Why? ! WHY? !

[frogboy4]

Here is an excerpt.

"A popular transfer technique sometimes used involves removing the widescreen matting of a film that is shot on a larger scale (like Super35). Many motion pictures are shot in a large format to later be masked in the widescreen format. This method can be cheaper to shoot than pre-matted film stock. Each shot is arranged with the intention to be masked This method often exposes information the director never intended the audience to see: like the sock of a puppet, the arm going into it or even the puppeteer's head The sides are still substantially sliced in this sloppy method, but far less than a straight crop. All this work to avoid a couple of black bars that are forgotten five minutes into the movie."

Here Is The Image Demo.

The caption underneath reads: Matte removal cropping is less drastic than traditional pan-and-scan, but Kermit's sock, Frank's head and other unintended elements are visible. Widescreen is obviously the intended format.

Again, this is from This Article I wrote for Muppet Central several years ago. Though I am a student of film and have shot a few myself (on actual film stock, standard video and digital) this material was heavily researched.

 

[wwfpooh]

All this work to avoid a couple of black bars that are forgotten five minutes into the movie.

Says you. The black bars--IMO--distract the viewer from the movie, because the picture itself is tiny compared to the bars.

 

[Winslow Leach]

Says you. The black bars--IMO--distract the viewer from the movie, because the picture itself is tiny compared to the bars.

I myself have never been distracted by the "black bars." And I have a 27-inch screen.

What does distract me is when a pre-credit sequence and/or title sequence is in widescreen, and then I'm jarred when the picture becomes fullscreen, usually after the director's credit.

 

[wwfpooh]

What does distract me is when a pre-credit sequence and/or title sequence is in widescreen, and then I'm jarred when the picture becomes fullscreen, usually after the director's credit.

The films I buy--thankfully--aren't like that. I either buy full fullscreen or full widescreen, not parts of both.

 

[Winslow Leach]

The films I buy--thankfully--aren't like that. I either buy full fullscreen or full widescreen, not parts of both.

Actually, I'm referring more to TV broadcasts of movies...I know AMC, TBS and other channels utilize this practice. Oftentimes, the opening credits have to be presented in widescreen, otherwise you'd lose names and/or business going on behind the credits.

 

[frogboy4]

Says you. The black bars--IMO--distract the viewer from the movie, because the picture itself is tiny compared to the bars.

So, what you are saying is that a film's director, director of photography, production designer, art director, essentially all the creators and artisans of the picture are wrong and their work should be altered from the way they chose to shoot it in order to suit your television screen? I don't think D'Snowth would like his full frame show being converted to widescreen and I wouldn't either. It goes against a director's artistic integrity. That tends to be a serious subject with me.

The truth is that televisions are going widescreen to better communicate with film and other media. Some kind of "in-between" standard to accommodate different forms of media. There are both good and bad parts to this.

I, for one, can't stand digitally projected films. The hypnotic flicker is gone and it's like paying $10 to watch a really big HDTV. That comment makes me a dinosaur, but if a director chooses that for his film, I'll go with his discretion.

 

[wwfpooh]

So, what you are saying is that a film's director, director of photography, production designer, art director, essentially all the creators and artisans of the picture are wrong and their work should be altered from the way they chose to shoot it in order to suit your television screen?

They already often are altered, hence the "this film has been modified from its original version and has been formatted to fit your TV/this screen" disclaimer.

 

[frogboy4]

They already often are altered, hence the "this film has been modified from its original version and has been formatted to fit your TV/this screen" disclaimer.

Yes, in the cropped full-frame formats they do reformat against the director's wishes to fit the television cube, hence the disclaimer. It's a statement that did not always appear until directors demanded it. It is a studio decision to release perfectly good-looking movies in the modified way you admitedly prefer. By supporting these altered films you are going against the wishes of the filmmakers. I see such support as disrespectful to both the artwork and the artist.

So, again, what you are saying is that a film's director, director of photography, production designer, art director, essentially all the creators and artisans of the picture are wrong and their work should be altered from the way they chose to shoot it in order to suit your television screen?

 

[wwfpooh]

I certainly don't want to reep the artists and others involved of their vision, but if you want to see the entire picture instead of distracting black bars and a small picture surrounded by said bars on your TV, you would want full-screen. That is, of course, unless everybody just up and buys widescreen monitors, which is NOT going to happen any time soon. Maybe when TV all goes digital, it might happen, but I wouldn't count on it.

 

[frogboy4]

but if you want to see the entire picture instead of distracting black bars and a small picture surrounded by said bars on your TV, you would want full-screen.

Of course, again, that is false. I believe your misunderstanding of formatting is now intentional as the facts of the process have already been provided in just about every potential situation. I'm going to stop taking the bait here.