I have "Deep Throat" and "Debbie Does Dallas" on DVD, and it seems that some side information is missing on both of these movies. To a lot of people, this probably sounds dumb considering we're talking about adult films, but why aren't these movies letterboxed? These are classics!
The probable answer is that the DVDs of these classics are coming from earlier video transfers made for release on VHS, for which almost everything is done "pan-and-scan." Unless you're the original owner or production company (like the Mitchell Brothers release of "Green Door" on DVD, which some reviewers have said looks like it was transfered from the original film), there's next to no way you're going to find a decent print of one of these films from which to make a widescreen transfer. So, you're stuck with an already-cropped Master from which to make the DVD.
Don't know for sure about the actual shooting format for "Throat" or "DDD," but it was probably full-frame 35mm or 16mm, with the idea that the top and bottom would be masked off by the projector/screen in the theater. I've seen earlier VHS transfers that, I recall, seemed appropriately framed. Maybe the picture's been enlarged somewhat to remove some "edge damage" or "cue marks" from the earlier film transfer?
VCA's "Misty Beethoven" and "Barbara Broadcast" DVDs are interesting in that, while the bulk of the films are shown full-screen/cropped, certain scenes in "Misty" and the Main Titles for "Barbara" are shown widescreen, indicating the presence somewhere of a widescreen transfer! I guess VCA didn't want to risk lots of folks getting pissed off about those "black bands" at the top and bottom!
Actually, dirk2000, I agree that perhaps these movies should be letterboxed when they were originally filmed in a widescreen mode. I mentioned my concerns in a review of THE OPENING OF MISTY BEETHOVEN, where I stated,
"nothing of consequence had been edited from its original format (save for a few scant seconds which have nothing to do with story or content), so completists will want to dump their old videotapes or laserdiscs for this medium. However, for cinematic purists, it should be noted that this DVD is in full screen format, which means that the movie must have been panned and scanned (as opposed to letterboxed) for its digital debut. Since most porn movies show the good stuff front and center, I can't imagine that the viewer is missing much from the cropped picture, but then again..."
Since this movie was brilliantly restored by VCA, I think it would make sense for us to see the picture in its original rectangular format. But like greybeard says, a letterboxed porno movie might be hard to accept by less "sophisticated" videophiles and film purists.
Interestingly, Private shows many of their trailers in the letterbox format, although it is clear that some of the movies weren't widescreen to begin with! The trailers merely crop the top and bottom of the original image...I guess it's to give these videos a memorable, cinematic look for the audience.
I guess it's up to someone like Wit Maverick to let us know whether the true VCA Classics were panned and scanned or not...
I would be VERY surprised if early adult films were shot in anything other that a 4:3 aspect ratio. There are two ways of getting a widescreen aspect ration on standard file (which is 4:3). This first way is by matteing. In this methodology, part of the frame (the top & bottom) is blocked out. This is done either by a filter on the lens, in film post production or at the theaters. The first two methodologies are known as hard matteing. The image does not appear on the film that is sent to the theaters. The last methodology is known as soft matteing. The extra image is actually on the film, but blocked by filters on the projector.
The last methodology is what is usually doe with mainstream movies. This allows them to remove the matting for video release. With matteing, you actually see more picture on the full frame version than you would on the widescreen version. However, the extra picture that you see was never intended to be seen, and my sometimes include things that you shouldn't see (like boom microphones).
The second way of getting a widescreen picture is through the use of an anamorphic lens, both on the camera and in hte theater. Basically the lens on the camera squeezes a widescreen picture onto a standard piece of film, and the lens in the projector does the reverse. It spreads the picture out back to a wide shape.
Both of these methodologies cost money and take special care at the theaters. I don't know how many of you have atually been to an adult theater before video bacame popular, but I never got the impression that they were spending money on good equipment, and hiring projectionists that took a lot of care in what they were doing.
If I'm completely off base here, and classic adult films were actually being shot in widescreen formats, then I'm all for them being presented that way. I just don't think that this is the case.
