Posted after ya sent this. Was it shot and presented in 1:37 to 1 ratio?

A lot of films are shot in the 1.37 ratio.

But standard televisions are 1.33 ratio. So the 1.37 negative is trimmed to fit this.

And by the way IMDB states:

1.37:1 (negative ratio)
1.85:1 (INTENDED ratio)

here's info posted from a consumer review...Although the theatrical aspect ratio of this movie was 1.85:1, while the DVD aspect ratio is 4:3, this is not a "Pan&Scan" DVD. In other words, almost none of the original theatrical image has been removed for exhibition on a 4:3 television screen. The film negative aspect ratio was 1.37:1 (almost 4:3), and for theatrical exhibition, the image was "matted" (partially covered from the top down and bottom up) to produce a 1.85:1 image. For exhibition on a 4:3 television screen, the "mattes" have simply been removed. So the DVD exhibition actually shows 25.9 percent more image than the theatrical exhibition. The movie was likely filmed this way so that the theatrical image wouldn't be butchered on television by the "Pan&Scan" process, and because the filmmakers didn't foresee the current state of the home video market, where consumers prefer movies presented in their theatrical aspect ratio, rather than in a ratio in which the image will fill up their 4:3 television screen (if there is a difference). This DVD presents the movie in the aspect ratio in which the filmmakers wanted people to see it on a 4:3 television, but it does not present the movie in the aspect ratio in which the filmmakers wanted people to see it in a movie theater (for that, the DVD would have to present the movie in a "matted widescreen" format). If you're okay with that, enjoy!


here's the specs from IMDB.COM


Technical Specifications for
Parenthood (1989)

Aspect ratio
1.37 : 1 (negative ratio)
1.85 : 1 (intended ratio)

and just for laughs, the laserdisc was also presented in fullscreen format.

i will not argue that the 1.33 ratio is slightly trimmed, but the absence of pan and scan is an important difference. a lot of the fullscreen movies that you see these days are from 2.35 ratios which is a marked difference than the former.

i'm not going to get in a widescreen/fullscreen debate here, as i'm an avowed widescreen consumer. it's just on this particular release, i think it's being presented as it was intended, so i will be purchasing it. thanks for the input.

I did read the thread...when I posted, I was only the third post. Not sure what I missed....

Anyway, sorry about the not-so-thinly-veiled sarcasm. From your initial post, it seemed like you were indeed advocating full frame releases, which would warrant sarcasm and derision. But since you were misinformed regarding the aspect ratio, then I take back my hostility.

Still, this movie does deserve an actual special edition, or at least a widescreen release (along with The Paper and an anamorphic Backdraft).

hey, i agree completely that this movie deserves a complete special edition, as it's one of my favorites from that time period. the cast is incredible, and i think it's one of the decades hidden gems.

this is a completely serious question though, how am i misinformed on the aspect ratio? since kubrick's movie's are presented in full frame as was intended, how is this one different? other than the .04 missing aspect ratio, of course. i am sincerely asking for info, as i've read up on widescreen and foolscreen, on various sites. any light you can shed on the difference which i've already stated would be appreciated.

Cool... I was thinking imdb might have been letting people believe it was intended to be presented in 1.37:1. Most 1.75:1 and 1:85 are shot on 35mm (based on my understanding) so many "Full Screen" versions are Open Matte.

I agree, Open matte isn't as awful as pan and scan of say a 2.35:1, but still not as intended. (We have many threads on here showing how open matte often has information not intended to be seen, from boom mics to the bottom of a costume/prop.)

Still dig the film. Just hope they release the 1.85:1 version some time.

I have not purchased this on DVD because I have the LaserDisc, but I would buy it if they would release a theatrical aspect ratio anamorphic widescreen SE of the movie.

I'm sure someone on this board will correct me if I'm wrong, but many 1.85 movies are shot in 1.37/1.33:1 and then matted for theatrical release. So although it is true that Parenthood may have been shot at 1.37:1, it was framed for (until I hear differently from Ron Howard or the cinematographer) 1.85:1. In terms of DVD, although there may technically be more in the frame in a "full frame" presentation, it's not the director's intended framing.

Kubrick (allegedly) specifically framed his films at 1.37:1...Ron Howard, on the other hand, would not likely do anything so non-mainstream as framing a movie outside of the accepted ratios of 1.85 or 2.40.

In any event, a full frame Parenthood may show more of the frame...but it's incorrect and not what the director and cinematographer intended for you to see. A movie like Pee-Wee's Big Adventure is a perfect example of this: it was filmed at 1.37 and matted to 1.85 for theatrical release. So while there is technically more in the frame on a full frame edition, you are seeing things that Tim Burton and co. didn't want you to see, like the tracks moving the signposts along or the bike chain coming from a hole in the bike-chain-holder (basically, filmic mistakes that are hidden by the mattes).

