Even more MGM info
Jan. 28th, 2005 04:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elizabearFrom my friend David:
Don't panic (maybe).
What I gather from reading about this is that there is nothing wrong with the discs. The original movies were shot in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio, then projected in 1.85:1 or 1.66:1, with mattes removing the top and bottom of the image (as the director and editor intended). When they produce a "standard" version of the movie for VHS or DVD, rather than pan-and-scan, they simply open up the mattes, showing more at the top and bottom of the image (which can occasionally pick up things like boom mikes). So when you view the wide-screen DVD, you are seeing exactly what you are supposed to see. When you view the "standard" version, you get more (on the top and the bottom) than you are supposed to see -- but then, if you watch a wide-screen movie in standard mode, you get what you deserve.
So what is the lawsuit about? Apparently the text on the packaging of the films implied that the wide-screen version showed more image than the "standard" version, which in this case isn't actually true -- the "standard" version shows more image than the wide-screen (although it is image the director didn't intend you to see). So the lawsuit was about this "deceptive" packaging.
So don't worry, there is nothing wrong with your discs.
-- David
P.S. My explanation above is the best info I could find, but some people on the net dispute it and claim there is an actual problem with some of the discs (that some of them were shot in an even wider aspect ratio, pan-and-scanned down to 1.85:1 or 1.66:1, and then matted for the "wide-screen" version); I haven't found a definite statement from a source that I would regard as authoritative.
Don't panic (maybe).
What I gather from reading about this is that there is nothing wrong with the discs. The original movies were shot in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio, then projected in 1.85:1 or 1.66:1, with mattes removing the top and bottom of the image (as the director and editor intended). When they produce a "standard" version of the movie for VHS or DVD, rather than pan-and-scan, they simply open up the mattes, showing more at the top and bottom of the image (which can occasionally pick up things like boom mikes). So when you view the wide-screen DVD, you are seeing exactly what you are supposed to see. When you view the "standard" version, you get more (on the top and the bottom) than you are supposed to see -- but then, if you watch a wide-screen movie in standard mode, you get what you deserve.
So what is the lawsuit about? Apparently the text on the packaging of the films implied that the wide-screen version showed more image than the "standard" version, which in this case isn't actually true -- the "standard" version shows more image than the wide-screen (although it is image the director didn't intend you to see). So the lawsuit was about this "deceptive" packaging.
So don't worry, there is nothing wrong with your discs.
-- David
P.S. My explanation above is the best info I could find, but some people on the net dispute it and claim there is an actual problem with some of the discs (that some of them were shot in an even wider aspect ratio, pan-and-scanned down to 1.85:1 or 1.66:1, and then matted for the "wide-screen" version); I haven't found a definite statement from a source that I would regard as authoritative.
