6 replies to this topic

[Marty McFly]

Alright, normally i'm not a nitpick about this kind of stuff, buyt I've seen this happen on six Bond films. Specifically:

• Thunderball
• You Only Live Twice
• On Her Majesty's Secret Service
• Diamonds Are Forever
• The Spy Who Loved Me
• Moonraker

All of these films, at least as far as the UE is concerned, are presented in an aspect ratio of 2.35:1, based on the fact that the picture on the Thunderball Blu-ray measures 1920 by 817 pixels (Here's a screencap, count for yourself if you wish: Thunderball Screenshot (courtesy of DVD Beaver). Now that that matter is settled, let's move on.

For each of the aforementioned six films, the title sequences and end credit sequences are windowboxed, meaning that the image is narrower than the 2.35:1 aspect ratio, but is pillarboxed (black bars on sides) to make it consistent in height with the rest of the 2.35:1 film, and subsequently letterboxed into the 16:9 video frame. This cropping does not seem to be accidental, as the image in Thunderball apparently "narrows" (not distorted, but it transitions as if the sides are being smoothly cut off) as it transitions to the title sequence, then widens back out as it transitions back to the following footage. (Click here to view footage (courtesy of YouTube)). However, upon viewing the "textless" versions of these title sequences, there appears to be no "narrowing/cropping," and is at a consistent aspect ratio of 2.35:1.

After some hard work on comparing different screenshots within that video, I found this: the title sequences had an aspect ratio of about 2.15:1. The thign that puzzle me is that There has been no major film format that even uses that aspect ratio for projection.

Now, not only have I seen this effect happen on the Bond movies, but in other 1970's films as well (specifically "A Fistful of Dynamite" also known as "Duck You Sucker"). Does nayone know what the $#!% is going on?

[agentjamesbond007]

Well, I never noticed that. (I think in practically every film has the dark bars on the top and bottom of the picture) so it doesn't really matter if it's there or not. Anyways most of us don't realise it.

[Marty McFly]

I actually found out why recently: The titles were indeed originally made in 2.35:1, but before the 1980's, title makers, especially for widescreen films, were not concerned about title safe areas on tvs (fullcreen tvs have overscan, cutting off about 10% of the sides and top and bottom). In the case of these six films, the titles were out of the title safe area, meaning they would be cut off if transferred normally. To "fix" the problem, the picture was squished slightly to the 2.15:1 aspect ratio. Evidence of this can be found here: (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/ht-software-high-definition/277659-wtf-opening-credits-thunderball-br-pillarboxed-2.html)(Link to home theater forum, third post down shows screenscaps)[/url]

However, HDTVs do not overscan, so the pillarboxing is noticeable when played. the blu-rays still feature the pillarboxing, being yet another flaw for the UEs.

[Zorin Industries]

Alright, normally i'm not a nitpick about this kind of stuff, buyt I've seen this happen on six Bond films. Specifically:

• Thunderball
• You Only Live Twice
• On Her Majesty's Secret Service
• Diamonds Are Forever
• The Spy Who Loved Me
• Moonraker

All of these films, at least as far as the UE is concerned, are presented in an aspect ratio of 2.35:1, based on the fact that the picture on the Thunderball Blu-ray measures 1920 by 817 pixels (Here's a screencap, count for yourself if you wish: Thunderball Screenshot (courtesy of DVD Beaver). Now that that matter is settled, let's move on.

For each of the aforementioned six films, the title sequences and end credit sequences are windowboxed, meaning that the image is narrower than the 2.35:1 aspect ratio, but is pillarboxed (black bars on sides) to make it consistent in height with the rest of the 2.35:1 film, and subsequently letterboxed into the 16:9 video frame. This cropping does not seem to be accidental, as the image in Thunderball apparently "narrows" (not distorted, but it transitions as if the sides are being smoothly cut off) as it transitions to the title sequence, then widens back out as it transitions back to the following footage. (Click here to view footage (courtesy of YouTube)). However, upon viewing the "textless" versions of these title sequences, there appears to be no "narrowing/cropping," and is at a consistent aspect ratio of 2.35:1.

