Formatting

Video formatting: pan and scan & open matte vs. original ratio

Translation from the Portuguese version - sorry for the bad grammar and/or spelling

Standard (non-scope) Spherical lenses are used. The most common aspect ratio is 1.85:1
Soft matte: the negative is exposed in all of its height; the format is defined in the projection booth or during the video transfer. Formatting normally means "matte" removal, making the image higher, but it also can imply cropping on the sides, depending on the characteristics of each shot and the choice of the telecine operator. See comparisons.	Hard matte: black bands of variable size cover the negative above and below. Since there's no more image available, formatting means some cropping on the sides (up to aprox. 28%). This might be a central extraction (the most common) or a selection from one of the sides, according to the operator's preferences. See comparisons.

Scope Anamorphic lenses are used (Panavision and others) or spherical (Super35 process) to attain wide screen 2.39:1 (normally referred to as 2.35:1 or 2.40:1)
Super35: the scope ratio is extracted from part of the negative. There's extra image to use on a 4:3 version. The normal fullscreen shot would present more image on the lower part of the frame, or above and below, according to the process used for cinema composition, with some cropping on the sides. Some shots, especially of digital visual effects are composed to a ratio near the projection format, so normal panning and scanning might be used. See comparisons.	Anamorphic: the scope ratio is achieved by the use of an anamorphic lens, which compresses the image horizontally on the negative. A lens with the reverse effect is used during projection. All the negative is used, hence there's no extra image. Formatting to fit a 4:3 screen always means the cropping of more than 43% of the cinema frame. See comparisons.

Standard

Soft matte

ŤEvil Dead II: Dead by Dawnť


Here we have only redundant image above and below. On a 4:3 TV the image is not zoomed, so the only reason for formatting would be the "confusion" with black bars.


This is a slightly different case: even though the image is dark, the fullscreen version shows the arm that controls the fake torso (below right). (This is probably unnoticeable after overscanning).


Here we got "more image" but we also get to see that the "monster" only exists from above the chest!


We can see the arm of the "fake shemp" operator on both versions, but on the unmatted image we get to see the white sleeve of his shirt.

ŤLa Cité des Enfants Perdusť


Shots with digital effects are normally created on a ratio similar to the intended projection format. In this case there's no image to add. On the other hand, this film appears to have been shot totally hard matted, probably at 1.66:1 (though the projection ratio is 1.85:1).


A film in this aspect ratio will not show great losses, but the composition is always rendered unbalanced.


An animated film is drawn to the projection format, hence there's no left overs, above and below, like with a live action film. Digital animation is the same, but in both cases it's common - especially with Hollywood films - to use a ratio slightly higher (probably 1.75:1). This means that the side cropping is slightly decreased by the use of a bit of extra image, above and below.


Like you can see from this example, even minor cropping can destroy a composition.


Here, I do believe that the telecine operator considered image on the sides to be "dead space" and decided to crop the actors instead of using more image above and below.


For the reasons previously mentioned digital FX shots imply noticeable cropping. This varies according to the screen area used by the digital composition and to the position of the actors on the frame.


The actors are almost whole, but the composition suffers, with the bullet's trails being cropped.


With TV overscan you won't even see Keanu Reeves' nose.


Here you don't gain anything. In this shot the digital background was probably created on a 2.35:1 ratio (or the telecine person was in a hurry).

Since there's no extra image, a "real" scope film always suffers a lot. The theory that directors nowadays don't use the whole scope frame is more of a mantra used by people that see a lot of TV (or burn a lot of money on pan and scanned videos) than anything else. It's true that some films are not very well composed, but you can only judge that by looking at them, not at a 4:3 extraction. Just don't believe on something just because someone said it.


All two shots are converted into one shots. Sometimes the scanner is dragged from one side of the screen to the other, trying to frame the actor speaking. In this case, the shot was broken in two: you never see Embeth Davidtz when Denzel Washington is speaking or the other way round.


This is a very tense scene. But on the 4:3 version we're forced to look at the assailant's lips (brrr) and we don't even see the actress' frightened face!


This is almost funny: we don't see the man hitting a car on the left or the other car moving on the right. The few people that prefer a fullscreen and spend money on digital sound systems probably also don't care about the way the sound is unbalanced. The sound effect appears near the screen centre but they should hear it from the extreme left, off screen, if the sound would also be "formatted".


Likewise.


A very nice view.