Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum rules before posting.

Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free registration is required.

If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.

    Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1 2  Previous   Next
Video Format question
Author Message
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorCubbyUps
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
United States Posts: 4,245
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
I am a little confused as to what is considered "Full Screen" or "Pan & Scan".

It has always been my understanding that "Full Screen AKA Full Frame" applies to films or TV shows that were filmed in 4:3 or at least Academy Ratio.

And that "Pan & Scan" refers to any film or TV Show that has a wider aspect ratio than 4:3 or 1.33, such as "Full Screen" versions of films in 1.66, 1.78, 1.85 or wider.

But I see that there seems to be a conflict as some "Full Screen" versions are listed in their profiles as "Full Frame" while others are listed in the profile as "Pan & Scan".
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorSquirrelecto
Registered: March 13, 2007
United Kingdom Posts: 793
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_and_scan

Nice image on that page to illustrate the P&S process.

But your understanding seems to be basically correct, so what are the particular titles you have in mind?
 Last edited: by Squirrelecto
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorCubbyUps
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
United States Posts: 4,245
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Agent Cody Banks
Cheaper by the Dozen (Steve Martin)
Burglar
Disturbing Behavior
Fifth Element (Super 35)
Elf
Homegrown
My Stepmother is an Alien
The Mask
Resident Evil:Apocalypse
Risky Business
Shrek
Spice World
Under Siege
Wrongfully Accused

Those are the ones I found so far.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorSquirrelecto
Registered: March 13, 2007
United Kingdom Posts: 793
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
SHREK was recomposed to 1.33:1, which is why it's full frame, not P&S. Pixar do this as well.

For the other titles, if the intended aspect ratio was achieved via matted widescreen then the 1.33:1 version may just be unmatted, in which case it would be marked as full frame as it has not undergone a P&S process. Whether that's the case in all the titles you've listed though, I don't know.
 Last edited: by Squirrelecto
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorCubbyUps
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
United States Posts: 4,245
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
See, I think if anything that is not in it's Widescreen OAR and has a "Full Screen" version it's "Pan & Scan" regardless if the transfer contains any actual Panning or Scanning.

For instance I know Back to the Future is 1.85 Open Matte, so by what you say it would be listed as "Full Frame", however Special Effects shots were Hard Matted and thus are Panned & Scanned in the "Full Screen" version.

And with Fifth Element it was shot in Super 35, but all Special Effects shots were also Hard Matted and thus those scenes are Panned & Scanned, however the rest of the film could be considered "Full Frame" since they just open up the entire 35mm frame. Thats my understanding anyways.
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar Contributorhal9g
Who is John Galt?
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 6,635
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
The problem here is that there is no field for OAR.

Some people have adopted the convention (on their own) that a 1.85 OAR film that is "matted" to 1.33 should be considered "Full Frame" and not "P&S".

I understand this approach, however, it is misleading for the very reason that you point out.  It is easy to "assume" that if the video is listed as "Full Frame" that it means that the film's OAR is 1.33, which may or may not be true.  This assumption is easy to make since every film that was filmed in Academy Ratio is also correctly called "Full Frame".

Technically, calling a film that has an OAR of 1.85 that has been "matted", "Pan and Scan" is incorrect because the camera is not actually moving left and right across the frame depending on what is on the screen.  It is simply cutting the midlle out of the frame and/or increasing the height of the OAR picture or both, but there is no back and forth motion of the camera.  However, you are losing "data" from the original A/R of the film.

So we are left with two  bad choices, because there is no OAR field.  Call it Full Screen and let people think that's the way it was filmed, or call it P&S so people know it is not OAR, but it technically is not P&S.

Quoting Skip:

Quote:
Hal:

This particular topic is far too technivcal for your comprehension.


So, Skip....how'd I do?
Hal
 Last edited: by hal9g
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorSquirrelecto
Registered: March 13, 2007
United Kingdom Posts: 793
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting CubbyUps:
Quote:
it's "Pan & Scan" regardless if the transfer contains any actual Panning or Scanning.


I think your argument comes unstuck here

However .....

Quoting CubbyUps:
Quote:
For instance I know Back to the Future is 1.85 Open Matte, so by what you say it would be listed as "Full Frame", however Special Effects shots were Hard Matted and thus are Panned & Scanned in the "Full Screen" version.

And with Fifth Element it was shot in Super 35, but all Special Effects shots were also Hard Matted and thus those scenes are Panned & Scanned, however the rest of the film could be considered "Full Frame" since they just open up the entire 35mm frame. Thats my understanding anyways.


You make a good point here re SFX. I'm not familiar with the production processes of the particular films you mention but I agree that some transfers would technically mix P&S and Full Frame within the same transfer simply because of the SFX - they're not going to waste time and money filling in SFX for the areas of  screen that they're not going to use, after all.  Whether that warrants us recording it as P&S overall, I'm not sure as it's only the SFX scenes. Something to think about ......

Quoting hal9g:
Quote:

Some people have adopted the convention (on their own) that a 1.85 OAR film that is "matted" to 1.33 should be considered "Full Frame" and not "P&S".

Don't know about the conventions, but would be the other way round: if it were filmed in 1.33:1 and then matted to get the intended widescreen aspect ratio AND the DVD version contains the unmatted 1.33:1 version, then it's Full Frame.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributornorthbloke
Registered: March 15, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United Kingdom Posts: 5,459
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
So we are left with two  bad choices, because there is no OAR field.  Call it Full Screen and let people think that's the way it was filmed, or call it P&S so people know it is not OAR, but it technically is not P&S.


