MovieChat Forums > Suburbia (1984) Discussion > New Shout factory dvd looks great but no...

New Shout factory dvd looks great but not true widescreen

posted 15 years ago by mazinz
9 replies | jump to latest

for those that care, the newest release of this from Sony/Shout factory looks nice and has an overall improved transfer than previous dvd versions, but do not let the widescreen info fool you. The film was shot full frame open matte.

Many of us had hoped that perhaps a true widescreen ratio was used, but this is not the case. I compared the pic with the first dvd release. It is just fake matted to give the illusion of a widescreen picture (like many films are these days).

so do not let the "animorphic widescreen" statement on the front suck you in. It really should say "presented in a matted widescreen format" (like Warner Bros usually mentions on some of their releases).

I would have loved to see some nicer (or really any) bonus features (like more footage from the live shows) though.

Still, as I mentioned it does look better than any previous edition and the newer commentary should be worth it alone, so pick this up as its probably the best version we are ever going to have-

99% of you people send me PM's with questions and never bother to check that I replied to them.

[–] IHaveAHugePenis 15 years ago

The new Shout Factory release IS indeed anamorphic widescreen, and a beautiful transfer that preserves the correct and intended wide aspect ratio. The release is perfect and a massive improvement over the previous editions.

The OP here is mistaken and misinformed.

[–] mazinz 15 years ago

I never said it was not anamorphic widescreen. You need to understand that their is a difference between a film shot in a TRUE widescreen ratio and a film shot in a 4:3 full frame (open matte) ratio

Suburbia is not a true widescreen movie but WAS shot full frame open matte.

Therefore stating that it is widescreen really is not exactly true. If they stated that the film was MATTED to a widescreen ratio (warner bros does this on their packages) that would be telling the truth

Matting is taking the full frame image and adding black bars to the top and bottom to give the illusion of it being in another ratio. In the end though sometimes this is the dir's intention (and others it is the studios choice for whatever film they are releasing without dir input), you just lose more image

ANAMORPHIC is just a process of making those black bars disappear when playing it on a 16x9/HD,etc television

In the case of Suburbia (and even on the first dvd release which was the full frame open matte) It was never really given if it was shot to be matted later on or if she shot it as full frame figuring the video route it would probably do better in and the need to fill the 4:3 tv screen. By doing it that way the pan/scan process which destroys films would be avoided

99% of you people send me PM's with questions and never bother to check that I replied to them.

[–] The Hoyk 15 years ago

For what it's worth, both of you are correct.

Up until the advent of widescreen TV, most films would be shot with the intention of projecting them 1.85 in theatres, but using the entire 1.33 area of the frame for later TV broadcast. Sometimes, this means that you see boom mics, lighting cables, incorrect shoes...stuff that would be cropped out when projected in the theatre by an aperture plate. Smart filmmakers therefore shoot a protected 1.33, where all the action is still in the 1.85 center, but the dead space top and bottom doesn't have anything that will distract from the shot when you see it opened up on TV.

SUBURBIA was intended for 1.85 projection in theatres, and Spheeris composed the shots so that all the important detail would be in that frame. However, she also knew that (at the time), it would be seen by more people on TV full frame 1.33, so the area was protected. In effect, this DVD is showing the first instance of what Spheeris would have intended for you to see if you went to the cinema to watch it; whatever dead space has been cropped out is exactly that, nothing that matters.

[–] mazinz 15 years ago

The main issue I have with matted films is that not all of them should be the 1:85:1. The original (1970's)Black Christmas is a perfect example of over matting. The film was shot full frame, the 2nd dvd release used a 1:77:1 and the director approved of this (critical mass dvd). However Warner bros who also released the laserdisc and the newer (again) dvd for the 70's version uses a highly over matted 1:85:1. Likewise the film return of the living dead had a similar story. The director preferred and wanted a 1:75/1:77 but the studio used 1:85 instead.

Some films were never meant to be matted (dolls, 1980's horror). MGM gave use both full and matted on one disc. It is so overmatted (1:85) that most characters heads and uppers are cut off by the bars

SO yes I do understand films being shot to be matted later and that the important subject is still in the center. However with many cases concerning home releases these days they are doing it for the sake of doing it and so people who do not understand any of this will not see a window boxed picture on their new tv and cry about it

In the case of Suburbia you can see it tightens up the picture, but for some films such as this I still prefer the open matte

99% of you people send me PM's with questions and never bother to check that I replied to them.

[–] IHaveAHugePenis 15 years ago

You are a bit confused about terminology here. The term anamorphic refers to a cinematographic process as well as a DVD transfer process. In the traditional sense, anamorphism is when a film is shot through a lense which squeezes the image in horizontally, to fit a wider frame (2.35:1), onto a standard celluloid strip (1.33:1).

Many films in the 80s, as the other poster mentioned, were shot with standard lenses, but matted in camera and playback, but simultaneously "safety" framed to be broadcast on television's native 1.33:1 ratio. I am pretty sure Kubrick was one of if not the first to protect himself from having his films butchered on TV in the Pan and Scan process (though clearly inserting commercial breaks and editing films for another medium is entirely ruinous to the film medium to begin with, and it is no longer a film anyway). But these films were intended to be matted theatrically, and officially, at 1.85, 1.77, or 1.66 to 1.

