Widescreen vs Full-Frame

Okay, after going back and forth with Harlan Lebo about how The Godfather should be shown, I did a side-by-side comparison. Read what he has to say, see my 2 cents, then look at them side-by-side.

What do you think?

[b]The Godfather - Widescreen vs Full-Frame[/b]

JG

Nice job of the side by side comparison, Geoff!

My vote goes for the DVD.....(not counting the clearer image) it gives you a fuller image of the background and lighting, things which add to the mood of the scene.

I hate seeing Tom Hagens head almost cut off so Im going with the full frame.

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: MobbingForMoney ]

I'm going to have to go with Widescreen.

I prefer seeing it as the director intended it to be seen.

JGeoff, you talk with Harlan Lebo? I'm impressed. Are you big time?

It's just a weird case, because Gordon Willis shot it full-frame, the way he wanted it. But then it was shown in theaters widescreen (obviously, it's the dimensions of the big screen). Then it was released on video full-frame, the way he wanted it and shot it. Then they came out with widescreen videos a few years ago. And now, the DVD is widescreen-only. Oy. I guess one isn't necessarily any "better" than the other -- they're just a different. But I hope Paramount releases a full-frame version some day; for ol' times' sake



I'm big time in a small potatoes way

JG

hey, next time ya talk to him, tell 'im I love his book.

It's a tradeoff. Every detail in the Saga is worthwhile. You get to see more details horizontally in widescreen, but more at the top and bottom the other way. Case in point: I love catching anomalies. One of my faves is that when Michael, at the beginning of the Havana scene, is driven to his meeting with Batista, you see his bodyguard roll up the rear window of his '57 Mercury to keep out the kids who are selling newspapers. In a later scene, when the car stops because the military are making an arrest, the camera zeroes in on the driver, and you can see power window controls on his door panel. Those got cut off in the widescreen version. Peccato!

some questions....

why would anyone release a dvd that was modified from the original??? whether the original is shot in widescreen or 4:3 AR, it should remain as it was shot....isn't that one of the reasons that we why we bought dvds in the first place, because video companies were bastardizing the director's vision on VHS??
why would willis shoot the film in a format that was then later going to be modified to fit the theater screen??
now, we have a situation where we can't see the entire film in either case...either the sides or the top is cut off.....what kind of insane, bizarro world is this???

i'm so gald to find out that if i want to see my favorite film in it's entirety, i'll have to watch it twice....IN TWO DIFFERENT FORMATS!!!!!


[ November 06, 2001: Message edited by: marlon orange ]

I have to go with widescreen, from east to west you can see more of the picture.

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: KayVoy ]

I like whichever format shows the most stuff...I guess in this case it would be full screen.

This gets me a little nervous people. Why would anyone want to watch the fullframe-version when you can see much more in the widescreen version(which was the one that was showed in cinemas orgininally)? Stanley Kubricks last three films may be exceptions, but there he had stated that he wanted the films open-matte.

I think that the whole point of the argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the full frame version does show you more. The widescreen version is what was shown in the theaters, but the full frame version actually had extra picture on the top and the bottom of what was seen in theaters.

In most cases, full frame is created by chopping the sides off of the widescreen version. But in this case, the widescreen version is the version that shows less. I know that some movies are shot like this, so when they go to VHS or are shown on TV, they actually see more of the picture than they would have seen in the theater.

I don't get it. We're talking home-viewing here: the widescreen shows more to the left and right, and the standard shows more to the top and bottom. Comparing the pictures on the link in my first post, which do you prefer? Neither version shows "everything".

I've always been torn between widescreen vs standard in all movies. I have a 36" TV and always buy widescreen because it's big enough for me, but when I see something in standard TV dimensions, the 36" makes it larger than life - and it's awesome. I accidently got the full-frame version of Jurrasic Park and was in awe, but I still know that I'm missing a lot without the widescreen.

The Godfather just complicates the issue as it wasn't shot in standard widescreen... confusing stuff

JG

36" TV, wow. Since i've got this latest job, i've been considering getting a larger TV. I've only got a 14" in my bedroom (TV that is) I was thinking about a 28" because that would be huge, but 36" would scare the life out of me with some films.

