Antagonizing people with rolleye graphics and public requests for moderation doesn't get a gold star either. If you genuinely want to contact a moderator about a user, use the "Report this post to a moderator" link.

1.33:1 doesn't necessarily mean you're using every micrometer of available image. The high-definition transfers of series like Hogan's Heroes expose more of the left/right of the negative than was ever aired on television, for example. You also have cases of series like Buffy the Vampire Slayer which had unused space on the left and right of the frame, and the preferred aspect ratio of its creator is 1.33:1. You can make the argument there, as you could here, that one looks better to your eye than the other, but as for being inarguable and objective...? No. If there were a hard, definitive answer, there wouldn't be any discussion.

Regardless of what the OAR was intended or if it was truly intended to be ok for both aspect ratios, based on the screen shot comparisons posted, someone didn't do a very good job at cropping this widescreen version. Even if the picture is a little bit clearer, I'm keeping my old discs, not enough change to justify renewing. Why can't it be easier to buy the movies/tv shows that I like, seems like such a project.

Anyone, please?

The aspect ratio of conventional 33mm film is 1.37:1 (nearly exactly 1.33:1). In order for so much new visual information to be evident in the left/right margins of the new DVDs' image, you imply that the producers filmed a 1.37:1 image, then zoomed in on it to create a wholly different 1.37:1 composition. That is perplexing and meaningless. It is clear that, since both the 1.33:1 and the 1.78:1 images display visual information that the other doesn't, both ratios were taken into account when the show was originally filmed. Agreed (for the umpteenth time) that you might prefer one over the other but you CANNOT meaningfully, credibly say one is OAR and the other is a hack-job--it is very obvious both formats were protected for when filmed; otherwise, the 1.78:1 image would have less top and bottom image and no new visual information on the left/right margins.

eau,

In my copy, there are 5 DVD's on trays in a traditional digipak boxset style.

Despite my earlier posts implying that this version was better "no matter what" because it was 1.78:1, after actually watching several episodes, I believe that the 1.33:1 version is superior and the correct OAR.

It appears as though the 1.33:1 frame (or the 35mm frame) was simply zoomed in on to a 1.78:1 frame. I'm not seeing any new information in the left/right margins of the new edition -- what I am seeing is the old 1.33:1 frame zoomed up. There may be movement vertically in the frame, but it doesn't appear so to me. Although the video quality seems better than the first edition, the aspect ratio is WAY out of whack. Almost every scene seems unnecessarily claustrophobic (not just the shots inside capsules with the crews -- and even those are TOO claustrophobic) and cut off top and bottom. If you want to see what I mean without shelling out for this set, play any 1.33:1 DVD (like the first "From the Earth..." or "Friends" or whatever) and zoom the player until the image fills a widescreen TV.

YMMV on a 4:3 TV -- I've not seen either set on a 4:3 TV, but I feel that I can say meaningfully and credibly that the new edition is, in fact, an OAR hack job.

Please consult the screenshots provided at the DVDTalk review of this title and explain to me how you're not seeing ample extra visual info on the left/right margins of the 2005 edition.

Well, I wouldn't say "ample". There is a little extra gained on the sides, but that hardly outweighs the amount of information you lose.

Truthfully, this is only your subjective opinion isn't it? You don't claim to have factual knowledge that this was done without approval or input from the series' creators or that a widescreen presentation was never intended do you?

But you don't know if they changed the zooming between the old 1.33:1 version and the new 1.78:1 version. The new disk of Ben Hur adds new visual information on the left/right margins (and the top too) even though it has the same aspect ratio as the old flipper disk. They just zoomed out a bit on the new transfer on many of the scenes. The fact that there is new information on a portion of the 1.78:1 disk is not a guarantee that both 1.33 and 1.78 were "protected". In 3 of the 4 images, the 2005 is clearly worse. In the 4th, some trees were added but they have no bearing on the scene anyhow; it is no more impressive or epic with the trees there.

I can't believe we're still debating this. Look at this:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/image...1127209070.jpg

Now explain to me how this was "protected" or "expected" to be broadcast in 1.78:1?

^the dealbreaker for me^

I guess some people just want that new widescreen tv "filled up" does joe six pack have a brother.

But again, this type of stance is predicated on the original filmed image on a 1.37:1 piece of 35mm film being zoomed in upon to create a wholly different 1.37:1 composition for the original broadcast/DVD. That flat-out, no way, Jose, doesn't make one whit of sense. I maintain that since there is new visual information on the 1.78:1 print, both ratios were obviously in mind when it was filmed. Until someone can meaningfully tell me why the 1.37:1 original film frame is not presented in its entirety on the original release, I'll continue to find the easy dismissal of the 2005 release to be unwarranted und unreasoned.

Exactly. If it was purely filmed 1.37:1 then there would be ZERO extra image on the sides of the new version.

Well, for one thing, I'm not watching the screenshots in the review, I'm watching my TV. It's possible that overscan is the culprit -- I do have a Mits and they're sort of known for over overscan.

That's all I'm sayin'! :thumbsup:

Fir enough, but since the aforementioned screenshots DO show substantial new info on the left/right frame margins, it renders the rest of your post at best, specious; at worst, moot.

Not exactly correct. In television production, often shows are shot on 3-perf 35mm, which has an aspect ratio close to 16:9. The 4:3 version is taken as a center-extraction, while the 16:9 version (if there is to be one) will use the entire width of the frame.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is one famous example of a series technically shot using a 16:9 camera negative but (per what the creators say) composed only for the 4:3 area.

I want to hit Joss Whedon for always making for the exception to the aspect ratio rules...I mean really, what's the friggin' point of this kind of methodology? Why add the extra step of "extraction"??? Just film 1.37:1 images on 1.37:1 film!

But then you are saying they shot it with a camera close to 16:9 and then composed(everything happens in the middle) for 1.33:1, which would mean that the WS version was taken into consideration and would explain the extra info on the sides. Right?

Well, there are clips in the "That's Entertainment" films that are cropped from 1.33:1 to 1.85:1. Lots of films blow up Academy material without a lot of attention to framing... I mean, Forrest Gump cropped a shot from The Birth of a Nation to 2.35:1.