Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > DVD Talk
Reload this Page >

Altered aspect ratio for Widescreen TVs (NO!)

DVD Talk Talk about DVDs and Movies on DVD including Covers and Cases

Altered aspect ratio for Widescreen TVs (NO!)

Old 01-18-06, 09:45 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Altered aspect ratio for Widescreen TVs (NO!)

It looks like my worst fear has come true. It appears that the Lord of War DVD release has been cropped from 2.35:1 to 1.78:1 for the DVD release.

The screener DVD that was sent out was in 2.35:1. The only reason I can think of for the change on the general release is to make it "fit" on a widescreen TV without black bars. Holy shit.

We thought we would be done with altered ARs with the move to widescreen TVs, but it appears that now we may get cropped widescreen releases to conform to the 1.78:1 AR on those sets.

Where can I find the OAR of a film, so I can check each new DVD release to make sure it is in OAR?

I hope this trend doesn't continue...

Here's a thread on IMDB that will make you sick. Some excerpts:

The screener DVD was 2.35:1. It doesn't surprise me that the general DVD release is 16:9 though, all of those people who own widescreen TV's get confused and disgruntled with 2.35:1 DVD's. They wonder why there are still black bars on top and bottom even with their fancy "widescreen" TV's.
This suggestion is just fucking stupid:
Thanks for the explanation guys. Me so dumb. I love widescreen versions myself, and was actually wondering why 2.35:1 aspects still showed bars on my $6,000 high def wide screen TV. Now I know. Thanks to your goodness.

Cheers. Let's start a petition to get all TV's to carry a 2.34:1 screen. That may end this madness and mass confusion.
And another one.

[Sam Kinison voice]
Oh, fuck, I'm in hell. Ohh Ohhhhh!
[/Sam Kinison voice]

I still can't seem to understand the technical difference between aspect ratios but I know that i prefer the one that uses the whole screen. It is kinda crappy when you invest 2000$+ in a widescreen tv, and still get the black bars on top and bottom, a waste of very expensive screen space in my opinion.Unfortunately we don't have much of a choice when it comes to purchasing a DVD release.
Old 01-18-06, 10:06 AM
  #2  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posts: 2,239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just goes to show that some widescreen TV owners aren't any smarter than standard TV owners. Gotta fill that screen!
Old 01-18-06, 10:15 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And who still says that the early adopters of HD discs will be "tech savvy" with an eye on "technical and quality" considerations vs. price???
Old 01-18-06, 10:29 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
milo bloom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 18,249
Received 1,389 Likes on 1,020 Posts







Please people, read it \/, learn it, love it.
Old 01-18-06, 10:57 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,688
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I knew widescreen tvs would not be the end of altered aspect ratio issue

See,people are ignorant...and everyone expects all films to be in one aspect ratio. Specifically..whatever shape their screen is.

Thus I think studios should stop conforming to their ignorant wants...and just release O.A.R. only. And then maybe just maybe,have some before and after comparisions to showcase why films are the way they are.
Old 01-18-06, 11:01 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's not just movies either. The high-definition channels on DirecTV are showing HD, widescreen versions of old TV shows like "Hogan's Heroes" and "Knight Rider." Best I can tell, they're just cutting off the tops and bottoms -- or doing some sort of horizontal version of pan and scan -- to make them widescreen. Completely idiotic.
Old 01-18-06, 11:06 AM
  #7  
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sigh...why must we suffer for other people's ignorance?

This Lord of War thing makes me deeply, deeply sad. This was one of my favorite movies of last year, and was looking forward to buying it this week. Now I won't purchase it at all. One of my favorite aspects of the film was director Andrew Niccol's striking compositions. While many people complained about the content of the film, you couldn't argue that it wasn't a great looking film.

Dammit!

Well, the UK release is coming out March 6th, it's 2-discs, has better cover art and is being released by Momentum which does a pretty good job with their releases. We region-free folks should cross our fingers for the OAR according to this, it is:

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releas...d-of-war2.html

Just a warning, Hostel was released in theaters at 2:35:1. If Lionsgate alters this movie, I will boycott all of their releases.

Last edited by cbtaber; 01-18-06 at 01:33 PM.
Old 01-18-06, 11:10 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,846
Likes: 0
Received 63 Likes on 39 Posts
I don't get it either. Every widescreen set I've ever dealt with has some sort of zoom feature to create the same effect. What's so wrong with presenting everything in it's OAR and letting the ignorant stretch/crop/zoom to their hearts content? In the event they are too dumb to do that, they should have their widescreen set confiscated.