Bill: Ya beat me to it! Here's what I was composing while you were posting -- another take on the same subject. (Pardon some of the duplication!)
Add me to the list of those who'd be willing to pay a slight premium for a "letterboxed" version of a "truly widescreen" film! I agree with both Black Coffee and Diesel, and their remarks are dead on!
Here's something else to consider when discussing widescreen versions of classic porn (and mainstream, for that matter) movies: It's always best to know precisely how the original film was shot -- it makes a big difference in how the video/DVD transfer is made. Sometimes, the "widescreen" image was photographed directly onto the film, while other times, the film was shot "full-frame" with the expectation that the theater's projection and screen system would "matte" the projected image to the expected 1.85/1 aspect ratio. I can't recall if any classic porn was ever produced in anamorphic (2.35/1 - "Panavsion" or "CinemaScope") format, but I doubt it!
Here's a clip from my detailed "edit lists" posts for "Misty Beethoven" and "Barbara Broadcast" -- in these cases, as well as most of Henry Paris/Radley Metzger's other films, it shows an example of films in which the widescreen image was photographed directly onto the film:
"Barbara" (as well as most of Metzger's other porn films) was shot in Super 16. This process uses the space on the 16mm camera negative that otherwise would eventually be occupied by the soundtrack for additional picture area. This results in an aspect ratio of about 1.66 or something like that. So you get a "widescreen" image, which is then blown up to 35mm (matted) or slightly reduced to 16mm (matted) release prints. So, the image, as photographed, is already widescreen, which I have found out through further research, is more like 1.75/1. To make a "pan and scan" video transfer of this image, you MUST enlarge the image and crop either or both sides to fit the 1.33/1 standard aspect ratio.
Another way to get a similar image directly photographed onto the film is through putting a "hard matte" in front of the camera lens, masking off the top and bottom of the scene being photographed. In this system, the film itself has the "black bands" at the top and bottom of the screen already added, permanently. Once again, to make a "pan and scan" video transfer of this image, you MUST enlarge the image and crop either or both sides to fit the 1.33/1 standard aspect ratio.
The third way is to shoot the film "full frame," filling up the entire 1.33/1 aspect ratio frame, but framing things "loosely" on the top and bottom, expecting that there will be an aperature plate in the theater's projector that masks off the top and bottom of the frame, filling the theater's screen with a 1.85/1 or so image. The areas at the top and bottom of the frame are wasted, "overshoot" areas not intended to be seen in the theater, but (and this is important) still photographed on the film. In this case, to make a video transfer, you can take the original 1.33/1 photographed image and do one of two things -- you can either mask off the top and bottom of the video frame, to replicate the image seen in the theater and call it a "widescreen" transfer, or you can do nothing at all and transfer the entire 1.33/1 image to video, "waste" or "overshoot" area and all! In this case, no "pan and scan," nor any loss of image, is required! In this case, the viewer is actually getting more image in the "full frame" version than in the "widescreen" version! The purist in me would personally prefer the "widescreen" version in this case, since it's closer to what the director originally intended, but economies being what they are in the porn industry, I'm sure VCA or NuTech will, in this case, choose the full frame transfer route every time!
If you have some mainstream DVD titles with one side "full frame" and the other side "widescreen," you might be able to make this "third way" apparent, depending on how the particular film was shot. If the 'widescreen" version is 1.85/1, watch a particular scene in "widescreen", paying close attention to image size and what you see on the top and bottom of the picture. Then, flip the DVD over and watch the same scene in "full frame." You may very well see exactly the same size image, with more viewable picture area at the top and bottom! (You may not, though, if the picture was shot the second way, with a "hard matte" in the camera -- then you'll see "pan and scan" enlarged images). Note that this does NOT work with 2.35/1 pictures (Panavision or CinemaScope) -- they MUST be "panned and scanned" for a full-frame image.
Anyway, all of this "everything you (n)ever wanted to know about widescreen" adds up to the need to find out exactly how a particular film was originally shot. That way, you know whether or not the DVD producer has actually "panned and scanned" the image, or simply did a full-frame transfer of a film that was shot full-frame to begin with!
