they were out there...you just had to seek them out...with no internet and not as many places selling movies for home viewing it was limited...you had to search,

on vhs that i can recall
Star Wars
Indiana Jones
American Graffitti
The Godfather Trilogy
Spartacus
Friday

I also think a lot of people who were informed were using Laser Disc at the time so it never was a major issue...now that Film fans and Joe six packs are sharing a format this becomes a hot button.

Well, I guess your not friends with a "Ford" or "Chevy" person. I know, I belong to the latter camp. Also, the other makers have their fans as well, they are just much less numerous. If a Chevy persons friend buys a Ford, they will get a lecture trying to educate them. Same works in reverse. Anything people are passionate about works this way. Actually, I would say Automobiles and Polotics may be the leaders in loyalty far surpassing DVDs.

I converted to widescreen before DVD came out. The last part of my VHS collection which never got over 100 titles was widescreen. I told my dad I liked widescreen and although he bitched when we watched it he always went out of his way to buy widescreen. I had Air Force One, Die Hard Trilogy, True Lies and Men In Black on widescreen VHS. Then when DVD finally came down to the masses a little, $200-$300 a player I got DVD and there was tons of widescreen (yeah).

Never looked back. I have and do buy P&S on occasion when no OAR is available, but I never let anyone see me buy it. It makes me feel dirty. I will try to convert friends and family, but I do not harp to much to people in the stores. Sometimes I casually bitch out loud about all the fullscreen copies and the lack of widescreen.

When I started buying DVDs, most everything I was buying was only available in widescreen (or was a classic movie that was originally produced in 1.33). It took me a little while to get used to it (especially the 2.35 movies), but I did and now widescreen just seems "right".

There are folks who are just philosophically opposed to widescreen, though. I have a friend who perfectly understands the difference between widescreen and fullscreen buy still buys fullscreen when given the option every single time and goes so far as to not purchase movies he loves if widescreen is the only option (though he doesn't mind 1.85 movies enough to avoid them, but he won't buy a 2.35 movie).

Remo pics are from the American fullscreen version and the Japanese widescreen version thats why the fullsreen is far better, even if its the wrong aspect ratio, I dont give a crap as it looks better! it doesnt happen much, but in this case it looks better.

If I go out to buy a movie, i look for WS first, but if i'm stuck with only able to get FS i'll take it. It's not that big of a deal to me. And for those of you that are out there that want to "educate" people - why? To make you happy? i'm sure they're happy with their FS dvds...

I dont mind people watching them myself, but hey we all at one time didnt know we were maybe missing some footage (as its not all films we loose footage) but I do try to get people to watch my dvds rather than renting a vid or watching on TV, its better for them (I think).

But I wont force it on people and cry like some people do, they force it down peoples gobs and it gets pretty lame as they get so angry about bugger all, more important things in the world to moan about.

Most of my DVDs are fullscreen dvds. It's those damn TV series DVDs with those black bars on the sides that are annoying.

^^agrees

And what exactly makes it look better? Because you can see more dead space the audience isn't meant to see at the top and the bottom of the screen while seeing a little less on the sides? This is an improvement?

FWIW, a cheaper option than the Japanese disc is the Korean disc, which is also OAR. Unless, of course, you trust Romerojpg's professional opinion over the director and cinematographer of the film. In that case, the destroyed compositions of the US fullscreen disc will suit you fine.

DJ

Well now...a post I can relate to...sort of...

A few things...let's see...

I too have a 32" TV. Yes, 2.35:1 is a bit small on it, but I don't care 'cause I'm getting the preferred vision. Now, on the other hand, I will not buy Ben Hur because it's in 2.70:1. Now that's small on a 4:3 TV.

Now then, where we differ. You hate trucks, I love'em. In fact, I hate riding in cars. Hey, if you feel good feeling like you're sitting on the road, so be it. I prefer the ability to see more than just the vehicles tail-lights in front of me. Besides, I can't get into the driver side of a car anymore due to my handicap, so I'm going to be stuck with truck vehicles the rest of my life.

With regards to driving over speed bumps? What speed bumps...I drive a truck! You must be talking about city-slicker truck drivers. Where the biggest bump they drive over is a dislodged manhole cover. My small town has had one of its main roads under construction all year (it's still not finished (widening a 3-lane road into a 5-lane road) and there were several severe changes in road elevation between newly poured concrete and old pavement. I took those elevation differences pretty fast.

