See p. 58 of the current issue of Video Watchdog, for an excellent example of the importance of letterboxing, with _Fright Night_. I loathe pan and scan. I'll watch non-anamorphic films in pan and scan, but not anamorphic ones, unless they have not been released any other way (and I'm still holding out on films like _Nashville_ and _GATTACA_, which I understand are destroyed by pan and scan. BTW, _The Searchers_ looks incredibly distorted in pan and scan. Scott =============================================================================== Scott Andrew Hutchins http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi Cracks in the Fourth Wall Filmworks/Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More! (with special musical guest Leila Josefowicz) "Who's John Adams?" --Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., at Monticello, after failing to recognize busts of other founding fathers. On Wed, 10 May 2000, Leo Enticknap wrote: > Mike Frank asks what the 'standard anti-letterboxing argument' would be. > As I understand it, it holds that if a film is photographed in order to be > shown in a certain ratio, thern showing it in any other ratio (i.e. > carrying out the technical change necessary to achieve this) fundamentally > changes the visual qualities of the image from those which were intended by > the film-maker, and thus is not advisable. To this, however, I would add > these caveats: > > 1. Hollywood now generally adopts a 'shoot-and-protect' policy for films > in spherical ratios. Basically, the US, the UK, certain parts of Western > Europe and Japan uses 1:1.85 as the industry standard spherical ratio, and > therefore most Hollywood productions which are not in 'scope are designed > to look their best in 1:1.85. However, France, India, Australia and most > of South America use 1:1.66 as their standard, whilst Russia and China > still have 1:1.33 as their primary film format. Added to this, films are > increasingly having to be compatible with the widescreen TV standard of > 16:9, which translates roughly as 1:1.76. Therefore, Hollywood films still > have to be showable in these systems, which is why the prints do not > generally have hard mattes. You could, if you wished, show MANIAC COP 4 in > the Academy ratio - but a large swathe of the frame would contain no > action. Ironically, this is exactly the opposite of letterboxing, i.e. > showing more of the original frame and magnifying it less. > > 2. Like subtitling, the quality of panning and scanning varies widely. If > the printer is constantly scanning an Academy-sized box in the middle of a > 'scope frame, the result is guaranteed to look abysmal; but if it tracks > the essential action without moving too suddenly or often, then the film > can look surprisingly acceptable. Added to which, a television is not the > same as a cinema screen and therefore it could be argued that letterboxing > is essential in order to give a production an equal chance when transposed > to a different medium. It's not an argument I would personally accept, but > it's the only one I can think of in favour of letterboxing. After all, do > people regularly complain that films were originally released with > multi-channel soundtracks are regularly broadcast (or sold on retail video) > with mono sound? > > L > ------------------------------------ > Leo Enticknap > Technical Manager > City Screen Cinemas (York) Ltd.. > Coney St., York YO1 9QL. > United Kingdom > Telephone: 01904 612940 (work); 01904 673207 (home); 0410 417383 (mobile) > e-mail: [log in to unmask] > > ---- > Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the > University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu > ---- For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives: http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html