Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

matthew.kleinmann

Members
  • Content Count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About matthew.kleinmann

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. Oh No! He's back! I should clarify a couple of things. One of them is that I like the fact that TCM as much as possible does present movies in their original formats as much as they can. Now that we have tee vees that can deal with it at least semi sanely it is great. But still recall that when they did the evil pan and scan it was not evil. Rather than seeing two horses in Ben Hur you would have seen none unless you were 2 feet from your screen and squinting. Also, while the directors poke at it now, I wonder how they would have felt if their films never hit TV because of their format and fell from the theater to obscurity. I suspect that panning and scanning kept a lot of actors and directors in some royalties for a good number of decades. As far as the classic TV shows, that is a great point about making the actors look fatter to match the way people look today. I never thought of that, but it is a great point. BTW, on a totally different note, the TCM auction that I can not afford the catalog for no less any of the pieces from gave me a great idea. For thanksgiving I want to capture the label off of can of soylent green and make a few cans of my own. I am not quite sure what cans to use though. Dog food or canned spinach... I think it would be a riot to have a few cans discreetly placed in the cupboard though. See if anybody notices...
  2. The pan and scan short was interesting the very first time I saw it, but it grows old fast, and they seem to have left out one very very important piece of information. Panning and scanning was downright necessary. Say what? Yup, it was just shy of a necessity. Here is the deal. I have a larger sized consumer plasma TV. I think it is a 60". It has a native 16:9 or very close to it, aspect ratio. Even with this wide screen aspect ratio, on the extreme aspect ratio film formats, CinemaScope for example, I will have a black bar that is a good 7" wide at the top and bottom of my screen. I would guess that about 2/5ths of my screen is letterboxed out. Now, think about the heyday of when they did the panning and scanning. You sat in front of a whopping 27" CRT screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio. Now think about what the letterboxing and overall picture size would be? My guess is that you would wind up with about a 2" tall scrip of video across the center of a black screen. Not real watchable. I also get a chuckle out of the whole redirecting the movie. In fact it has become a running joke in the house. Every time my wife gets up and blocks part of the screen, she is re-directing the movie. Ditto with the dogs barking. Let's not even get into the doorbell ringing or my nasty habit of playing on the computer when I really don't like a movie all that much. What I would like to know is how do you get paid for all this re-directing labor I have been doing all these years for for free? And the last comment is the film snobness. I have seen that clip many many times and I have yet to hear any mention of the over scan they use on classic TV programs so they fill the entire width of your new 16:9 aspect ratio screens. They are re directing every tv show ever made from the start of TV until what, 2010? I don't hear them crying about that.
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...