So it's a common practice for filmmakers to shoot the film at 1.37 and then matte it later for 1.85, but 99.9% of the time, the filmmaker is intending for the audience to see it at 1.85:1.

Also, while it's correct in this case, the IMDB is not a reliable source for aspect ratios, generally speaking.

Therefore, I (and most of the people at DVDTalk and other DVD sites) refuse to buy even full frame releases, as they are not what the filmmakers intended. Hope that was all clear....

It seems to be a re-issue of the OOP disc. It has gone under everybody's noses because many e-tailers don't have it for pre-order, including Amazon.com . Still DDD has it for under $10. http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemID=MCA020174

As Skoobooz discusses, the vast majority of films shown at 1.85:1 theatrically are filmed with an open 1.37:1 negative. This means nothing. The films are composed for the 1.85:1 theatrical exhibition. The are a multitude of examples of 1.85:1 films that show goofs when the mattes are opened to reveal the full 1.37:1 frame (e.g., Pee-Wee's Big Adventure showing a chain, A Fish Called Wanda showing John Cleese's underwear when he is supposed to be naked,). When I saw Psycho (1998) theatrically, the last reel was misframed, showing the entire upper portion of the frame. The audience could see the tops of the set walls, the roof, the boom mics, wires, tarps, etc. Many other films also show wires, boom microphones, mattresses that stunt men fall on, etc. These films are shot with the intention of the upper and lower parts of the frame never being seen. When so-called "full frame" video transfers are made of these films, the video technician often zooms the picture in to crop out these errors (for example, the most recent "full frame" transfer of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure zooms in to cut out the mistake in question). Often times, "full frame" transfers are zoomed in for the entire film so as to reduce all of the excess headroom, which can look silly. "Full frame" transfers rarely actually show the entire frame, in my experience. The entire image is zoomed, and while it still shows too much at the top and bottom, it also crops the sides.

Kubrick is in the very rare minority. In the absense of specific information from the filmmakers indicating that they want something other than the theatrical AR, the best course of action is to assume by default that the theatrical AR is the correct one.

DJ

thanks to SKOOBOOZ and DJTOELL...
 

appreciate the info guys, i appeciate all the tidbits you just dropped on me. i haven't seen the dvd of this movie and i wonder if it's zoomed and cropped? considering that i love this movie, and the unlikelihood of a widescreen transfer anytime soon, i'm probably still going to wind up buying this.

Zoomed or cropped or panned/scanned, OH MY! ;) Still doesn't matter. If it's not widescreen, it's not welcome. End of story. I'll go to another country if full screen is an issue and get the WS there. Worked for the only 2 full screens I had.

wasnt the first DVD release of Karate Kid open matte and everybody complained because it wasnt widescreen? If that wasnt ok then why is parenthood?

I assumed that more steve martin SE would be coming with the Pink Panther release...then the jerk was lackluster to say the least...now since Pink Panther is looking like a dud, I am guessing not as much cash is going to be flowing towards Martin movies....Its a shame they would do this.

I would like to see another source other than buy.com for this release though. Universal has gotten away from that kind of release, and have quickly become the king of the double dip. here's to hoping that they will at least give us the Theatrical OAR... I would buy that....

Actually, this is debatable... When the Stanley Kubrick Archives book was released last year, it revealed clips and storyboard notes about each film's theatrical framing of 1.85.

This book has been discussed ad nauseum at a different, and rather popular forum. (I think the moderators know which one, but I'm not sure if they want a link from thier website...)

fitprod

Really? I've seen it in quite a few places. Since I already own it, I never gave it much thought. Hmm. Maybe I should sell mine...

What..no thanks for the BassDude, (and fellow Arizonian?) who said the same thing earlier but not as detailed? :)

But yeah..this site is great for this type of info! And welcome to DVDTalk!

you mean the version of DVDtalk that's devoid of opinion and freedom of speech that's essentially a dictatorship....and that I've also been banned from? ;)

Yep...

i can't speak to correct ARs, but TCM has a really great widescreen version of the film that they show from time to time. i recorded that onto my TiVo some time ago and watch it that way.

sorry homes, no offense intended. i always have much love for fellow Zonies...BTW, did you have any luck in the Target fiasco a couple of weeks ago? i batted a big fat .000... :(

I'd rather have a commentary for a featurette than widescreen, but I might just be a weirdo

*CONFIRMED*

Anyone have a review of this dvd? If it's pan-scan then I don't want it.