Lord of the rings - correct aspect ratio
 

Hey everyone,

i am very confused and like to ask some "Lord of the ring" prof´s for help. Want to buy these extended editions but various aspect ratios drive me crazy....

This was posted here some time ago and i like to catch up at this point with a question, okay?
Waow, i didn´t know that´s such a lazy job -lol-. At the shop "the two towers" is stated to be in 2.40:1 and the others in 2.35:1. Then again in internet and at our rental shop its in 2.35:1. Same story with "return of the king". So whats going one here? Also why are the normal editions all in 2.35:1 ? I thought they have been all filmed in one step? My friend says yesterday, that "the two towers" has definitly slightly differences in aspect ratio ;( .

Another question:
Whats the difference between "special extended edition" and "special edition"
and "extended edition"? It seems to be a never ending -army of darkness freak out- story to me :(.

greetz and thanks to everyone helping
Mario

i'm not gonna look up what the aspect ratio is or what it's supposed to be, but i'll just say that if there was any real problem with the aspect ratios for the lotr dvds then you would have heard about it long ago, repeatedly from about 5 million nerds all over the internet.

2.35:1, 2.39:1, and 2.40:1 are all basically the same aspect ratio.

It's nothing to worry about.

Each of the films has been released in two different editions. 1) Two-disc "special editions" of the theatrical cuts, and 2) Four-disc special editions of the extended cuts. And so far, that's it. (There are also boxed sets available of the three theatrical cut editions, and the three extended editions, but they're the exact same content as the standalone editions.)

There are only two versions: the Theatrical version and the Extended Edition. The extras don't repeat. The Theatrical Edition extras tend to be marketing based (trailers, etc.) and the Extended Edition extras are creative based (making of type stuff, etc.). The commentaries are on the Extended Edition.

The Extended Editions flesh out the story and characters a bit more and bring it closer to the book. The Theatrical version sticks more with the action.

My opinion: if you are even going to bother with LOTR, get the Extended Edition. The Theatrical version was for the limitations of theatrical exhibition (sore butts). The Extended Edition is for home viewing, where viewers have more patience and can watch at their leisure.

I wouldn't worry about the aspect ratios. No one else has ever complained about them. .05 isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference even if it were true.


**Ninja'd.**

...baseless and roofless answer. But thanks.
Mario

Actually, he has a point. As pored over as these films have been, have you ever heard a complaint about aspect ratios? Faramir, yes. OAR, no.

Hi caligulathegod and Josh-da-man,

thanx for your quick useful and informativeanswers! I get it now with the versions but related to the spect ratios i will have a closer look at my friends dvd and verify his statement and then decide.

thank y´ and have a nice day
Mario

According to the dvd geeks who contribute tons and tons of highly detailed info on all different movies into the DVD Profiler database all three movies are 2.35:1

Hmm. Try using a TV/DVDp combination that shows EVERY single bit of movie information without any sort of zoom/shrink operation, perhaps an PC would be a good choice. Then break out your tape measure and calculate it yourself. But seriously, the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.4:1 could be rounding or how perfectly you line up your tape measure.

Another form of reality check on this. 2.35:1 calculates to a movie resolution (no black bars included) of 720x363.12, while 2.4:1 is 720x355.56. 7.56 pixels difference, hardly even noticeable.

while in theory this is somewhat true, the Extended Editions feature "more action" in

Fellowship: Troll-Cave fight sequence

Two Towers - finale at Minas Tirith

more carnage on the Pelenor Fields in Return of the King

Right.

Even if there <i>were</i> a shift in ratio from 2.35:1 to 2.40:1 for one film, you wouldn't be able to tell it... Television overscan pretty much takes care of that. In fact, you're not going to even get a 2.35:1 ratio on a standard or widescreen tele. Go and measure it for yourself.

I agree; it's been a while since I used the Pythagorean theorem but, as I remember it working, it seems like the difference between 2.35 and 2.4 on a twenty inch screen would be about 1/10 of an inch of height ... on a 100 inch screen, it vaults up to about half an inch.

Well, to further confuse the OP, the FS version of FOTL actually has slightly more picture information on the top and bottom of the frame than does the WS version. However, of course, it misses a drenload on the sides.

Doesn't really matter just buy the foolscreen edition and you have no aspec ratio problems.

Isn't the actual aspect ratio 2.40:1 anyway? I read on some "apect ratio" site that 2.35:1 is actually a misnomer.

The actual current projected AR for scope features is 2.39:1 (.825" x .690"). It has changed over the last few decades. It was 2.35:1 (.839" x .715") until the early 1970s, when the aperture matte was changed to 2.39:1 (.838" x .700") to reduce flashing at splices. The current standard was made official in 1993 with SMPTE 195-1993.

I believe many cameras actually have 2.40:1 ground glass markings, and that 2.39:1 is just the projection standard. Depending on when a given film was shot, and depending on the ground glass used during filming, anywhere from 2.35:1 to 2.40:1 may be correct for that film. 2.39:1 was the official projection AR for all three LOTR films.

DJ

None of that changes that the Extended Editions add more character bits and flesh out the story while the Theatrical versions tend to focus on the action. The EE of FOTR, especially, is mostly character stuff added. The others add in character stuff and more action.

i was going to set the record straight, but I see DJTOELL has already done a fine job of it. 2.39:1 is the AR of all three (or, six i suppose).

Wow. Who Knew. I'm gonna watch the entire trilogy again! :banana:

while in theory this is somewhat true, the Extended Editions feature "more action" in

Fellowship: Troll-Cave fight sequence

Two Towers - finale at Minas Tirith

more carnage on the Pelenor Fields in Return of the King

I am not disagreeing with caligulathegod, I am just pointing out that Jackson while adding more character exposition for the EE's also reedited some of the action scenes and beefed them up for the fans. (and that's a plus in my books).

proof that as long as the changes are liked by the public, the director can re-edit his movie as he pleases. take that, george lucas!

granted, different kinds of changes are made. and you can get either version....

i just wanted to give everyone a warm and fuzzy threadjacking for lunchtime.

This statement makes me crazy -- what does this mean?

It means aspect ratios cannot tell you who you are.

Don't be so quick to gloss over that last bit. It's the most important part.

Peter Jackson offering extended editions of the LOTR movies? Everybody's cool with it because both versions are readily available.

Steven Spielberg tinkering with "E.T." to make it politically correct? People joke about it, but are generally OK with it because the original version is still readily available.

James Cameron making extended cuts of virtually all his films available? Everybody's OK with it because the originals are readily available.

George Lucas permanently shitcanning the original versions of three films that were some of the biggest influences in cinema history in favor of prettified special editions, also rendered politically correct? The son of a bitch raped my childhood.

I have the OT. Why don't you?