(Next week, we'll discuss how well or how poorly various porn directors and/or cinematographers framed their images when shooting, which also just might have a little something to do with it!)
Any classics that were filmed to be presented in a widescreen format could be released with the pan & scan version on either a flipper disk like Warner did with their older disks and Vivid Wave does with theirs or on a dual layered disk with the menu option of which to watch. That way those who didn't want the black bars could watch the version without making all happy. Just my two cents.
1. I don't think a lot of adult studios (especially ones that are no longer in existence) have cared a lot for preservation of original film or video elements. It's not like a company like Columbia, Warner, et al. that have extensive film vaults and preservationists. In many cases, the only master in existence might be a VHS master (which is pan & scan and probably not an orginal master at that).
2. The only mission for these companies is to make money. Not to make masterpieces or to present DVDs in the exact same format as the theatrical releases. I'm not convinced most care whether or not the content is "true to the director's intent" or uncut. Most consumers don't really care. Many were kids when these films came out and wouldn't be able to tell whether or not scenes or frames are missing. As a fan, I care, but I have to acknowledge that I'm in the minority.
3. Restoring a widescreen version or having a flipper with two different versions costs money. Per #2, that goes against every rule. After all, some companies have no problem with editing down their catalog titles to save a few cents on tapes and duplication. I doubt that any front office exec would think that they would make up the cost by charging more, especially when people bitch as much as they do about how expensive DVDs are.
4. Finally, as many have mentioned in other threads, some studios can't manage to deliver an acceptable (let alone good) transfer, widescreen or not. Maybe they should worry about that before tackling collector-quality releases.
Just playing devil's advocate...I'd love to see unedited, authentic releases, but considering it's porn, I'm not hopeful.
Saki, I definitely understand what you're saying, and I agree that it's unreleastic to expect some of these classic porn films to be presented in their original form. I guess I just think it's too bad that some of these films aren't given better treatment. The fact is that, whether people like it (or will admit it) or not, films like Behind the Green Door, Debbie Does Dallas, and Deep Throat mark important points in American film history.
Do I think that Criterion is ever going to release a DVD of Debbie Does Dallas? No. However, and I may be crazy for saying this, I don't think it would be inappropriate for them to do so.
I guess I need to remember that the porn film industry is a different world from the "mainstream" film industry, and even though relatively unimportant (and at the time, obscure) films like Plan 9 From Outer Space may receive special treatment, most porn films will not. It's too bad though.
You're both precisely correct! Expecting any "rush to quality" from the porn industry is asking way too much, yet it IS a shame that the classics won't be better treated!
If it's any consolation, I'm pretty sure that all three films Dirk mentions were shot full-frame 1.33/1 -- so you're not missing anything with later video transfers. Remember, a lot of the stuff was framed and shot sloppily to begin with, so it looks like not too much harm has been done!
I wonder if any Vivid movies shot on film were originally framed in a "widescreen" mode? A lot of their better pictures (BAD WIVES, BORDERLINE and so forth) wouldn't necessarily benefit from a widescreen presentation (hell, I wish I could just see them without all the editing!) but I would be interested in knowing their aspect ratio.
Diesel
Check into DIESEL'S DEN on Adult DVD Empire for a report on Tara Monroe, Francesca Le and Selena Steele!
Diesel: Since the early-to-mid-80s and the explosion of home video, just about all porn production has been done with video release in mind. Therefore, there'd be no reason to shoot the stuff in anything but full-frame 1.33/1 aspect ratio, whether on video or on film. While I can't be absolutely certain, I think it's very highly probable that Vivid's and everybody else's stuff was shot full frame.
Hi Guys, This thread is pretty close to a question I've had in my head recently and thought you guys might want to give me some input. Jon Yuma and Nic Cramer recently started doing a line of videos for us. The idea from the beginning for them was to give the line a very high quality, "cinematic" look. To go along with that, they shoot in anamorphic widescreen format on video and the the VHS is letterboxed. The first 4 volumes were finished before they consulted with me about DVD so they edited with image already letterboxed. For all future volumes they are going to edit with the original image and output separate masters for DVD (anamorphic) and VHS (letterboxed). I was very high on this idea as I have a widescreen TV at home and think it's just the best thing since sliced bread.
