From: chrisp@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Chris Pelkie)
Subject: Re: Letterbox versus P&S
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:54:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.131843.3787@exu.ericsson.se>, ebupaf@ebu.ericsson.se (Pat Fargo 6266) writes:
|> After reading this group for some time, I noticed that
|> most favor the widescreen or letterbox format, and that
|> more and more movies on LD are coming out in this format.
|> Maybe I'm alone, but I do not like letterbox. I have
|> a 53 inch Sony, and it bothers when watching a strip of
|> video in the middle of my screen. I just purchased
|> Black Rain, and of my 40 inch vertical screen, there is a
|> 20 inch strip of picture. Sure, the broad scenes are better,
|> but the rest of the movie looks like their heads are sliced off.
|> Do all of you really love this effect? I have seen the Black
|> Rain P&S, and the feeling of being in the movie is enormously
|> improved from letterbox. Isn't this effect more important
|> than getting the fringes? As a director, doesn't most of what
|> you want the people to see, get put in the middle of the 
|> screen? Oh well, just my thoughts....
|> 
|> ---
|> Patrick A. Fargo		Ericsson Business Communication
|> 				Anaheim, California

Your last remark is important: in the early stages of widescreen,
directors intentionally used most of the width. This was also
the period in film history for many of the "blockbusters":
films designed to take advantage of the width that TV could
not provide, and a calculated attempt to pull people back into
the theaters. These films are completely corrupted by cropping,
or by the motion sickness inducing pan-and-scan.

More recently, (since the 70s), directors are aware that their
product will eventually end up on TV, so many tend to shoot
the significant action in an area that can be cropped for TV.
(Actually, to be fair, it is the cinematographer who does the framing.)

Nevertheless, many directors/cinematographers choose to shoot
in a wider than TV aspect ratio for design reasons. After all, there
is nothing stopping them from shooting in the old Academy ratio:
so why don't they? Well, for one thing, it's a damned restrictive
little box to compose in. Films shot or videotaped for TV are
appropriately composed for that ratio: enjoy them in that light.

But given a film shot (intentionally) in a wider than 4:3 aspect ratio,
it is a crime to artificially lop off an arbitrary part of the image. (Soft
matting creates its own set of problems, for if the film is not matted
properly when shown, it ADDS material not meant to be seen, but
the same argument holds.)

Other than Reader's Digest or those Classic Comics, I can't think
of a good example of other media truncating the original work
so egregiously. Can you imagine Da Vinci's Last Supper with 4 guys in it?

The mental readjustment to undergo is not to think about how much or little
of your equipment is being used, but rather to think how much more
enjoyable film is when properly seen. You, in particular, have the best
current possible situation: one of the biggest screens made, so the LBX'ed
image is bigger than my 27" monitor (in height).

If you feel you could have done the film better than the professionals who
made it, that is a different issue. You should be making films and showing
us your vision. In the coming years, digital TV/computers will permit us
to experiment with these design concepts in a way similar to photo scanners,
digital paint systems, and page layout programs let us (non-pros) play
with print design. I'll look forward to the different realizations when
the technology of film/video production becomes more mainstream,
but I won't feel real good about having others arbitrarily rearrange
my designs.

A good book to read that may provide a better understanding of film
and director/cinematographer motivations is David Cook's "A History
of the Narrative Film". Very enjoyable reading. It particularly notes
how the technology of film production has interacted with the changing
social forces and aesthetics of this century. TV has been a very
important force in changing the face of the moving image, but
that is no excuse for destroying work done in a different medium.
-- 
Chris Pelkie
Scientific Visualization Producer
Cornell Theory Center
Ithaca, NY 14853-3801
chrisp@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.video