Monday, August 17, 2009

The return of Pan-N-Scan

I thought we got rid of this now that most people have widescreen HDTVs? [Link]
For half a century filmmakers have watched, helplessly, as their films were recomposed for the 4:3 format of television. A fortunate few were able to prevent their works from being altered, and the birth of channels like TCM, IFC, and Sundance provided a small, safe haven for old and new films alike, but the general rule was everything got its limbs severed to fit into the box.
Like many format fiends, I saw the advent of hi-def broadcast TV as the Holy Grail. Finally, the larger screens, greater detail, and more film-friendly 16:9 ratio would mean all films could live on forever with their extremities intact. Meet Steven Soderbergh, the DGA’s reigning Pollyanna.
Since the 16:9 image is now the shape of television, only one format remains to distinguish television from the movies: the 2.40:1 aspect ratio. Because of that, I now believe shape matters more than size, and I say that knowing full well the number of jokes I just unleashed.
Television operators, the people who buy and produce things for people to watch on TV, are taking the position that films photographed in the 2.40:1 ratio should be blown up or chopped up to fit a 16:9 (1.78:1) ratio. They are taking the position that the viewers of television do not like watching 2.40 films letterboxed to fit their 16:9 screens, and that a film insisting on this is worth significantly less—or even nothing—to them. They are taking the position that no one will dare challenge them and risk losing revenue. The logic used to make you, the filmmaker, conform to this belief makes a pretzel look like a ruler: you are told you shouldn’t care whether your 2.40 film is turned into a 1.78 film because there really isn’t that much of a difference, while in the same breath you are told viewers notice the difference enough to complain about it.
The end result is we have a better chance of seeing a 2.40 film from 1959 in its proper format than a movie from 2009.
That’s weird, and sad.

No comments:

Post a Comment