Blair Witch Aspect Ration Question

[ZackR]

Hi,

I just bought the Artisan Blair Witch Project disc (shut up, I thought it was a decent movie). Anyways... on the back, it says: FULLSCREEN VERRSION: Formatted from its original version to fit your screen. I did a search around hee and elsewhere and I can not ifnd anything on it... but in the theaters, I remember it was shot with some kind of handheld, personal video recorder or something... (maybe I am wrong though). Anyways, it was definitely "Ful frame" or close to 4:3 in the theater. So, is this DVD really modified in some way or is it just a misprint? I haven't watched it all yet, but scanning through the disc, it looks like I remembered it looking.... Just wondering.

Thanks!

Zack

[Rypro 525]

Its supposed to "look like a camera" view. The true oar is 1:33:1 (thats what it was in theaters and on cable), so the dvd is a tad off.

[ZackR]

Thanks Rypro,

That makes perfect sense to me... I have not seen it since its theatrical run, and I thought the DVD looked just as I remembered. But, if the true OAR is actually 1.33:1, then that would explain why I really did not notice it. (Plus, it has been a long while since I have seen it)

Thanks for the info!

[talemyn]

Originally posted by ZackR
I just bought the Artisan Blair Witch Project disc (shut up, I thought it was a decent movie).No shame in that, Zack . . . I'm a fan myself. I found the cinematography and the premise to both be extremely creative and the movie, in general, to be very effective at freaking out some of my more sensitive friends. :D

Now if you had said "Book of Shadows - Blair Witch 2", we might have needed to have a little talk. :D

[Drexl]

Sometimes they'll say it's been modified to fit your screen even if it hasn't. Full Metal Jacket has this disclaimer, but the other 1.33:1 titles in the Kubrick Collection (The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut) do not, even though they are 1.33:1 for the same reason FMJ is.

[Groucho]

If only they'd brought more aspect rations, they would have lasted even longer out in the woods.

[DVD_O_Rama]

Originally posted by Groucho
If only they'd brought more aspect rations, they would have lasted even longer out in the woods.

rotfl

[ianholm]

:lol:

[Johnny Zhivago]

Originally posted by talemyn
I found the cinematography and the premise to both be extremely creative

You've obviously never seen <a href="http://www.cannibalholocaust.net/"><i>Cannibal Holocaust</i></a>.

[moviezzz]

Originally posted by Rypro 525
Its supposed to "look like a camera" view. The true oar is 1:33:1 (thats what it was in theaters and on cable), so the dvd is a tad off.

It wasn't 1.33 in theatres, that is TV Ratio. 1.66 is the smallest theatrical.

[djtoell]

Originally posted by moviezzz
It wasn't 1.33 in theatres, that is TV Ratio. 1.66 is the smallest theatrical.

You're wrong on a number of levels. First, current SMPTE standards for 35mm projection allow for four aspect ratios: 1.37:1 (also commonly referred to as 1.33:1), 1.66:1, 1.85:1, and 2.39:1.

Second, BWP was absolutely shown at 1.33:1 theatrically. The 1.33:1 frame was centered within a 1.85:1 frame on the theatrical prints. Theatres then projected the film at 1.85:1, but the picture area itself was only 1.33:1.

DJ

[ZackR]

Second, BWP was absolutely shown at 1.33:1 theatrically. The 1.33:1 frame was centered within a 1.85:1 frame on the theatrical prints. Theatres then projected the film at 1.85:1, but the picture area itself was only 1.33:1.BINGO!! That's exactly what I thought, but at the time, I was not "aspect ratio savvy" so I thought I might have remembered wrongly. Thanks!