From: daver@felix.filenet.com (Dave Richards)
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Re: Brazil (WS) LD
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:45:59 GMT
Reply-To: daver@fritz.filenet.com (Dave Richards)
Organization: Costa Mesa, CA

In article <1992Sep6.153647.13796@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov> jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:
>In article <19928@fritz.filenet.com>, daver@felix.filenet.com (Dave Richards) writes:
>> You missed my point.  All that they have done by matting a properly composed
>> and protected 1.85 film is to cover up the top and bottom of the picture for
>> you.  There is no reason that they couldn't simply transfer the entire frame.
>> Then a user that didn't like letterboxing and didn't care about correct as-
>> pect ratios could watch it without doing anything, and letterbox-loving,
>> aspect ratio purists like us could watch THE SAME SOFTWARE by simply covering
>> up the top and bottom of the frame ourselves, either with black masking, or
>> with a relatively simple little electronic device.  The benfits would be
>> only one version, and no waiting for the letterboxed version to be released.
>
>Actually, I didn't, but I don't agree with you.  Whilst in theory one could
>create their own mask, the individual would for the most part be at a loss
>as to what aspect ratio to make it, especially considering the problems of
>overscanning with TVs

Apparently the software producers are at a loss as to what aspect ratio to 
matte at also.  Most U.S. 1.85 films on "widescreen" disc versions seem to
be matted at 1.5-1.7.  A 1.5:1 matte on a 1.33:1 tube is barely noticeable,
and hardly worth the effort.  Advertising that as a special "widescreen
letterboxed edition" seems to me to border on fraud.

>  Then, of course, is the fact that there are
>so many different ratios that films use, it is hard to tell which one you
>should be using.  One hopes that when a disc is matted, they have
>researched to find out what the proper ratio is, unfortunatly, this doesn't
>always appear to be the case.

It doesn't take that much research.  There are really only three values 
that cover 99% of the films made over the last 100 years.

	1. No matte (your natural 1.33:1 tube ratio.)  This is perfect for
	   old silent films, and close enough for 1.37:1 sound films.  No
	   special software required.

	2. Widescreen. "Standard" films for the last 40 years-- 1.85:1 in
	   the U.S. and 1.66:1 in Europe.  If you frequently watch both U.S.
	   and European films, you might want separate mattes for each, but
	   I think a 1.75:1 compromise is fine for both.

	3. Anamorphic. 2.39:1 (used to be 2.35:1).  Since most of these
	   films are composed for blowup to 2.2:1 70mm, anything over a
	   2.2:1 letterbox should be fine for these.

Your only decision as to matte size is with #2.  #1 movies don't need mat-
ting, and with #3 movies you either buy the letterboxed version or the P&S.

>Not to mention that it would be a pain in the butt (what exactly are you
>using to matte it with?) 

Currently I use heavy black paper that I have cut a rectangle of the proper
size out of.  Notice that you only need two: one about 1.75:1 and one about
2.3:1.  This simply sticks to the front of the TV.  I have used this method
for about 3 years and it works fine.  I have found that many people that ob-
ject to letterboxed movies do NOT object when my 2.3:1 mask is in place.  I
guess that this is because you don't see the unused blank screen.

>Where could one get one of these electronic devices you refer to?

Currently, I don't think you can.  You should be able to build one fairly
easily, and in fact I've had a design on my workbench for some time that will
do exactly that.  If you're interested in buying one of them after I get it
perfected, let me know.

Dave