's "Sleeve" or Frank's head in the "Magic Shop" number. Where did you get your screen caps from? Are their different pan & scan versions?

 

[frogboy4]

There is some additional clipping that occurs on the television that can be seen on a computer player and flat screen television sets. The image is theoretical to illustrate a point- a production still that is nearly identical to the film frame. It shows what could happen with such a transfer. The Muppet Movie has been transferred both ways. Regular crop and Super35 crop. Kermit's sock is very visible in the current pan and scan version, but Frank's head is more hidden than it appears in the example. I would have used the actual frame, but this one made the graphic look better because it shows the corners, i.e. the full area before masking. Both show the same information.

 

[radionate]

Mmmmm, Hmmmmmm. You computer art folks, always fixin' things to prove your point!

Nice Turtle BTW

 

[Jeffrey Gray]

Well, TMM didn't use Super-35....it was shot at 1.33:1, the normal TV ratio, and then matted down to 1.85:1 (the proper ratio). Rent the original CBS/FOX tape...it has no cropping or matting whatsoever...just the entire film frame...and even MORE revealing stuff is visible...

 

[frogboy4]

That isn't the case according to the DVD. The cropped version chops off the edges and exposes more from the top and bottom when comparing it to the widescreen (even the original video taped release too). It may not be Super 35 (that was more of a theoretical example) but it was shot at a larger area than the 1.33:1 television bounding, though it could be that ratio. That is a similar ratio for Super35 so that case is moot.

I checked out the original release videotape transfer as well. Same thing. It was meant to be matted in widescreen - that is the point. The pan and scan transfers exposes Kermit's sock numerous times - the widescreen doesn't.

 

[frogboy4]

To clear up any confusion the image and the caption will be relabled in the next few days to reflect matte removal cropping rather than super35. Same results and theory, just a different name. It was used to illustrate a point, but I can see how it may be misleading. The film stock wasn't the point of the demonstration - it was about matte removal which is often (but not always) associated with that stock.