ATimson wrote:
Harvey wrote:
What you're describing is essentially pan and scan, only instead of going from a widescreen image of some sort to a 1.33:1 image, you'll be doing the reverse.
|
Tilt-and-scan.  |
Technically the right term, but it just sounds wrong. Actually, it will be quite amusing if tilt-and-scan becomes the standard, considering how much a certain segment pf people used to complain that widescreen home video was missing half the picture.
Flake wrote:
If they re-scan the film at 16:9 they will have to watch every second of every reel of un-edited film for the entire show to make sure there is no equipment etc in the shot! Maybe this is why it is taking so long?  - Though on the other hand they might be 100% sure that this never happened in which case I bet they go 16:9! |
I believe someone else pointed out that even if there isn't equipment, crew, or other things on the edges of the 35mm frame, the film used doesn't have enough space for them to simply expand the edges to fit a 16:9 frame -- some image cropping will still have to be done on the top and/or bottom. I'm not sure what the exact technical details are, though.