![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
With the advent of 1.78:1 television sets, soft matte format may become obsolete. If an open-matte DVD were to be played on a 1.78:1 television set, it would be pillarboxed (thus having vertical black bars on the sides of the screen) and have a lower resolution or squeezed image. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 22:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Many films are actually shot 16:9 (shorthand for that ratio that matches current TV sets). They are framed for this ratio by director/cinematographer. So why are these movies then butchered for their cinema release, by cropping the top and bottom of the picture?
Because the paying audience is so stupid, they think 'cinematic' means an 'ultrawide' picture- and the assumption of distributors is a film will make more money if its picture is thusly butchered.
The clue to fake ultra-wide is heads constantly missing their tops in most shots- something that vanishes with the so-called 'open matte' TV version.
Unlike the glorious true anamorphic movies from the 1960s, where the picture was even wider, and no head was ever chopped, fake wide is painfully obvious. But like the story of the missing emperor's clothes, today's audience actually thinks a cinema image is supposed to look badly cropped.
Sometimes the issue of fake widescreen by chopping the top and bottom renders a film literally unwatchable. I recall 'The Mummy 3' where only the 16:9 version of the film with VFX was prepared. The cinema crop version ruined almost every FX shot, since the FX work had been done assuming a 16:9 image.
Back in the day of 'Independance Day' and the fist Spiderman movie, three versions of the movie were prepared by the editors/VFX- namely cimema wide, 16:9 and 4:3. Amazingly, the VFX were redone for each version, and each version contained image data in the frame not shown by the other two. No version was a simple crop derived from the other two.
Today, now Hollywood is at peak cheapness (CGI standards even in blockbusters are rock bottom), only one version is shot and edited. All other versions are bad crops. 'Open matte' now means "as shot". The cinema wide version is literally a cropped butchered version.
I recall the horrific crop of 'No Country for Old Men' winning a cinematography oscar for the cropped butchered version. I saw an 'open matte' screener before the movie released, and various scenes only made visual sense without the cinema crop. In other words, the movie had been shot for 16:9 (ie., TV release)- not too surprising given the problematic BO of the brothers at the time- investors wanted a 'safe' version. Yet because the film was a 'hit', people raved about the badly cropped cinema version.
I wouldn't care, but Hollywood frequently won't release the true version (open matte) if the cropped version has seen good success in the cinema release. They wish to keep up the pretence that the badly cropped version is the true version- and only years later (when people have forgotten) will the real version suddenly turn up on TV. Let people have their modern day ruined 'pan and scan' equivalent if they wish- just allow those of us with a clue to see the version of the movie the director actually shot. 82.30.78.190 ( talk) 18:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
With the advent of 1.78:1 television sets, soft matte format may become obsolete. If an open-matte DVD were to be played on a 1.78:1 television set, it would be pillarboxed (thus having vertical black bars on the sides of the screen) and have a lower resolution or squeezed image. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 22:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Many films are actually shot 16:9 (shorthand for that ratio that matches current TV sets). They are framed for this ratio by director/cinematographer. So why are these movies then butchered for their cinema release, by cropping the top and bottom of the picture?
Because the paying audience is so stupid, they think 'cinematic' means an 'ultrawide' picture- and the assumption of distributors is a film will make more money if its picture is thusly butchered.
The clue to fake ultra-wide is heads constantly missing their tops in most shots- something that vanishes with the so-called 'open matte' TV version.
Unlike the glorious true anamorphic movies from the 1960s, where the picture was even wider, and no head was ever chopped, fake wide is painfully obvious. But like the story of the missing emperor's clothes, today's audience actually thinks a cinema image is supposed to look badly cropped.
Sometimes the issue of fake widescreen by chopping the top and bottom renders a film literally unwatchable. I recall 'The Mummy 3' where only the 16:9 version of the film with VFX was prepared. The cinema crop version ruined almost every FX shot, since the FX work had been done assuming a 16:9 image.
Back in the day of 'Independance Day' and the fist Spiderman movie, three versions of the movie were prepared by the editors/VFX- namely cimema wide, 16:9 and 4:3. Amazingly, the VFX were redone for each version, and each version contained image data in the frame not shown by the other two. No version was a simple crop derived from the other two.
Today, now Hollywood is at peak cheapness (CGI standards even in blockbusters are rock bottom), only one version is shot and edited. All other versions are bad crops. 'Open matte' now means "as shot". The cinema wide version is literally a cropped butchered version.
I recall the horrific crop of 'No Country for Old Men' winning a cinematography oscar for the cropped butchered version. I saw an 'open matte' screener before the movie released, and various scenes only made visual sense without the cinema crop. In other words, the movie had been shot for 16:9 (ie., TV release)- not too surprising given the problematic BO of the brothers at the time- investors wanted a 'safe' version. Yet because the film was a 'hit', people raved about the badly cropped cinema version.
I wouldn't care, but Hollywood frequently won't release the true version (open matte) if the cropped version has seen good success in the cinema release. They wish to keep up the pretence that the badly cropped version is the true version- and only years later (when people have forgotten) will the real version suddenly turn up on TV. Let people have their modern day ruined 'pan and scan' equivalent if they wish- just allow those of us with a clue to see the version of the movie the director actually shot. 82.30.78.190 ( talk) 18:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)