This is the way I've always done it. If it's 1.33:1 OAR then it's Full Frame, otherwise it's P&S. You're right it's not technically accurate, but at least it lets you know if the picture has been reformatted or not.
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar Contributorhal9g
Who is John Galt?
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 6,635
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
So we are left with two  bad choices, because there is no OAR field.  Call it Full Screen and let people think that's the way it was filmed, or call it P&S so people know it is not OAR, but it technically is not P&S.


This is the way I've always done it. If it's 1.33:1 OAR then it's Full Frame, otherwise it's P&S. You're right it's not technically accurate, but at least it lets you know if the picture has been reformatted or not.


That's what I prefer as well.
Hal
 Last edited: by hal9g
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorRHo
Registered: March 13, 2007
Posts: 2,759
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Be aware that some movies have more than one original aspect ratio. Kubrick and computer animations spring to my mind. A film which is completely open matte (no special effects pan & scan) should be entered as full frame into the database IMO.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorLopek
Lovely day for a...
Registered: March 13, 2007
United Kingdom Posts: 813
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
So we are left with two  bad choices, because there is no OAR field.  Call it Full Screen and let people think that's the way it was filmed, or call it P&S so people know it is not OAR, but it technically is not P&S.


This is the way I've always done it. If it's 1.33:1 OAR then it's Full Frame, otherwise it's P&S. You're right it's not technically accurate, but at least it lets you know if the picture has been reformatted or not.


That's what I prefer as well.

Agreed also. The more useful info is whether a film is OAR or not, rather than how that change was completed.
Andy

"Credited as" Names Database
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorSquirrelecto
Registered: March 13, 2007
United Kingdom Posts: 793
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Lopek:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
So we are left with two  bad choices, because there is no OAR field.  Call it Full Screen and let people think that's the way it was filmed, or call it P&S so people know it is not OAR, but it technically is not P&S.


This is the way I've always done it. If it's 1.33:1 OAR then it's Full Frame, otherwise it's P&S. You're right it's not technically accurate, but at least it lets you know if the picture has been reformatted or not.


That's what I prefer as well.

Agreed also. The more useful info is whether a film is OAR or not, rather than how that change was completed.



How the change was completed is important too.

If you have something like Terminator 3 which has just had the matte opened up to 1.33:1, then you know you're not missing any of the image by watching the 4x3 version (in fact you see more info, even if it's not intended). If it's P&S, then you are.

For full frame versions, I can zoom the image to get a decent enough crop to try and get close to the original matting. With P&S doing this means I would be losing even more image (since it has already been "pre-cropped" so to speak).

So knowing whether it's full frame or P&S is valuable.
 Last edited: by Squirrelecto
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar Contributorhal9g
Who is John Galt?
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 6,635
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Squirrel.God:
Quote:

So knowing whether it's full frame or P&S is valuable.


I agree with that. 

What we need is both peices of information (OAR and F/S or P&S), but we don't have them today.  So we have to reach some kind of agreement as to how best to use the fields that we do have.
Hal
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorLopek
Lovely day for a...
Registered: March 13, 2007
United Kingdom Posts: 813
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Squirrel.God:
Quote:
How the change was completed is important too.

If you have something like Terminator 3 which has just had the matte opened up to 1.33:1, then you know you're not missing any of the image by watching the 4x3 version (in fact you see more info, even if it's not intended). If it's P&S, then you are.

For full frame versions, I can zoom the image to get a decent enough crop to try and get close to the original matting. With P&S doing this means I would be losing even more image (since it has already been "pre-cropped" so to speak).

So knowing whether it's full frame or P&S is valuable.

I never said it was not important, but in my opinion it is significantly less important, hence my prefence.

Ultimately I agree with Hal, ideally we would be able to record both, but as can't right now we need to agree which way to go to make the info consistant and useful... until DVDP allows us to do both (Ken  )
Andy

"Credited as" Names Database
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
I agree that knowing what P&S and FS(the appropriate term but for our use FF=FS) is important. But figuring out what is what is difficult as there is no accurate datasource that I know of. Essentially the rule of thumb is that 1.85  is recomposed to 1.33 via usually open matte, not Pan & Scan, information is lost on the sides and information gained at top and bottom, which can sometimes yield some entertainment not meant to be viewed, crew people, microphones, etc.

Then you have some reall oddities, such as AF One, which was shot and COMPOSED for Super 35 (1.37) and cropped, yes cropped to 2.35 Widescreen theatrical use, this causes some consternation among film purists.

I keep hoping that in my continuing research I will uncover a magic bullet somewhere that will solve th whole issue, but I haven't as yet, and this still remains a highly technical area with no simple one Rule fits all.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
 Last edited: by Winston Smith
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorRHo
Registered: March 13, 2007
Posts: 2,759
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting Squirrel.God:
Quote:

So knowing whether it's full frame or P&S is valuable.


I agree with that. 

What we need is both peices of information (OAR and F/S or P&S), but we don't have them today.  So we have to reach some kind of agreement as to how best to use the fields that we do have.

Since the field is labeled "Full Frame" and not "OAR" I do have a preference.
    Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1 2  Previous   Next