DVD Jacket Labeling Not A Science
Dear Gary: As a widescreen enthusiast, I prefer to buy only movies on DVD and LaserDisc that preserve the full aspect ratio. However, sometimes I see a movie that is released as a pan-and-scan and wonder if, in fact, the transfer was simply from an unmatted source. If that is the case, I have no qualms about displaying the source through my front projector and applying its variable masking feature to present it in its proper form. However, I have rarely come across any reviews from any source that have seemed to bother investigating this, but instead, quickly dismisses any home video release that fills the whole standard 1.33:1 TV screen as being pan-and-scan only. I realize that many movies with special effects tend to be mixed, with non-effects sequences shot unmatted and the effects parts created at the theatrically intended aspect ratio. If certain effects-laden movies were indeed shot this way, but transferred to home video full frame, I would, of course, assume that panning-and-scanning will be used for the effects sequences. Knowing this, I probably wouldn’t buy these movies. It’s the dramas, comedies, action and other non-effects movies that I feel in the dark about. Is it safe to assume that when the small writing on the movie packaging says that it’s “modified to fit your TV screen” that it, in fact, implies pan-and-scan? Having seen print mistakes before, I am leery of sloppy, lazy or inaccurate labeling. Does the industry loosely swap definitions for “full frame presentation” and “pan-and-scan?” Some don’t have any indication of the video transfer at all. If there is a source that you can refer me to that keeps track of things like this? It would be extremely informative and helpful in my future buying decisions.
Jason Leong, San Jose, California
Research Editor Michael Coate Comments:
I’m glad to hear you are a widescreen enthusiast; however, it seems that many enthusiasts can be just as confused as the masses when confronted with the numerous viewing options that exist when watching movies in the home. To answer your main question, I do not feel it is ever safe to assume anything when it comes to the labeling of tapes and discs. I have found that while many titles are correctly labeled, far too many, are mis-labeled. Terms like “widescreen,” “letterbox,” “full screen,” “full frame,” “cropped,” “pan-and-scan,” “matted” and “modified to fit your TV,” among others, have been abused to the point that most consumers have no idea what they really mean. The most abused term has probably been “pan-and-scan.” Technically, this is a term that refers to the process involved in the creation of a non-widescreen video edition of what was theatrically an anamorphic widescreen movie. Many seem to assume that if any program isn’t widescreen, then it must be pan-and-scan. Something like Casablanca isn’t available in widescreen and it would be incorrect to describe it as a pan-and-scan edition since there isn’t any panning or scanning involved in the creation of its video versions. The “modified to fit your TV screen” description has become more of a generic disclaimer that is used whenever anything isn’t presented in widescreen. IT IS NOT safe to assume that you will be seeing “extra” image height in lieu of a matte that would appear in a widescreen edition of the same title. Often times this will be the case, but just as often it will not be the case. I suppose if one has either a video projection setup or a 1.78:1 (16:9) widescreen TV, it can be possible to take a movie transferred with the “extra” image height and zoom in on it with a 1.78:1 TV or setup your own masking for a projection TV and recreate the intended theatrical aspect ratio, but why bother? 1) This can only be done if the entire movie is transferred using 100 percent of the negative, and 2) if a widescreen edition exists on tape, LaserDisc or DVD, then why not just start with that? This way, the quality-conscious viewer doesn’t need to worry about whether or not they are seeing the movie properly. The reviewers who write for The LaserDisc/DVD Newsletter, a monthly home theatre publication, will sometimes compare full screen and widescreen editions of the same movie in their reviews and will state whether there is or isn’t the presence of additional image height but will rarely comment on this in the context of original image composition. I don’t know of any other sources that critically analyze this situation. As for Widescreen Review’s take on this matter, we are only interested in reviewing those titles issued in their original intended theatrical ratio (for those movies made within the widescreen era, 1953-present). We do not dismiss all of the 1.33:1 editions as being “pan-and-scan,” but rather, dismiss them because whether they have been cropped horizontally or feature “extra” image vertically, neither version accurately reproduces the original intended presentation. I find it amusing that many viewers will spend the time investigating and comparing two editions (when two editions are available) just to decide which one they really want to watch. Why not just start with the original theatrical version and not worry about which version is “better?” Many people are unfortunately under the belief that seeing more image is always better. This is where using the term “full aspect ratio” becomes misleading. One person may take this to mean EVERYTHING seen in a proper theatrical presentation. Someone else may take it to mean EVERYTHING on the negative. The truth is, seeing more WIDTH is better but seeing more HEIGHT is not because it CHANGES the original composition of the shots in the movie. Likewise, reducing (cropping) the width of an image changes the composition of the shots. Granted, most movies composed for 1.85:1 but transferred 1.33:1 with the “extra” height do look okay most of the time and are often quite tolerable in that form. BUT, I would rather just watch the matted 1.85:1 version and not bother because you never know if EVERY SINGLE SHOT has been transferred with the “extra” height intact. If any production equipment was photographed in the “TV Safe” area, most telecine colorists will gently zoom in and crop or tilt down for that particular shot. Same goes for the effects sequences that may have been originated in other film formats, as you mentioned. This situation with visual effects was a major omission in Richard Travis’ otherwise excellent six-part series WSR recently published. Also, if too much “dead space” is visible because of the absence of a matte, then close-ups may no longer appear to be close-ups and might look like medium shots, which isn’t what the filmmakers intended. As you can see, any of these types of subtle changes in the transfer will not allow viewers to accurately reproduce them if they are artificially attempting to recreate the 1.85:1 aspect ratio. These shots will be further cropped with such attempts. This situation is further complicated with the growing number of productions shooting in “Super 35” in which the images are composed for 2.35:1 but captured in 1.33:1. As you can tell, there is an “extra” 45 percent of imagery in the vertical plane on the negative available for a video transfer but if the shots were originally composed in 2.35:1, should the “extra” 45 percent be seen? So in the end, the answer to your question is that the terms on the jackets don’t really mean much of anything. If a jacket claims to be a “widescreen” edition, then expect a “matte” of some sort to be present. And even then, this does not guarantee the “correct” theatrical image will be present (but that’s another story entirely). If it claims anything other than widescreen, or doesn’t claim anything at all, then expect no matte but don’t necessarily assume that more or less imagery will be seen when compared to the widescreen edition. One fairly easy rule to go by: If a movie was made prior to 1953/1954 (up to the late-1950s for countries other than the U.S.), then full screen is usually the composition and video presentation aspect ratios correspond. After those years, expect modification of some type to be present. Ask yourself which is better for you, or more specifically, which is less annoying: the presence of black mattes along with a smaller overall image OR what appears to be a larger image with the possibility that some part of the image may be missing.
You can E-mail Widescreen Review @ mailto:editorgary@widescreenreview.com