So basically you are a person who goes by what they want you to see.

I am not, I have my own mind and an not a sheep, yes some fullscreen films are far better than the widescreen version, in every way.
Just because a directior picks a certain aspect ratio does not mean he or she is right at all, calling it dead space isnt right in any way for most opened up films as how exactly is it dead? you see info that makes the film better on some films.

I wont bother saying much more about it but basically Super 35 is the best way to go about it as sometimes the the 2.35.1 versions suck, and the 1.85.1 TV versions are far, far better films. I could list loads like Titanic , The Matrix and T3, but as you may have not seen them I guess you cannot comment, but they are far better films opened up on a TV screen which is 185.1, in a cinema yes they maybe work at 2.35.1. but on my TV they dont at all and opening some films up is far better.

Star the barrage of comments on that, as ussualy thats what some people do, doesnt mean I am wrong at all! but some people still wont take it as thats the way they are.

But for me sometimes opening a film up looks better, if that goes against some directors wishes so be it, or Tit in this case.

I think some of it is fear that if the unwashed masses don't accept widescreen then widescreen DVDs will eventually disappear. I don't know that such a thing is a real threat anymore, but while DVD was catching on with the masses, the fear was not completely unjustified.

And I don't know that we're completely out of the woods on that front. We are seeing several movies here and there that once had both widescreen and fullscreen versions that are being replaced with fullscreen only versions.

Honestly, I don't care if there are fullscreen versions of a movie available as long as I can get OAR, but every time there's a new release that's fullscreen only or a rerelease that omits the widescreen version in favor of fullscreen, it ticks me off and it does rekindle my (probably unfounded) worry that widescreen will eventually go away.

That widescreen you came up with is interesting Romerojpg ......I'm a Destroyer fan so I need to peek about and see if I can get my hands on a copy

I guess it could be put that way. When I see a movie, I want to see the movie that was made in the way that those who made it want it to be. If I make my own movie, then I can decide how it should look.

You keep saying "better" without describing what exactly that means. And its called "dead space" because no action relevant to the film goes on there. If it was necessary active space, it would've been needed in the theatrical showings. If it can be cropped without harming the composition designed by the filmmakers, it's dead space.

Again with "better". Better how? Seeing more is always better? Why? What makes seeing more dead space better?

From the T3 screenshot comparison, I take it better means "more boobies." Now that's some deep, mature, and critical film analysis. Romerojpg knows obviously knows more about how every film should look than its director.

DJ

The thing with the Remo dvd is you can expand it to fit your widescreen and it will be pretty much OAR you loose approx 4% of the image from the real widescreen version it may not be anamorphic, but its still prtty close to the real OAR.

or as the person behind the DVDBEAVER review comparison says




The Region 1 version is not totally 'Open Matte'. You are still losing a small amount of information on the sides of the picture as you can tell by the images below. BUT, as you can also plainly see you get more information in the Full-screen version that in the Region 2 widescreen ( almost 20% more ). The Region 1 is also sharper than the Region 2 DVD. For those that have widescreen TV's they can simply zoom in and miss a little more than when most studious anamorphisize a picture from 1.85->1.78 (approx 4%). Both these images show some good film grain and limited Extras (none really - aside from a trailer).

There is quite a following that are defiant against Full screen DVDs, but like "Anatomy of a Murder", this film appears to have been shot in Open Matte. There are not encumbrances above (or below) the screen in the Region 1 version. No booms or tech equipment are visible. Guy Hamilton saw this entire image as he made this film. Personally I think the fetish of widescreen has eclipsed its true purpose in this case: to maintain original aspect ratio... the artistic integrity of the production. In this particular case I don't see "composition" as an argument either. We should remember how it was shot and also that it is not an art film by any stretch of the imagination. This film looks to have been framed by the director at 1.33 not 1.85. If you want to see what the director intended then get the Full Screen version. Its possible that Guy Hamilton made two films here ( one at 1.33 , one at 1.85 ), but I doubt it. I am satisfied to own the sharper Region 1 version and that is my recommendation. - Gary W. Tooze

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/remo.htm

As the American R1 FS release was an official one, are the Japanese and Korean releases also studio releases? If not, I can understand his reasoning that the FS version would look better.....cleaner picture, better print to work with.....I'm uninformed here so I'm just curious as to both overseas versions, and why they would be WS overseas while we got stuck with a P&S barebones here in the US.

