Each frame of a film is like a word in literature, both are the minimal parts of telling a story. Each word has to be carefully chosen, as carefully as the composition of each shot.

Light and composition tell the story on the screen, like a painting does. But on which screen do you see this composition? For a short period of time a film plays in the movie theatre on the big screen. But over the years many more people see it on a TV or Video screen as well. And these screens are not compatible in any way, neither in size nor in format. Are the movie screens between 1.66 and 2.35 times wider than high, so are the present TV screens with 1.35 almost square in format. So what happens to the composition on TV? Should it either be cropped on both sides to fit on the TV screen, or filled up on top and bottom with a normally unused “garbage” image area, or even “pan and scanned” to the right and left, if the content of the frame is too widespread, or should it be left at its original proportion, which leads to black bars on top and bottom of the TV, called letterbox?

Most cinematographers have a common feeling about composition: It's art, a sacred thing, and the artist should never allow it to be changed. This would feel like buying an expensive painting and then cut part of it off, just to fit in a cheap frame from the flee market. So letterbox seems to be the only solution, which keeps the original composition intact.

But many of the audience don't like these black bars, it's like a mix of incompatible media, and many of the TV stations don't allow for letterbox either. “Shoot and protect” is the rule.

Shoot the wide film format and protect for TV. That means either to extend the composition on top and bottom of the frame into an area never shown in the theatre, or to concentrate whatever is important in the center for TV and have only unimportant things on its sides to fill the wider film screen. At a group shot, for instance, everybody would be placed in the middle of the frame and than some flowers on each side could compliment the wide movie-screen? Would that be the right compromise to shoot a movie? The artistic cinematographers deny this with all emphasis and you can feel their frustration everywhere. No way out?

But there is another way of thinking about this matter, and I have learned it on several of my US films in the past:

What are we doing? Are we just creating wonderful images as “l'art pour l'art” and try to keep them preserved, or are we telling a story to people to create feelings and emotions, make them cry or laugh, and guide them in another world, a world of their dreams?

We tell our stories for different media, for the movies where the audience is almost surrounded by the image, and later for TV with its small and distant screen. How can the original composition support both media same time? Can an impressive image from the movie theatre be transferred unchanged to the small screen, without loosing its power and imagination? I think, very often it can not. A different media has different rules, and our stories should be told on a TV set in a different, and more appropriate way.

Since we cannot shoot a film twice, the first approach has to be the theatre. On this big screen the center is the center of interest and attention. No audience could follow two actors talking to each other on both edges of the screen. Very simplified: The center of the movie screen tells the story, and the sides the atmosphere. On TV it's different, the small viewing angle allows the use of the extreme sides, so you can concentrate the content much more.

It was an surprising experience, when I followed these thoughts at the different transfers on one of my US films, SHOWGIRLS, which I could do myself with plenty of time. I first started transferring this film, shot in the anamorphic ratio 2.35 on Super 35, in its original composition for laserdisc distribution with tecnically perfect results. But I was not satisfied with the emotional impact on the monitor anymore. What was wrong with it?

Then I transferred for TV and Video in the 1.33 format with the need to alter the compositions anyway. So I tried to forget my original framing and concentrated instead on telling this story in a different visual way for that small screen. I ended up by recompositing almost every shot, mostly making it bigger in size, to give it the most impact. Finally and very surprisingly, everybody enjoyed this resulting transfer on 1.33 much more than the original 2.35 laserdisc on the TV screen!

Most wide screen films shot in 1.85 or Super-35 format (no matter if framed for “common headroom” or not,) have some unused additional image area on top and bottom of the original frame. As almost a standard procedure in TV transfers, this area is used to fill that part of the TV screen, where normally the black bars would appear. But what happens with the content of the frame? Instead of making it even more dominant for the small TV screen, it becomes even smaller by adding this normally unused image area. This method of generally adding “garbage” to the composition is as unsatisfactory as generally cutting off its sides. Only a recompositing shot by shot, by reducing, enlarging, or recentering the original image can preserve the emotional impact, which otherwise would be diminished.

On a later film, STARSHIP TROOPERS (shot in the classic widescreen 1.85 format), I again did the transfers myself and this time I even went a step further: Based on my previous experience I recomposited (mostly enlarged) many shots even at the “original” size laserdisc transfer. The results on the TV screen were much better this way. (Maybe better don't talk about this to your producer.)

These procedures are an alteration of a work of art, a recreation for a new media, and therefore they can be performed by the artists or a person of their trust only. Generally the DP must do this himself, and the Director might be involved as well. The right to do these transfers myself is part of all my contracts.

In the TV world a new and wider TV format is now on the market: 16:9 (1.78) instead of the traditional 12:9 (4:3). This new format is similar to the standard 1,85 widescreen film format and should minimize the problems of showing movies on TV. This format is clearly more appropriate than before, but it is still a comparably small TV screen. So I would always consider to make changes in size, even if the movie would fit this format perfectly.

(This applies only for movies shown on TV. In the case of TV productions shot in 16:9 for these new format TV sets it's different, there is no reason to alter anything for the old 4:3 TVs. These 16:9 productions must be broadcast in the letterbox format, as the bvk has convinced most German TV stations to do. This leads to similar compromises as in the old days when color was introduced, and most people could see it in B/W only.)

Of course, nobody can spend unlimited (and mostly unpaid) time in the transfers, so my personal approach might be the exception more than a standard routine. But I think, these many people, seeing our movies on TV or Video, are worth a try.

I know, this is a controversial statement, very controversial to what most of my colleagues talk about it. But I learned from this experience, that a video transfer of a movie is not only about preserving a film as a unique piece of art, but also about preserving the emotional impact in a new media with a new visual approach.

Jost Vacano BVK/ASC,
June 13, 1999