Author: [log in to unmask] Date: 12/13/94 8:16 AM [Editor's note: This message was submitted to SCREEN-L by the "Author" noted above, and not by Jeremy Butler ([log in to unmask]).] Recently, there is has been a lot of discussion on aspect ratios and letterboxing of films. I just want to throw a grain of salt into this discussion. Just because a movie has been letterboxed does not mean you are getting the whole image or the image as projected theatrically. Most of the time you will get most of what the original aspect ratio was, other times you will get something that is not even close. Only with the best transfers will you get something that is dead-on. Sometimes the letterboxing can go too far. Someone mentioned microphones coming into shots on films that were shot full frame for 1.85 projection. Well, on MGM's laser transfer of The Great Escape, they transferred it almost from sprocket hole to sprocket hole. In one scene (Steve McQueen's first cooler scene) you can see the edge of the set on the left side and someone standing on the other side of the wall. This was definately not meant to be scene. Criterion's subsequent release of the same film correct the improper aspect ratio (as well as the color!). So be careful thinking letterboxed editions are perfect. Clouding the issue is what format the film was originally lensed in. Super 35 leaves the option of composition to the director. James Cameron uses this format. On his recent laserdisc releases of The Abyss and Terminator 2, he supervised the transfer of both the widescreen and pan/scan editions. Since he shot in Super 35, nothing was lost on the edges in the pan/scan xfer (actually a full frame xfer, no panning or scanning was done) and material was added at the top and bottom. He stated he preferred this version to the widescreen (I don't). This is just an example. VistaVision was another format that left it up to theater projectionists to matte the film. Hence, differing transfers of films such as North by Northwest. Another example is Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove: Or How I ... which was shot at 1.33 and 1.66 in camera! He wanted that version to be released and it was on the Criterion Collection laserdisc release. Was it noticable? Not really. The reason: Consumer monitors overscan the picture to varying degrees. Which means in extreme cases, you could be losing 10% of your full screen pictures! It is usually less than that but 5-8% is not uncommon. So that means you are not even seeing the whole picture on 1.33 releases which were all films prior to '53 (with a few exceptions). Some companies are now windowboxing transfers of films. That is putting a slight black band around the entire picture. The Chaplin films that Fox has recently remastered are like this on laser. I just wanted to add this into the discussion. By the way, most films get a pan/scan and letterbox tranfer to video (I worked in post-production for many years.) And success in laservideo for a title sometimes means a letterbox tape will be released. American Movie Classics and TNT are now showing letterbox versions of films, as is the Sci-Fi Channel which recently broadcast the Star Wars Trilogy lboxed. AMC usually will list in TV Guide if a film is letterboxed. If you are interested in learning more on aspect ratios and video transfers I can recommend the publication The Perfect Vision and Widescreen Review. Both go into in-depth discussion on recent video releases and how faithful aspect ratios have been recreated. If response warrants, I'll post addresses. GWeir @ Discovery.Com