DividedSky
Nov 2002
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by backoff
I know it was probably their only source, but FS SUCKS! It cuts off like 40% of the picture from the sides
Not quite. There are many different ways of making a movie fullscreen, and cutting off 40% is only one of them. Harry Potter is scope, and these days that means it was either filmed anamorphically or with Super 35. If it was anamorphic, then the only image available is the theaterical scope image, and 40% of it would be cut off for fullscreen.
Harry Potter was Super 35, though, which means there's a full 4:3 film frame available. For a fullscreen video release of a Super 35 movie, assuming the filmmakers protected the areas above and below the 2:35 image, you'd get more image above and below the widescreen version. You'd still lose some image on the sides, but not nearly as much.
So, watching Harry Potter in fullscreen isn't all that bad. I'd never do it, since I only want to see the theatrical version, and if it's 4:3 it sure doesn't feel like a real movie. But it's not as bad as, say, watching Star Wars in pan & scan. You won't really lose anything important on the screen in an open matte transfer like this. And these days they often even do the effects in the full frame, figuring they'll look good on a full-frame video release.
Sorry, rambling.
ObOnTopic: Nice and early release, I'll stick with the widescreen DVD SCR for now.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|