So heres' my question (finally). Do you think there are enough folks out there who would want the anamorphic transfer for porn? I ask this because before I bought my widescreen TV I didn't like anamorphic DVD's because I still have a first generation Pioneer DVD player that wasn't built to handle anamorphic images being sent to a standard TV. I'm just wondering if this should be a concern.
Considering most mainstream DVDs are being produced in anamorphic format now, I don't see it being a problem to do anamorphic widescreen anymore. True, it doesn't look as nice on non-widescreen sets, but it does pay off with displays that can take advantage of it (including computers with DVD-ROMs).
But again, it doesn't do any good to spend the time and money if the source material (either in terms of content or quality) is less than perfect. However, judging by your description, it sounds like those projects would be a good fit.
JB, The future of TV is Widescreen. If you are going to do DVD's in Widescreen, then PLEASE do them right. It HAS to be Anamorphic. So many mainstream studios didn't understand the benefit of anamorphic prints when DVD's first came out. They released these titles in non-anamorphic and they looked like crap on widescreen TV's. Now they are going back and re-releasing all of these old titles correctly.
If you go to the video store now and look at any DVD's released in 2001, you will be very hard pressed to find any widescreen titles that are NOT anamorphic.
That having been said, I don't believe that there is currently enough demand for widescreen adult titles for it to make sense.
Before I continue, let me state that I already own one widescreen HDTV (56" Toshiba), and am in the market for a smaller widescreen direct view set for my bedroom. So personally I would LOVE for everything to be shot widescreen. However, at this time I don't believe that it makese sense.
My opinion is that a movie, be it mainstream or adult, should be shot in the aspect ratio that makes sense for the principle place in which it is meant to be seen. For mainstream movies, that it the movie theater. Movie theaters ALL have wide screens. Therefore it makes all the sense in the world for a mainstream movie to be shot wide. When it is then sent to the secondary market (home video), I want it to be the same movie that was shown in the theater. So I prefer the same widescreen aspect ratio that was shown in the theater.
The primary viewing location for Adult video is in the home. Currently, much to my dismay, the LARGE majority of TV's (at least in the US), are NOT widescreen. Therefore, I don't believe that shooting something widescreen, to be shown on TV makes sense (yet).
If you were shooting for a movie theater, you wouldn't shoot 4:3 would you? It would caues wasted space on both sides of the screen. You would want to use all of the scren that you could. Why would you want to do the same thing with a video (except wasting the space on top & bottom)?
I have to second Bill's thoughts, here, reluctantly -- since I am a widescreen "fanatic" as well. Right now, I would venture to say that the vast majority of the porn audience out there is watching on standard, 1.33/1 direct-view screens, most of them 27" or less (think of all the "bedroom" sets, for instance). While the anamorphic DVD image will still "hold up" and look great on screens like these, the effective perceived image size will be less -- and who wants the girl's tits/pussy, or the guy's cock (keeping things equal), to look any smaller than they have to??!! After all, ain't that what we're "tuning in" for?
Also, much will depend on the actual "unsqueezed" aspect ratio your guys shot the stuff in -- was it 1.76/1 (this would fill the "widescreen" 16x9 sets), or was it a full "Panavision" or "CinemaScope" 2.35/1, which would still leave "black bands" at the top and bottom of a widescreen set?
Also, be aware that there is still enormous controversy over "widescreen" vs. "pan-and-scan" in the mainstream world. It is a real "cause celebre" in newsgroups such as alt.video.dvd, where you'll find enormous threads arguing back and forth the various advantages and drawbacks of each system!
I have to agree that full-frame, 1.33/1 is probably the way to go for now. There are other ways of achieving a "film look" than by aspect-ratio alone, and lots of cinematographers/videographers have ways of using lighting, film stocks, etc. to make it happen.