Better is hard to acctually describe, you see more of the action for instance, its too hard to put into words, its like saying if I crop off an inch or 2 here and there what will you be missing, more film basically.

From the films I have compared some are a big difference I found The Matrix to be far better in action terms, the fights were far easier to follow and you see more moves and kicks and other bits that are obscured by the mattes, it did for me change the film and the fights esspecially they felt bigger and better. Same went for T3 the action scenes esspecially the chase were far better, better in that I saw more of the chase and you could see cars behind chasing in the opened up version that you couldnt in the OAR, so the threat was there all the time when they were matted over there was less threat. if any of that makes sense


EDIT
(oops I just noticed I am acctually talking about the 1.85.1 TV versions not the Fullscreen, so bugger I guess I cannot recomend the actual Fullscreen versions as I have never seen The Matrix in fulscreen, only the TV 1.85.1 and the OAR 2.35.1 versions oops )

The Japanese and Korean discs are official studio releases from MGM, just like the R1 disc.

DJ

Some people like 4:3, get over it. Fullscreen/Widescreen really means nothing anymore. Don't even try to talk that, it will make it worse. OAR is considerable talk, but sheesh...

And the person who wrote that review has no clue how 1.85:1 films are photographed, as he proved at length in a thread at the time on HTF. He thinks the director framed Remo for 1.33:1 because there are no boom mics in the 1.33:1 frame, so therefore Guy Hamilton meant it to be seen that way. He thinks its impossible for a director to shoot for 1.85:1 while keeping the 1.33:1 TV area safe. He has no understanding that when 1.85:1 films are shot on an unmatted negative with the intention of theatrical matting, the crew often keeps equipment out of the 4x3 frame to make television and other incorrect showings look clean. He doesn't understand that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of films exactly like Remo that exhibit the same phenomena. He doesn't understand much about filmmaking or video, and he isn't a reliable source of information for either.

DJ

That makes sense, I sometimes consider certain sites to be authorities on certain subjects and assume they are experts in there fields.

So I guess I never thought of that

I guess he goes on what looks better, like me then, which isnt what a Director would want (well I guess thats what I director definatly wanted ).

Would you mind watching a fullscreen version of a film if it meant that big chunks of the picture were cropped off of the sides, but that still looks better to your eyes for some reason?

DJ

I dont like sides sliced off, not at all, if its a very small amount then yes (very small) but thats why I like some TV versions as they dont have the sides cut off all, you get is more info on all sides I probibly sound like I love Fullscreen or something, I dont if it ruins the film which a lot do! in fact 99% do ruin the film as they are horrendously cropped to hell on both sides, but theres the odd example I am kind of sticking up for, the little guys so to say.

Very few films I would ever stick up for, the odd full screener and some Super 35 versions out of my 1000 or so dvds I own a hand full of fullscreeners

The Monster Squad pics shown a page back, they show how I HATE films in fullscreen, thats bad cropping that does ruin films.

Why can a film be ruined if it gets cropped on the sides? Because it destroys the images composed by the filmmakers?

When a photographer composes the content of a shot, 2 things are decided: not only what goes in the shot, but what stays out. Neither is more important than the other; both are essential elements of composition. Just as cropping part of the picture out can destroy the composition of a photograph, so can adding back in part of the picture that wasn't actually meant to be seen. Seeing more doesn't make it better if what you're adding in wasn't meant to be seen in the first place. Seeing more isn't better if it destroys the cinematography (and, yes, I say without hesitation that open matte can destroy composition as much as cropping - visual keys are thrown completely out of whack, leading the eyes to irrelevant material and removing the visual elements that can only exist when the frame ends at a certain point).

When I see a film, I want to see the film. This sounds deceptively simple. I'm not interested in seeing what might happen to look better to me. If I wanted to see what looks best to me, I'd shoot something myself. If it's not the way the film was meant to be seen, it's not really the film. Sure, I can sit through a modified version if its the only option, but it's surely something to avoid.

DJ

I think we both said out bits now DJ for and against, we can rest now the jury is out, and I am off to bed