Boo,as "The Godfather man" the only movie you should watch is well...The Godfather movies.

I've gone back and forth with the DVD widescreen version of the Saga and the 25th Anniversary full screen VHS set, and there's not a lot of detail lost or gained one way or the other, IMHOP. BUT...there's a dramatic difference in another movie whose enjoyment benefits from the number and quality of details: Blade Runner. The DVD has full on one side, wide on the other. In the wide version, when Dek visits the Asian market to get the snakescale verified, you see a pipe-smoking Asian woman on the right that you don't see in the wide version. A few seconds later, when Dek is dodging a couple of guys leading an ostrich, you see a Shetland pony on the left that's not visible in the full version. In the scene where he goes to J.D. Sebastian's apartment for his fateful meeting with Pris and Roy, you see a fancy, onion-style balustrade for the Bradbury Apartments on the left . But when he crosses the street, you can't read the marquee of the "Million Dollar Movie." In the full version, you can easily see that it says, "Los Mimilocos Mazacotey y Orquestra." You can also see that one of the cars that zips by behind him is a '59 Cad, not a '59 Imperial as I thought when watching the wide version.

Well, if FFC had preferred fullframe, I think that is what we had seen on the DVD:s. If it is what the director prefers, I prefer it.
The Godfather films were made in 1,78:1 so the difference between that and fullframe isn`t that big, but still I wouldn`t want anything else than the widescreen version of the films.
So how do you know that the fullframe-versions are not pan & scanned? I`m not trying to put on a von-oben attitude, I`m merely wondering.

I got the GF DVD when it came out, like everbody else here. I subsequently lent them to a friend of mine. On his player, they were widescreen, on mine it wasn't.

Can somebody please help me? I also have the tapes and it's weird seeing Brando's and Pacino's faces, et al., artificially elongated.

Is it just a setting problem? If so, then this whole topic is moot, b/c you can just switch b/w widescreen and "normal."

Hi!

I heard somewhere (Amazon?) that the image translation was quite poor for the first two movies, at least in the PAL version. But this is not what's stopping my greedy hand.

From what you guys are telling here I deduce that my very first DVD purchase will wait until they get it right: that is, full image as *filmed*, cut to the screen size according to the latter at the time of *viewing*.

Otherwise, it's a shitty DVD standard, that's it. I don't know what kind of hardware they've been targeting back then, but if you can unpack MPEG-2 on the fly, you can surely cut and pane (or however it's called) for the remaining 2 pc.

Adding appropriate editing info for the most common formats (4:3, 16:9, and perhaps a couple of others) would be no big deal. I bet the real game here is to sell as many different versions as possible with the time. Thanks, not for me.

Best regards.

Alexander

well to me they both look allright,but maybe because they were trying to have it work for both full and unmatted they made a film whos framing
isn't the greatest I seen,

One most take into count the fact that they didn't
really use Welles-like camera angels,so that effects the design of the frame too.

I was brought up on VHS everyone here probly was. So when DVD came out i bought bought some movies and at first i was disapointed cause I could not see the top of anything,but you just get use to it i guess. To answear your qwestion i gotta go with full screen.

DonPalentino...

With widescreen you don't lose any of the picture, you GAIN picture. Those "black bars" you see when watching a widescreen movie on a regular TV aren't there to block something off, they're just there because widescreen pictures are more rectangular and your TV set is closer to square. You retain all vertical resolution and gain more on the horizontal.

Down with VHS!

ok thats a good point,Im not a fan of VHS because
#1 the movie it self is big and fat takes up to much room. DVD is nice and it doest take alot of room.
#2 if you wanna go out and buy a old movie that came out in like the 70's or 80's you can tell.Some of it is fuzzy and ugly lookin'.DVD is not like that look at the godfather movies.
#3 DVD is a thing of the future.VHS is not so ya better get DVD.

I have now studied some documents and it seems that the photographer intended the films to be in 1,33:1 and it was matted to 1,78:1 in cinemas. As I said before, I think FFC preferred widescreen, otherwise we wouldn`t see it at this edition. But it would have been nice with fullframe, I agree, but think of the size of it all! They have to gives us at least two extra discs! And had the films not been released in 1,78:1, believe me, most movie fans would have been terribly disappointed.

