Lion's Gate release of Saw II is in 1.78:1 DVD Screen Format!?!
#51
Guest
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mdc3000
I just fired them off an email about the issue...going to return my LORD OF WAR and told them how I will boycott all future releases that use this horrible DVD FULL SCREEN ....
#52
TOTY Winner 2018 and Inane Thread Master
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 54,191
Received 1,735 Likes
on
1,422 Posts
From: "Are any of us really anywhere?"
Originally Posted by Squirrel God
I can't believe people are saying they're not going to buy it because it's 1.78:1 and not 1.85:1. You really need to look at the black strip that runs along the top and bottom of a 1.85:1 DVD, using something like PowerDVD or WinDVD, to see exactly just how superthin this area being talked about is! As said above, you'd also need a display that could show this - if you're using CRT, forget about it.
Now, does Saw II have DTS or what? Some retailers are saying it does but it doesn't say so on the back and the press release didn't list DTS. So what gives?
Now, does Saw II have DTS or what? Some retailers are saying it does but it doesn't say so on the back and the press release didn't list DTS. So what gives?
#53
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Lemmie get this straight. They are taking 1.85:1 and putting them on DVD as 1.78:1? You do realize they've been doing this since March 1997, right? Nothing like keeping on top of an issue. Come on, guys, this is getting silly.
#55
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by DonnachaOne
Wings Of Desire, according to the back of the DVD box... heh
Does anyone know is Creep is actually shown in 1.78:1 on the Lions Gate DVD, or is evryone just going off the back of the box? I can't find any reviews of the Lions Gate DVD that mention aspect ratio, nor can I find any screenshots.
I found a review for the UK DVD that has a few screenshots of the 2.35:1 image:
http://www.dvdweb.co.uk/new/review.asp?mainID=924
Does anyone have the R1 DVD to verify the change? It seems like this is much more worthy of concern than of the aspect ratio change for Saw II.
-Jay
#56
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Jay G.
Just as an experiment, I checked my DVDs of The Big Lebowski, Living in Oblivion, and Strictly Ballroom, and noticed that the original Universal DVD of The Big Lebowski is 1.78:1 despite saying 1.85:1 on the back of the disc.
#57
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Texas
Originally Posted by Jay G.
Does anyone know is Creep is actually shown in 1.78:1 on the Lions Gate DVD, or is evryone just going off the back of the box? I can't find any reviews of the Lions Gate DVD that mention aspect ratio, nor can I find any screenshots.-Jay
#58
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: The Other Side
Originally Posted by caligulathegod
Lemmie get this straight. They are taking 1.85:1 and putting them on DVD as 1.78:1? You do realize they've been doing this since March 1997, right?
"DVD Widescreen". Beautiful. I hate marketing people; all they do is give murky information.
#59
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
If I recall correctly, it was a compromise between the regular TV (1.33:1) and widescreen theatrical exhibition (1.85:1 to 2.40:1). The difference between 1.85 and 1.78 is miniscule to the point of being totally irrelevant. The Lords of War contraversy is because they cropped a 2.35:1 picture down to 1.78:1. That's kind of a big deal. 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 isn't. It's been the standard since the first DVD and first Widescreen TV. Complaining about it now (almost 9 years later) makes us look like retards.
#60
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: The Other Side
Originally Posted by caligulathegod
It's been the standard since the first DVD and first Widescreen TV. Complaining about it now (almost 9 years later) makes us look like retards.
#61
DVD Talk Legend
Not all. Some. Probably most. I have seen the odd actual 1.85 AR used.
Um, you too can use the search function. Sorry, but I'm not your DVDTalk mother.
Yes, this is true. In fact, there are so many issues with ascertaining what the OAR was (down to 1.85 vs. 1.78), and what the original composition happened to be, it's almost not worth the effort.
Anyhow, I've seen this topic beaten like a dead horse. Luckily this isn't the HTF where the truly anal were really miffed about the whole thing.
If you have links to any of those threads, I'd be happy to read them.
I don't know. I do know that theaters often fit a film to the screen, and in the case of 1.85:1 there have often been reports of matting issues, such as microphones slipping into the top of the frame and such.
Anyhow, I've seen this topic beaten like a dead horse. Luckily this isn't the HTF where the truly anal were really miffed about the whole thing.
#62
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Shazam
Um, you too can use the search function. Sorry, but I'm not your DVDTalk mother.
#63
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by hermes10
I watched this movie over the weekend and it is definitely in 1.78. Knowing that this DVD was released in every other region in 2.35, I was paying particular attention to the framing in this movie (someone posted a link on this in the Creep thread). My overall impression is that this release could be open matte, but I was unable to find any information to verify this conclusion.
As I posted before this site has some screenshots of the UK DVD:
http://www.dvdweb.co.uk/new/review.asp?mainID=924
If you could grab shots from the R1 that match the R2, we could compare the two images.
#64
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if Lord of War was shot Super 35, the 16:9 aspect dvd is probably not cropped on the sides, but opened up on the top and bottom. Obviously theatrical aspect is always preferred, but if the director and DP approve this, I don't see what the problem is. Often in scope films, the composition is bad anyway. Why the tops of peoples heads and bottoms of chins are cut off all the time is beyond me. If only for the "fullscreen" version of everything they would actually crop off the sides every time. During comparisons, I've rarely found much information missing from 1.85:1 films. I found it on the story of qiu ju and Romper Stomper.
