TheExodu5 said:
Or if you're shooting with Super 35mm, you don't have to zoom in at all. It's definitely more work to film taking into acount things bigger than the intended aspect ratio though. I still think it's the best solution. It gives the theater the intended experience, and home owners can see it fill their screen.
There must be a way to have a full 16:9 frame on a Blu-Ray disc, with the option to black out the top and bottom to restore the original aspect ratio, right? That'd be an awesome idea. That would make everyone happy, without the need to compromise whatsoever.
It goes back to original artistic intent. Yes they open up the frame more using super 35, but they start to show things that were never intended to be seen in the first place. An example of removing the mattes from a 1.85 frame to make a 1.33 movie is A Fish Called Wanda. On the open matte version of it, you see that John Cleese is wearing underwear in a certain scene, when he is supposed to be nude. The open matte of that actually ruins the joke. There are pictures showing this online.
The problem with Super 35 is that is makes film grain more prominent when shown. So if they use that more then people like you will complain about grain in the picture. The only way to remove that is to use a noise reduction program which then smooths out the image and begins to eliminate detail, much like the emulator filters work. Sometimes grain is intended to be there, like in Minority Report.
As Fuzzy said, when you open up the top and bottom, you have to zoom out from the intended focus of the picture. That is the only way to get the same horizontal information in a narrower frame. You have to add vertical information, which then destroys the original composition of the frame.
So what do you do when you watch a movie like Casablanca or Gone with the Wind? Do you zoom it in so you can use all that precious pixel space on the sides of the screen, thus resulting in you chopping off the tops and bottoms of the intended picture? Or do you stretch and distort the image so you miss nothing and still use all your precious screen space, but by doing so make the image mangled?
Those of us arguing the subject are trying to point out that you should NEVER alter the original version of a film to accommodate morons that want their precious tvs filled with picture. If it isnt arguing to keep 2.35 how it is, we will fight to keep 1.33 as it is. Keep the films the way they were originally supposed to be seen. If you want to mangle with someone elses work against their will to accommodate your tastes then do it. That is your choice. But DO NOT even begin to try and fuck it up for the rest of us who like to have things in their original presentation format. I and countless others choose to watch TV or film in its original format, whether it be 1.33, 1.66, 1.78, 1.85, 2.20, 2.35, 2.40, 2.55 or what have you.