I wonder if some of these reformats are truly cropping or simply exposing an entire Super 35 image?
Old 01-18-06, 11:10 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Drexl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 16,077
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 13 Posts
I didn't think WS TVs would be the end of reformatting either. All you're doing is trading one shape for another, and that doesn't change the fact that not everything is the same shape.
Old 01-18-06, 11:39 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Has someone contacted Lions Gate about it?
Old 01-18-06, 11:41 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/search.php?searchid=979646

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/newrepl...te=1&p=6709342
Old 01-18-06, 11:48 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,756
Received 253 Likes on 179 Posts
Let's not get too riled up here. Lord of War is just one of a small handful of movies reframed for DVD at the instruction of the film's director. Others include the first Austin Powers, Star Trek VI, and The Recruit.

This still seems to be a case-by-case scenario, not necessarily the beginning of a sweeping trend.
Old 01-18-06, 12:25 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Z
Let's not get too riled up here. Lord of War is just one of a small handful of movies reframed for DVD at the instruction of the film's director.
I've heard it said that it was director approved, but can't find any solid evidence that this is true. I'm not doubting your word, but are there any links? I've read that it is not mentioned on the director's commentary track for LoW.

Also, if it was altered at the intstruction of the director, then why is it available in 2.35:1 for other regions:

Region 3 LoR in 2.35:1

and why the pre-screen discs in 2.35:1?
Old 01-18-06, 01:16 PM
  #14  
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This happened before...

This makes sense now.

A few months ago my friend lent me a Lions Gate screener of the movie Employee of the Month with Matt Dillon and Christina Applegate ( a decent movie BTW.) And that screener was 2:35:1, but when the DVD was officially released it boasted a 1:78:1 aspect ratio. Who knows how many other movies they've done this to.

If anyone is feeling ambitious, perhaps a class action suit against Lionsgate, a la the MGM letterboxing debacle, is in order.
Old 01-18-06, 04:49 PM
  #15  
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Z
Let's not get too riled up here. Lord of War is just one of a small handful of movies reframed for DVD at the instruction of the film's director.
Based on what? I've seen this opinion expressed on other forums as well, but so far, I've been unable to find a single shred of evidence supporting this contention. To the contrary, I have seen a post of screen captures comparing a scene in the trailer to a scene in the DVD release (two women standing atop either side of a tank), and the DVD release is very clearly cropped on both sides, changing the entire feel of the frame.

I wanted to buy this DVD yesterday, but I'm apparently going to have to wait for a OAR release in another region, because I'm not spending a dime on what appears to be a butchered atrocity.
Old 01-18-06, 08:08 PM
  #16  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 27,984
Received 1,181 Likes on 834 Posts
a quote from http://rogerebert.suntimes.com re: Fantasia/Pinocchio/Snow White
Purists will be pleased that the Disney people have also made the momentous decision to release the film in its original aspect ratio of 1:1.33 - in other words, in a format about four feet wide for every three feet high. This is the format in which "Fantasia" and almost every other film made before 1953 was originally filmed in.

In several other recent re-releases of its classics, including such works as "Pinocchio" and "Snow White," Disney cropped the top and bottom of the original artists' work in order to create the spurious illusion that the film was "wide screen." This proved nothing and was a form of desecration committed against drawings where everything has been carefully framed in the first place. In my reviews of those films, I hectored the studio on the phony wide screen until I'm sure everyone wearied of the whole issue. It may seem like a small point to some people, but we're talking about film masterpieces here. Would anybody think it was all right to crop the side off a great painting, just to make it match a newly-fashioned shape? At last, with "Fantasia," Disney has done the right thing.
I also remember reading an article or interview with him where he was talking about a festival he went to where a full-frame classic film (I forget the title) was projected as widescreen. When he asked the festival organizers why they did that, they claimed that it was because they didn't want people to think that they were paying to come to this festival to watch TV, so they made the film more "cinematic" by chopping off the bottom and projecting it to fill the theatre's screen.