#65
Senior Member
Originally Posted by compulsive dvd
if Lord of War was shot Super 35, the 16:9 aspect dvd is probably not cropped on the sides, but opened up on the top and bottom. Obviously theatrical aspect is always preferred, but if the director and DP approve this, I don't see what the problem is. Often in scope films, the composition is bad anyway. Why the tops of peoples heads and bottoms of chins are cut off all the time is beyond me. If only for the "fullscreen" version of everything they would actually crop off the sides every time. During comparisons, I've rarely found much information missing from 1.85:1 films. I found it on the story of qiu ju and Romper Stomper.
#66
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Texas
Originally Posted by compulsive dvd
if Lord of War was shot Super 35, the 16:9 aspect dvd is probably not cropped on the sides, but opened up on the top and bottom.
#67
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Texas
Originally Posted by Jay G.
Do you still have the DVD? Can you do screenshots?
As I posted before this site has some screenshots of the UK DVD:
http://www.dvdweb.co.uk/new/review.asp?mainID=924
If you could grab shots from the R1 that match the R2, we could compare the two images.
As I posted before this site has some screenshots of the UK DVD:
http://www.dvdweb.co.uk/new/review.asp?mainID=924
If you could grab shots from the R1 that match the R2, we could compare the two images.
I don't have any screenshot software, but I'll see what I can do. I can always take a photo of the screen. I took a look at the subway scene, the first image on your link, and it looks like the top and bottom of the frame has been opened up, but there has also been some edge cropping.
#68
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by hermes10
I don't have any screenshot software, but I'll see what I can do. I can always take a photo of the screen.
#69
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Texas
Originally Posted by Jay G.
What DVD player software are you using? A lot of them offer a screenshot option. At the least, you should be able to hit the "print screen" button on your keyboard and paste the image into a paint or photo program.
Now, if I can just figure out how to post the images.
#70
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by hermes10
Now, if I can just figure out how to post the images.
#71
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Texas
Originally Posted by Jay G.
http://www.imageshack.us/ should work.



My original screen caps:


#72
DVD Talk Legend
Great Job on the screencaps, thanks! It confirms that at least Creep is open-matte, and not cropped like Lord of War, although I still don't like the idea of open-matting a film.
#73
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Texas
Originally Posted by Jay G.
Great Job on the screencaps, thanks! It confirms that at least Creep is open-matte, and not cropped like Lord of War, although I still don't like the idea of open-matting a film.
Face it, you position objects in the frame differently for different aspect ratios. If a film is actually composed for 2.35 it's not composed for 1.85. The 2.35 image matted from 1.85 does not convey the same mood or impression as the unmatted image, so essentially, you're seeing two different films. In some cases, the unmatted image may actually be superior, making the 2.35 theater version sort of a cheat, but that's really beside the point. This difference may not matter for "Kicking and Screaming," but I don't think it can be credibly asserted that "Lawrence of Arabia" would be the same film matted and unmatted (just an example, I know LOA was shot in scope).
And that's the problem as I see it. Showing a movie in one aspect ratio, and selling it on DVD in another, is sort of a bait-and-swtich scam, especially when the packaging does not clearly indicate that the aspect ratio has been changed from the theatrical aspect ratio. Maybe you'll be happy with the results and maybe you won't. There is also the problem these days that digital effects may only be rendered for the theatrical frame, so that unmatting the film means there will be some scenes that are panned and scanned, and that is totally unacceptable.
#74
Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jay G.
Other places list it as 1.85:1, and I don't think the back of the DVD box is a good source for info.
Does anyone know is Creep is actually shown in 1.78:1 on the Lions Gate DVD, or is evryone just going off the back of the box? I can't find any reviews of the Lions Gate DVD that mention aspect ratio, nor can I find any screenshots.
I found a review for the UK DVD that has a few screenshots of the 2.35:1 image:
http://www.dvdweb.co.uk/new/review.asp?mainID=924
Does anyone have the R1 DVD to verify the change? It seems like this is much more worthy of concern than of the aspect ratio change for Saw II.
-Jay
Does anyone know is Creep is actually shown in 1.78:1 on the Lions Gate DVD, or is evryone just going off the back of the box? I can't find any reviews of the Lions Gate DVD that mention aspect ratio, nor can I find any screenshots.
I found a review for the UK DVD that has a few screenshots of the 2.35:1 image:
http://www.dvdweb.co.uk/new/review.asp?mainID=924
Does anyone have the R1 DVD to verify the change? It seems like this is much more worthy of concern than of the aspect ratio change for Saw II.
-Jay
From another forum, they mentioned the film Stage Beauty was filmed at 2:35:1, but Lion's Gate released it at 1:78:1, that was earlier last year, but went unnoticed because it was a lower profile film.
#75
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Texas
Originally Posted by cbtaber
I have the R2 DVD of Creep which is 2:35:1. The film isn't the best, but it is really well photographed. Lion's Gate did crop the R1 release to 1:78:1. I personally have chosen to boycott all of Lion's Gate's releases in the future unless they fix this issue.
From another forum, they mentioned the film Stage Beauty was filmed at 2:35:1, but Lion's Gate released it at 1:78:1, that was earlier last year, but went unnoticed because it was a lower profile film.
From another forum, they mentioned the film Stage Beauty was filmed at 2:35:1, but Lion's Gate released it at 1:78:1, that was earlier last year, but went unnoticed because it was a lower profile film.
I didn't know about "Stage Beauty." I'll have to check out and see if it is open matte or cropped.



