aam

Um, yes. This is exactly what I said.

(?)

Chi23

Almost all of the movies shown on HBO HD (wider than ~1.78 of course) are cropped to the 1.78 ratio. It's frustrating, but there is no doubt that 16x9 pan-n-scan will become a norm in the future.

It really saddens me, but "full" screen always has ended coming out on every video format I can recall...it's disheartening.

So close, yet ever so, so far away....

CrumpsBrother

From what I've heard this is widely done in Europe -- P&Sing 2.35 movies to fill a 16x9 TV screen. So, we've got a HUGE uphill battle here. That said, we must make it know that THIS SUCKS and we won't stand for it!

Hendrik

...ah...so... Sunrise / Citizen Kane / Alexander Nevsky / M /
Les Enfants du Paradis / A Matter Of Life And Death / The Seventh Seal /
Bicycle Thieves / Tokyo Story / the APU trilogy - to name just a very few titles - are not "cinematic"...?...

( (thinks) : digitalfreaknyc must be one of those young whippersnappers I keep hearing about...)

(signed) Old Codger

. . . . . .

typecase

Just when I thought it was safe and nearly every studio was doing anamorphic widescreen transfers in OAR for all new releases (except MGM now and again). Not that long ago, Disney, MGM and Fox would have spotty support of anamorphic widescreen (ie, from Dusk till Dawn is STILL non anamorphic ). the releases were so uncertain, I was scared Fight Club would be non anamorphic which would have been a tragedy. Now with this pan and scanning of 2.35 movies, a scenario that hadn't even occured to me, we must fight another battle. I hope we win.

digitalfreaknyc

Well...i think the director should make his decision as he/she sees fit. But keep that same decision when it comes to home video releases. I just personally prefer the way 2.35 looks both in the movies and at home.

And in response to your presumption about me....yes. It is true. 25yo and have never seen any of the movies you mentioned. All About Eve is the only full screen movie I own...and nothing can be done about that.

PatrickMcCart

It was made only 2 years before the first widescreen home video, but letterboxing was done in extremely small amounts from what I've heard.

The reason why filmmakers can't show 2:1 conversions in theaters is that it's not practical. Most theaters show either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 and that's it. Most theater owners won't change matting or curtains on a screen out of laziness.

So, you'd have a nice 2:1 print of Life as a House, but the theater screen would look awkward.

It's not really a big deal to have variable ratio films. VistaVision was made, for example, to be matted anywhere from 1.66:1 to 1.96:1. Even normal 35mm can be used to create 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1, and 2.35:1 images. It's really just a matter of people not accepting that filmmakers have better input on the presentation of their films than the consumer.

JimRochester

I'm an OAR fan and always are in favor of widescreen. But I do have to admit, while watching Titanic, I thought many of the shots looked a little too tightly cropped. After Cameron mentioned he likes the larger frame I wondered why he didn't release it at 1.85:1.

djtoell

Laziness aside, there would be no reason for any theatre to be equipped to project at 2:1. SMPTE 35mm projection standards allow for projection only in 1.37:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1, and 2.39:1. No theatre would have the necessary plates or lenses to project at 2:1, as they probably don't even exist.

DJ

larry bender

SILVERADO was later corrected to its proper aspect ratio of 2:35 in a later dvd release.

DonnachaOne

Any way to check the difference? The ones i find always say just the usual Columbia "Digitally remastered audio & anamorphic video".

seymouru

MGM released Manhattan at 1.85, although it was at 2.20 in all previous widescreen video releases. After the DVD release, they claimed that 1.85 was actually the OAR after all. Right.

larry bender

MANHATTAN was 2:35 in theaters and is about same on dvd.

larry bender

In regard to SILVERADO, it has been a few years since it has been corrected to 2:35 so there is a good chance that is what it is. Also I have seen this disc for as little as 9.99.

seymouru

You're correct. I remember a discussion about one of Woody Allen's releases having been released in MAR. I thought it was Manhattan, but I guess not. I'll have to dig through the archives to figure out what it was. Man, it really sucks when the memory starts to go. Sorry for the confusion.

djtoell

It was Manhattan that had such a controversy, but the DVD is in the proper AR. There was a LD release of Manhattan that mistakenly showed the entire exposed negative, including the portion on the far left of the frame that was covered up by the soundtrack when the film was released theatrically. This part of the frame was never meant to be seen. This LD had an AR of about 2.6:1. The DVD release restored the proper AR for the film, covering up the left side of the frame and showing the film in its proper 2.35:1 AR. MGM's DVD has the correct framing.

This isn't the only the only scope film to have the far left side of the frame mistakenly shown on home video. The widescreen Doctor Zhivago LD also showed the portion of the frame that was meant to be covered up by the soundtrack, and this mistake was also fixed for the DVD.

DJ

Josh Z

He may have also been thinking of the first VHS and laserdisc releases of Manhattan, which were presented at about 1.85:1. This was one of the very first movies to be released letterboxed on home video, and the VHS edition saw record numbers of customer returns because people thought it was defective.

The letterbox bars on that copy were actually gray, because the studio thought that would be less distracting on a black & white movie. They hadn't hit their learning curve yet.

The later laserdisc remaster was 2.6:1 as you say, and had proper black bars.

Rypro 525

what indeed was "exposed" on the far sides?

seymouru

I was thinking of the Manhattan LD at 2.6 (2.55?), and I still like its composition more than the 2.35 DVD release. Maybe I was just more accustomed to seeing it the wrong way all those years. In the earlier discussion I mentioned the opening scene at Elaine's as an example, where Anne Byrne is clearly visible on the LD but partially cut off on the DVD. I thought having her more involved in the conversation helped set up Yale's later infidelity. But if Woody Allen and Gordon Willis really intended it to be 2.35, so be it. I'll continue to watch the LD, however.

Thanks DJ and Josh for clearing up my memory.