Hi everybody,

First I give my aopologies for My very bad english, that's done O.K .

In fact i'm agree with Rifter who writte  corect the format in Pan and scan, i'm sorry but i canot translate the folowing, my job where projectionist, or in french ( Oppérateur de cinéma) like i told you i Canot translate.

The format pan and scan are pefectly corect, since  the  lence for this film was a little special call in belgium or in french Panoramic lence.

The film where formated for the television 4/3 , this is a pitty and horrible image, When I see a film pan and scan I do not need noting to see that it where formated , even the tittle, this film as been formated to fit you screen, i see it directly. That 's a professional deviation, of the eyes from an old projectionist. At this time the format 1.37:1 slightly anamophosed  where titlle full screen, 1.33:1
And abanoned.

Before the first film called cinemascope picture as I know " The Robe " they where make others test for wide the image on the screen, but unfortunaly there is not much information about that.

But If yiu take a patience to looking  easy the movie on the DVD " Bend of The River " you will see perfectly that this film as been formated for the télelevision 4/3.

I dont care wat anybody said, the only thing I can said that's was my Job, Im good remember this picture, and this films of course I dont remember the Ratio , but this picture as been formated.

But if like IMDB said , and  not sure this are exactly  corect, the ratio are 1.37.1 and the proffesssional of DVD said Full Screen 1.33:1  and with a text to be told to the people that the pictures as been formated that's an evidence and a logical , this film as been formated.   

Regards

Runmovies.

So, Rifter, are you saying that all the movies originally shot in Academy ratio of 1.37:1, but shown as 1.33:1 on DVD should be changed to Pan & Scan? Or, are you saying that only those 1.37:1 movies containing the "formatted to fit your screen" statement should be changed to Pan & Scan?

Either way, I don't think we should be listing any Academy Ratio films as Pan and Scan. The Pan and Scan term is for widescreen movies altered to 1.33:1. 1.37:1 is not widescreen. No where on the DVD does it say this film is Pan and Scan. And, no where in the rules does it say that "formatted to fit your screen" equals Pan and Scan. The information from the back cover of the DVD lists it as Full Frame not Pan and Scan. Therefore, I am asking you to withdraw this "correction".

Quoting obelisk:

Quote:
So, Rifter, are you saying that all the movies originally shot in Academy ratio of 1.37:1, but shown as 1.33:1 on DVD should be changed to Pan & Scan? Or, are you saying that only those 1.37:1 movies containing the "formatted to fit your screen" statement should be changed to Pan & Scan?

Either way, I don't think we should be listing any Academy Ratio films as Pan and Scan. The Pan and Scan term is for widescreen movies altered to 1.33:1. 1.37:1 is not widescreen. No where on the DVD does it say this film is Pan and Scan. And, no where in the rules does it say that "formatted to fit your screen" equals Pan and Scan. The information from the back cover of the DVD lists it as Full Frame not Pan and Scan. Therefore, I am asking you to withdraw this "correction".

And I'm telling you that it isn't correct to call it simply Full Screen either.  So, which way do you want me to lie?  The statement says the format was changed.  That's enough to tell me that I can't use Full Screen.  It isn't Widescreen either, so what's left?  Pan & Scan.  That's as close as you can get to being correct.  And it isn't about changing every damn film, it's about THIS one.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Was "The Good German" like this too?  I seem to recall that getting a theatrical academy ratio as well.  How did we deal with that one?

I wouldn't know.  I don't have that movie.  The key on this one is the message at the start of the movie. That clearly and unequivocally forces the issue that the format was changed, therefore it cannot be plain full screen.

We also agreed to use P&S for situations where the alteration went vertically and not horizontally like widescreen does so that we only had to deal with two methods.  I believe the gist of it was that it wasn't worth the effort in programming to add a third term for just a few movies when P&S would work just as well.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
I've a good illustration of the difference between widescreen and Pan&scan. I made a comparison between two editions of McLintock!, one in widescreen, one in P&S, taking screencaps at the same moments in the film.

McLintock!

We all know what the difference is.  That isn't the issue.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
That can be documented easily at TCMDB.COM

I thought it was forbidden to refer to a third party database...

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
That can be documented easily at TCMDB.COM

I thought it was forbidden to refer to a third party database...

Only if it's IMDB according to John, but then again TCMDB.COM is still only a third party database...so.

Steve

actually it doesn't say to use a 3rd party database... it doesn't specify at all... it actually says...

Rules Quote:

Quote:
If an actor is credited by name but does not have an associated role, you may use another source to identify the role. In each case, list Actor’s names and roles (when given) exactly as they are in the credits and in exactly the same order credited.

It just says you may use another source... not that the source can be a third party database.