If it is what the director prefers, I prefer it!(with the exception of two certain mr Lucas and Spielberg!)

Oh and about Blade Runner: That movie was shot in 2,35:1 (super-widescreen), not matted to it later. It is supposed to be seen in that format! Make no mistake, it affects your judgement !

to go against my better judgement i like the widescreen better, its probably because i always watch it with subtitles so i never miss what their saying

What does widescreen have to do with subtitles?

I usually go for the wide screen if it's available. I just like the aspect of the characters, and the faces don't appear squashy like they sometimes otherwise do.


- Fredo

Hi!



Although you're right in general, in this particular case you appear to be wrong: the GF as seen in this funny screwed up DVD widescreen format did lose a lot from above and below in favour of the less relevant stuff sideways (see the comparison at JG's page).

As said before, I'll wait until they get it right, and buy the whole digital pipeline in one go (by then, by the way, it'll be much more affordable and of much higher quality). For now, I don't want to be their white mouse: down with this half-baked DVD format!

Best regards.

Alexander

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Alexander Supalov ]

ill go for widesreen. . . . . . a man who doesnt spend time with the family can never be a real man- Don Vito Corleone

Just because a film was shot in 1.33:1 and was later matted down to 1.85:1, it doesn't mean that the 1.33:1 ratio is better. If FFC, or any other director, really wanted the movie to be 1.33:1, then that's how he would have shown it in the theaters at that ratio.

The reason that many directors shoot in 1.33:1 and then matte it for the theaters is to prepare for eventual release on video and on television. So although what is above and below the widescreen version isn't really important, they'll uncover it when they need to format it for regular TV sets.

I vote widescreen. It's like being in the theater at your own home.

First, just a few small points/corrections.

The film (and a majority of films made since the mid-1950s)was shot for 1.85:1 (not 1.78:1) 1.78:1 is the ratio of a Widescreen-TV.

The ratio of the 'uncut' picture was (I think) 1.37:1 (most TVs use a ratio of 1.33:1) This is the same ratio used to shoot just about every movie since the 1930s.

In fact, most 1.85:1 films are shot this way (evidently, the shape of the 35mm film or the camera or some such thing, means that the image is invariably that 1.37:1 ratio.) However, some films use "hard matte" (which means blocking the top & bottom of the image from ever reaching the film,) while others (like The Godfather) use soft-matte (which means removing the top & bottom in post-production.

As to the question of which I think is better, I'd go with the widescreen. In the side-by-side comparison, I noticed especially that we see alot more of the ceiling in the Godfather's office, makes the place look less 'cosy' than the 1:85.1 version, my point being that added picture often detracts from the effect of a shot. Close-ups become mid-shots and such.

Now, I'm guessing that when the cinematographer said he composed the film to work in both formats, he means he composed each shot for the 1.85:1 format, but still made sure that it was perfectly watchable in the 1.33:1
(ie, made sure there were no boom-mikes on-screen and such. Many films didn't take this sort of thing into account, in fact the viewfinder on some of these cameras didn't even show outside the 1.85:1 area.))

i just like the dvd version because it pickes up more color than the VHS version

In some cases I would like widescreen but I would have to go with fullscreen.

Turbull...is there a DVD widescreen version of the Saga?

BTW After watching the full screen versions many many times I love the widescreen because it's just plain old great fun which is what it's really all about anyway, and little deails can be seen for the 1st time.

PS (Sorry for off topic) Is the only way to get the Saga taping it from TV?

i agree with Blake here. at first i thought it has a lot of differences but up to now i cant see it. we were always told that a certain percent of the scene was cut off on both sides but IMHO there are no difference since i compare the widescreen to the fullframe of the same title. and if your watching a widescreen, from 20 to almost 50 percent of the top and bottom side of your TV are useless. all you see are black bars!

GoodFella

Hi,
Widescreen is the best way to view any film as long as it isn't fake.

Paul

I'm for widescreen all the way. I can't stand full screen. Widescreen allows you to see things that you haven't seen before (pick up a movie like Star Trek II and you'll see why).

go to www.widescreen.org to educate yourself about widescreen

CLICK ME!

what is "open-matte" mean? i'm curious to learn film terminology. thanks.