The previous response was correct. Not all widescreen movies are shot with anamorphic (genuine widescreen) lenses (e.g. Panavision or CinemaScope) and subsequently shown on screens with a wide 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Many modern movies use a less rectangular format, and utilize either 'soft' mattes or 'hard' mattes to achieve that shape. When a film used 'soft' mattes, the top and bottom of image originally visible on the film frame are covered up in order to achieve a 'wider' (1.85:1 to 2.35:1) aspect ratio for that motion picture's initial theatrical release. Sometimes these mattes are utilized right in the 'gate' of the projector at your local Cineplex. Then, when that same film comes out on TV later on (or a full-frame DVD), those top-n-bottom mattes are 'removed' in the film-to-video transfer process, creating a 'taller' (but not wider!) image and thus a 1.33:1 aspect ratio closer to the shape of a TV screen. However, this altered ratio is a compromise at best, and often a bad one, because sometimes parts of the frame which were not intended to be seen (e.g.: boom mikes at the top; camera dolly tracks at the bottom; etc) are visible because they are no longer covered up by those black mattes. Tim Burton's releases are infamous for these post-production problems (e.g. 'Edward Scissorhands' and 'Pee-Wee's Big Adventure'). A genuine widescreen DVD should accurately depict the original theatrical aspect ratio, even if those mattes must be retained. In any case, widescreen (or letterboxed) **IS** the way to go. I hope this clears up this confusion for everybody!
reply
share