After some hard work on comparing different screenshots within that video, I found this: the title sequences had an aspect ratio of about 2.15:1. The thign that puzzle me is that There has been no major film format that even uses that aspect ratio for projection.

Now, not only have I seen this effect happen on the Bond movies, but in other 1970's films as well (specifically "A Fistful of Dynamite" also known as "Duck You Sucker"). Does nayone know what the $#!% is going on?

I could be wrong, but is that more to do with the picture size on your screen rather than the titles going into letterbox. I.e. it is adjusting itself.

No film will change its picture format and dimensions in order to accommodate a different ratio for the titles.

I actually found out why recently: The titles were indeed originally made in 2.35:1, but before the 1980's, title makers, especially for widescreen films, were not concerned about title safe areas on tvs (fullcreen tvs have overscan, cutting off about 10% of the sides and top and bottom). In the case of these six films, the titles were out of the title safe area, meaning they would be cut off if transferred normally. To "fix" the problem, the picture was squished slightly to the 2.15:1 aspect ratio. Evidence of this can be found here: (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/ht-software-high-definition/277659-wtf-opening-credits-thunderball-br-pillarboxed-2.html)(Link to home theater forum, third post down shows screenscaps)[/url]

However, HDTVs do not overscan, so the pillarboxing is noticeable when played. the blu-rays still feature the pillarboxing, being yet another flaw for the UEs.

Sorry. I should have read this before I added my comments. This sounds sort of right to me now you give the answer.

[Chester Copperpot]

No film will change its picture format and dimensions in order to accommodate a different ratio for the titles.

I could be wrong, but could it have anything to do with Bond titles almost being handled as special-effects? Usually, shots ending up as f/x-shots are filmed in a higher resolution, regardless of what format it is viewed in theatrically. Ref, Star Wars, where the background shots of stars were filmed in 70mm, and then transfered down during editing to end up as 35mm theatrically.

If I'm not mistaken, Thunderball was the first widescreen Bond, if Maurice Binder filmed the titles for the earlier films in Widescreen, they would have to be adapted for the narrower format before Widescreen was used theatrically. End result, Bond title sequences does have another format than the film it is titled for.

It's just a hunch, and I can not back up my arguments, but it sounds plausible to me.

[oatesy]

No film will change its picture format and dimensions in order to accommodate a different ratio for the titles.

I could be wrong, but could it have anything to do with Bond titles almost being handled as special-effects? Usually, shots ending up as f/x-shots are filmed in a higher resolution, regardless of what format it is viewed in theatrically. Ref, Star Wars, where the background shots of stars were filmed in 70mm, and then transfered down during editing to end up as 35mm theatrically.

If I'm not mistaken, Thunderball was the first widescreen Bond, if Maurice Binder filmed the titles for the earlier films in Widescreen, they would have to be adapted for the narrower format before Widescreen was used theatrically. End result, Bond title sequences does have another format than the film it is titled for.

It's just a hunch, and I can not back up my arguments, but it sounds plausible to me.

Unfortunately it's not the case. Thunderball's titles were shot in 35mm Panavision, as were all the titles in the list mentioned. You can also add The World Is Not Enough to the list. With TWINE being a post-1980 Bond movie, and all of its titles being within the 'Title-Safe' area for TVs, its just evidence of lack of quality control on behalf of MGM when they mastered these movies. As Marty McFly pointed out above, HDTVs do not overscan so to bake this 'squeeze' into the HD Master lacks any sense.

[Gabriel]

According to the special features, the titles weren't the same screen size as the movies. Rather than crop them, they decided to pillarbox them, showing the full image. Personally, I don't have a problem with this, as I think most of Binder's sequences are great pieces of modern art and deserve to be seen in their correct aspect.