I only had it in cassette when it came out...and I got the BD a couple pf years ago...definitely worth it!
Is the BD cropped to look like widescreen like the DVD or is it full frame picture?
I only had it in cassette when it came out...and I got the BD a couple pf years ago...definitely worth it!
Is the BD cropped to look like widescreen like the DVD or is it full frame picture?
it's 16:9
BUT
I think that it was SHOT that way and the VHS was "Pan & Scan"...
oh , man...Bernie Worrell (RIP) kicked some serious ass there!
It was shot with 35mm film...it has an aspect ration of 1.78..
It was shot with 35mm film...it has an aspect ration of 1.78..
The negative is almost certainly 4:3 but composed with theatrical cropping to 1.85:1 in mind.
I don't know why this never came out on US Laserdisc...but now I"m wondering why I've never compared the cropping on the Japanese Laserdisc to the DVD or Blu-ray.
Well, it's too late to ask Jonathan Demme now..but maybe the Director of Photography is still around...
Just cause it's 4:3 does not mean it's that aspect ratio...Panavision is either 16:9 or 2.35, it all depends on the lens used when shooting (anamorphic lens)-where you "compress" it to whatever aspect ratio... I highly doubt that it was shot in only 4:3 if it was shot for movie theaters....4:3 was for TV back then...
If there's anyone I know in this forum who knows about this is Patrick Cleasby (who hasn't posted recently)
I never knew this poll existed...
It's confusing because what is intentionally captured on the negative is not necessarily what was intended to be seen. Ignoring CinemaScope, Panavision, Cinerama, Todd-AO and other specific processes intended to produce a projected image wider than 1.85:1, it was pretty much universal to create a 4:3 negative for theatrical films. The top and bottom of the frame would largely be dead space that would be masked off for projection. Ideally, there'd be no microphones on top or other equipment on the bottom, so the uncropped image could be used for TV showings or for projection with less cropping.
When the "Movie of the Week" was a big deal in the USA, many (most? all?) of the titles were shot and shown on TV at 4:3 but composed loosely enough to survive cropping for overseas theatrical projection. The remake of "The Killers" is a good example. The Criterion DVD presents that one at 4:3, but if you have a 16:9 TV and blow it up, a lot of dead space is removed and the compositions look better (to me, anyway) without chopping off heads.
As you suggest, the anamorphic processes were different. The frame on the negative was still 4:3, but with a 2:1 squeeze making it unwatchable without the appropriate unsqueeze for projection. Over the years the projection ratio has been 2.66:1, 2.40:1, 2.39:1 and 2.35:1. Anamorphic cinematography did not allow for the type of flexible framing that flat shooting did, so 4:3 showings (TV, essentially) required panning and scanning. By the 1980s, Super35 (occasionally "Super Techniscope") came along and even widescreen films were sometimes captured on a flat negative with the intention of cropping it to 2.35:1 or so while allowing more headroom for TV showings.
The old "Terminator 2" Laserdisc has a pretty interesting demo of that technique that compares what's on the negative, what's on the theatrical prints and what's on the non-letterboxed video versions.
All this is my long-winded way of saying that it's extremely likely that "Stop Making Sense" was captured on a 4:3 negative and cropped for theaters but likely transferred as-is to the older videos, simply because that's generally how it was done. With a concert film like that, a so-called "open matte" transfer wouldn't be an issue because there's not likely to be anything on the negative that would ruin the experience if an audience happened to see it. For narrative films, it can be a problem. I've seen at least two movies in stupid theaters that made the image "bigger" by not masking it enough which in turn exposed microphones. That's even more common on older video transfers.
I don't understand your point...
from what I'm getting is that you think that , if it's 4:3 it HAS to be shown in that aspect ratio, which is wrong.
The anamorphic lenses are used in the projector in the movie theater-
the ONLY way that movies were shot WITHOUT anamorphic lenses were either in 70mm film, Technirama (and other similar processes) or VistaVision, where the film was printed VERTICALLY, not horizontally..
Go to the widescreenmuseum.com ...BTW the curator is a LOVELY guy...
.(well , make up your mind...as it is , J Demme would NOT have shot this in any of those "obscure" and grainy film ratios, don't you think so????)
So let's agree to disagree to agreeing...
It was shot in 4:3 with an ANAMORPHIC LENS.... Which is what a MODERN director would do...
In the early 1950s, studios did begin to compose their movies so that the top and bottom of the picture could be chopped off and a wider screen would show the center of the old 1.37:1 frame. The aspect ratio used by the various studios varied from about 1.5:1 up to the common 1.85:1.
At some point I will attempt to find the time to do frame grabs from the Japanese Laserdisc and the recent Blu-ray, which should make my point more clear.
It's just that ...it don't make sense (pun not intended, but VERY APPROPRIATE!!!) ...why should he shoot it in 4:3 if it was supposed to be for cinemas????
Because from 1953 onward that's what they did. While there were lesser-used formats, the vast majority of theatrical features shot on film over the last 60 years were shot in one of two ways:
- 4:3 negative intended to be cropped (matted) for theaters (i.e., portions of the image were simply discarded) but generally shown full-frame on TV
- 4:3 negative with a 2:1 squeeze for "Scope" theatrical showings, panned and scanned for TV
Yes, there are exceptions, but that's exactly what they are: Exceptions. When Demme/Cronenweth shot "Stop Making Sense" they used a technique that had been mainstream, commonplace and accepted industry-wide and world-wide since 1953.
I found out the other day that there are two different versions of the Blu ray, a 2009 version and a 2015 version that has been restored. Since it is one of my all time favorite concerts I checked and found out I had the old one, I knew it was the old one since I bought it in 2011. So I sold the old one and bought the new one (even made a profit doing so). The new version blows the old one out of the water. The audio is identical but the video has has 60,000 pieces of dirt removed and the contrast has been radically improved. The blacks are now really black. It is still a ten but now a ten plus.