The problem is, people seem to incorrectly feel like they are missing picture when a frame is matted, but that framing is the intended composition of the director. I also hear complaints of widescreen being projected on standard frame sets, and people even more frequently, and equally incorrectly, feel like that empty space is "missing picture image".

When a film is intended to be framed in 1.33:1, a widescreen display unit will project it PILLARboxed, with vertical black bars at the sides, just as widescreen films will appear LETTERboxed on standard frame TVs, with horizontal black bars at the top and bottom as described above. Of course, most wide TVs are 16:9, so even proper anamorphic transfers of films, unless they are 1.66:1, will not come close to filling the display area, which is a compromise to reasonably accomodate 1.33 material, as there is about 60 years of films before widescreen was ever used.

So you see, complaining about matted films not being released open matte, is a bit like prefering anamorphic films to be released in Pan and Scan, which is an unholy abomination to be sure, and I believe the reason matting was devised to begin with.

When you complain that a DVD is not anamorphic, that's another thing entirely. An anmorphic disc is just programmed to meet the vertical edges of the display without being manipulated. You are stating that the image is widescreen but WINDOWboxed, with a black void surrounding the entire picture (unless you use the zoom function on your display or player), which is plainly wrong. The DVD is in fact an anamorphic transfer for a correctly matted 1.85:1 widescreen film.

[–] mazinz 15 years ago

IHaveAHugePenis wrote

So you see, complaining about matted films not being released open matte, is a bit like prefering anamorphic films to be released in Pan and Scan, which is an unholy abomination to be sure, and I believe the reason matting was devised to begin with.

When you complain that a DVD is not anamorphic, that's another thing entirely. You are stating that the image is widescreen but windowboxed, with a black void surrounding the entire picture (unless you use the zoom function on your display or player), which is plainly wrong. The DVD is in fact an anamorphic transfer for a correctly matted 1.85:1 widescreen film.

You are mixing some things up. The FIRST dvd release (on the New Concorde label which was later ported again to the then Buena Vista label) was released in the full frame open matte format. Therefore I was not stating that as you said the "film was widescreen but window boxed". You mixed up the comments for this new release with ones for the previous edition. In fact I never stated that the new dvd release was NOT anamorphic, but rather that it was not exactly shot in a true widescreen ratio

I am also aware how widescreen tv's will project material with 2:35:1, 1:33, etc ratios ( I had to help explain this to a customer at a retail store because the sales rep had no idea what the hell window (pillar) boxed was. The guy looking for a new tv was in his late 60's and was trying to explain to the sales rep that many of the older films he watched had the borders on all 4 sides when shown on the newer televisions).

I understand the proces of matting and the reasons for it (though if I am not mistaken Kubrick did shoot 2001 in scope)as well as shooting it essentially matted in camera (most of the 1990's Godzilla films were this way). I am also aware that it covers up space we sometimes are not supposed to see due to film crew or equipment (Batman Returns and Pee Wee's Big Adventure had two effects ruined because of the open matte on video)

One of my problems with matting is if it is matted to some other ratio other than what the director intended (In one of my previous postings I mention this)

I do disagree with your extreme analogy of

complaining about matted films not being released open matte, is a bit like prefering anamorphic films to be released in Pan and Scan, which is an unholy abomination to be sure, and I believe the reason matting was devised to begin with.

I think that is taking it too far, though I will agree that the matte format was created to eliminate pan/scan process which truly destroys a film

As with Suburbia yes the dvd is anamoprhic but really it is not truly a widescreen film. It was shot full frame open matte (and so far this assumes to be true) to be matted later to a 1:85:1 ratio. However it was not shot in a true 1:85:1 ratio to begin with, but rather made to emulate one. So in this respect using the term widescreen is not exactly proper (whereas using the term matted widescreen would have been).

Even with the old dvd and vhs tapes you still have a strong focus on what the director wanted you to see and you can easily focus in on this (in this film's case the extra top and bottom really is not dead space and does show more of the TR kids or events at the show). I would be more undertanding if this was shot in scope (or even super 35), or even the larger lens for a real 1:85:1. However since it was not and the fact that no crew or extra equipement material is present or that it really has not ruined any shots by the open matte process, I still prefer full frame open matte version, but I do notice the nice improved picture with the new anamorphic matted widescreen version

If you want to get anal about it, technically dead space or not if you matte a full frame picture for whatever intended ratio or dir vision you still are losing picture period. As previously mentioned I do understand the reaon for matting, however for my own opinion I do not like it in this film's case

99% of you people send me PM's with questions and never bother to check that I replied to them.

[–] peeptoad13 14 years ago

Thanks for the info... I wasn't crazy about the commentary on the first release. How does it differ on the new one?

[–] classOFfitness 14 years ago

'new concorde' made this flim, which is owned by rob corman or something like that.

[–] RobSac 12 years ago

I noticed that the opening credits don't fit on the screen. New something was up there. I have a WS t.v. and my DVD is set to WS mode. Everything should appear fine.