Finally, the R1 release of Gus Van Sant's "Elephant", has full-frame and widescreen versions of the film, yet the full-frame is the OAR. HBO included a WS version to appease WS TV owners.

ugh.

obviously, this isn't quite the same as cropping 2.35:1 into 1.78:1 (the opposite, in fact), but if this is any indication of things to come, I'm highly disappointed.
Old 01-18-06, 08:11 PM
  #17  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 27,984
Received 1,181 Likes on 834 Posts
Originally Posted by awmurray
in another thread, someone stated that The Recruit was also advertised as 2:35:1 in R3, but the DVD was actually 1.78. Does anyone know how cd-wow handles returns, if at all? will they accept open product returns if it's not as advertised?
Old 01-18-06, 08:49 PM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Other Side
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Funny that this is very similar to the debacle of The Castle Keep. Pan and scan or full frame of widescreen or 1.85:1 films was to appease the mainstream audience who owned standard 1.33:1 televisions. Now they are cropping 2.35:1 films to appease the "widescreen" television owners. Jesus H. Christ, we really haven't won this battle, have we?

Well, people yelled and screamed about the Castle keep, and that has been released in its original aspect ratio. Perhaps the same can happen with The Lord of War?
Old 01-18-06, 09:06 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Legend
 
darkside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 19,862
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
Great after years of putting up with pan and scan now we have to deal with this. I noticed this a lot on the PSP. Most of the UMD movies are reformatted for 1.78. I still can't believe there are so many idiots watching the black bars instead of the stuff going on in between them.
Old 01-18-06, 09:10 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Parts, Unknown
Posts: 1,137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I watched Lord of War last night and thought it didn't look right at 1.78:1, but had no idea that it wasn't OAR. That's the first widescreen disc that I've bought like this. I know Showtime, HBO, and others have been cropping to 1.78 for years, but this is the first instance I've run across on DVD. I hope it's an isolated incident and not a case of "here we go again." Let's also hope this isn't what we have to look forward to when HD discs become available. Most of the HD movie channels have little value to me because of this. Even many of Voom's original channels were cropped like this (and many 1.33:1 films were cropped to fit widescreen).
Old 01-19-06, 12:06 AM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
[QUOTE]I also remember reading an article or interview with him where he was talking about a festival he went to where a full-frame classic film (I forget the title) was projected as widescreen. When he asked the festival organizers why they did that, they claimed that it was because they didn't want people to think that they were paying to come to this festival to watch TV, so they made the film more "cinematic" by chopping off the bottom and projecting it to fill the theatre's screen.[\QUOTE]

I believe it was AN AMERICAN IN PARIS (1951)--Gene Kelly's dancing feet were cut off by the fake letterboxing at the above-mentioned film festival.

The fantastic Ebert quote about it is my sig...
Old 01-19-06, 12:06 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 14,806
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I just can't see how the black bars make a goddamn difference at all. Once the lights are off, how can you even see them?

= J
Old 01-19-06, 12:19 AM
  #23  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
About a year ago, I was flipping through the channels when I noticed that the local WB affiliate was showing LOTR: FOTR. I was impressed to see that it was shown letterboxed even on the analog standard-def broadcast, until I noticed that it was letterboxed at 1.78:1. If you're going to make the audience "suffer" through black bars, why not just show the damn thing in OAR and be done with it?

On an amusing side note, I've noticed that financial and consultation firms -- which often aired commericals shot in 1.78:1 before the advent of HDTV -- have started airing commericals shot in 2.35:1 in the last couple of years. I guess they figure the "black bar look" is classy enough that they don't want widescreen set owners to feel left out.
Old 01-19-06, 12:21 AM
  #24  
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've known stuff like this would happen for a loooooong time. The hypocricy is unbelievable, "home theater enthusiasts" will refer to people that prefer stuff to fill their 4x3 televisions as "Joe Sixpack" but they are completely tolerant of a modified aspect ratio if it fills their expensive 16x9 televisions. Case in point: the last FIVE seasons of "The X-Files" are only available on DVD in a modified aspect ratio. Though they were FILMED in 1.78:1, there are NUMEROUS examples that prove that they were not COMPOSED for that ratio. Specific episodes that reveal stuff that should have stayed "behind the scenes" include "Bad Blood", "Dreamland", "Alpha" and "Christmas Carol", but you'll never see an online petition crying for the release of "The X-Files" seasons 5-9 in their proper 4x3 aspect ratio, you'll only see a bunch of hypocrites praising the additional dead space on the sides of the screen. I have to confess that I have chosen to watch films in the 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 aspect ratio over films that would fill my screen in a less-ideal fashion on my 16x9 display but these urges were short-lived, the gimmick of the differently-shaped screen no longer factors into what I watch.
Old 01-19-06, 01:12 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 4,352
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Altimus Prime
Just goes to show that some widescreen TV owners aren't any smarter than standard TV owners. Gotta fill that screen!
So what you are saying is that someone who owns a standard T.V. is dumb?

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.