Was Fight Club shot in Super 35 (like T2 and The Abyss were)? I can't remember offhand.....that might explain the slight difference in framing, if a bit more of the image from the print was used for the BD master....

Edit: IMDB says yes, it was shot in Super 35 so there's probably the reason...

So is Fight Club definitely worth the upgrade? I have the 2-disk DVD, which I have not watched it quite a while, mainly because its one I'd like to upgrade first.

Yes. Definitely upgrade.

Re: Fight Club.

I wasn't expecting much because of the Beaver review, but I picked it up regardless because of the $20 price tag. I have to say (even though it is dark) it's actually one of the best looking blus I've seen. Looking at the screens on the Beaver review just don't do it justice.

It's only $16 at Best Buy.

I still don't understand. Why would the DVD release be slightly cropped?

It's probably not cropped so much as just being framed slightly differently. Not all that uncommon when you compare different transfers.

That's actually where I bought it. I'm in Canada, though.

$16.99 actually

$15.99 at Costco.

There is a MUCH better explanation of this on one of the Terminator 2 DVDs (I think the Ultimate Edition), but I'll try and summarize it here...hopefully it will make enough sense:
Similar to how most "flat" films are shot open-matte (but only the 1.85:1 area is what is intended to be seen), films shot using Super 35 actually expose a lot more on the negative then what is intended to be seen....the 2.35:1 intended aspect ratio area is then framed on the negative before anamorphic prints are made and sent to theaters (this also accounts for why films shot in Super 35 look grainier then ones actually shot anamorphically).....have you ever seen the full screen version of T2? Notice there is a lot of new area in the image to be seen, and that it is not all terribly panned and scanned, however the theatrical aspect ratio of T2 was framed at 2.35:1? That is because it was shot in Super 35....

The DVD release of Fight Club probably just was a slightly tighter framed master on the intended-to-be-seen area of the exposed image...this new BD probably had a new HD master created for it, and it just ended up showing ever so slightly more of the image from the original Super 35 negative....

quick visual explanation

^ Thanks, a picture speaks a thousand words better than I ever could!!

So the BD is the OAR and the DVD isn't? Or what's the deal there?

Looked the same to me.

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movi...ub-bluray.html

From what I've read they told reviewers to mention it in their review. Review copies arrived late last week for many.

The slight difference in the cropping really makes my OCD kick in and make me want to keep my dvd version.

Me too, although I wouldnt say it is so slight being that I noticed it in most of the screencaps right away. Question is which one is correct, the DVD or the BR ??

this....we need a total confirmed answer. Seems though that Fincher is ok with it considering he did add some stuff on there. I'm sure he'd know about it, no?