Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > DVD Talk
Reload this Page >

Lion's Gate release of Saw II is in 1.78:1 DVD Screen Format!?!

DVD Talk Talk about DVDs and Movies on DVD including Covers and Cases

Lion's Gate release of Saw II is in 1.78:1 DVD Screen Format!?!

Old 01-22-06, 10:05 AM
  #51  
Guest
 
Join Date: 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 ....
I can understand the email and not buying their DVDs again, but how are you going to return a DVD if it's been opened (assuming it is)?
Old 01-22-06, 10:22 AM
  #52  
TOTY Winner 2018 and Inane Thread Master
 
OldBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Are any of us really anywhere?
Posts: 50,072
Received 1,015 Likes on 849 Posts
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?
what gives is that there will be 2 releases...i thought that would be obvious.
Old 01-22-06, 11:27 AM
  #53  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
caligulathegod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Grove City OH
Posts: 3,862
Received 49 Likes on 28 Posts
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.
Old 01-22-06, 11:41 AM
  #54  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah, I agree this issue is nothing to get upset about. On the other hand, the Lord of War issue is absolutely something to get upset about.
Old 01-22-06, 01:43 PM
  #55  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,731
Received 664 Likes on 461 Posts
Originally Posted by DonnachaOne
Wings Of Desire, according to the back of the DVD box... heh
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
Old 01-22-06, 08:50 PM
  #56  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Drexl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 16,077
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 13 Posts
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.
Another Universal example: the IMAX version of Apollo 13 on the more recent edition is 1.78:1, while the box says 1.66:1. It's maaaaadness!
Old 01-23-06, 10:33 AM
  #57  
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
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.
Old 01-23-06, 11:13 AM
  #58  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Other Side
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
Excuse my ignorance, but why was 1.78:1 chosen? Because of widescreen TVs? So, then, why wasn't 1.85:1 chosen as the standard? I realise this is a very small difference, but it IS misleading. And why not just make it 1.85:1 anyway? This is all making me very disillusioned.

"DVD Widescreen". Beautiful. I hate marketing people; all they do is give murky information.
Old 01-23-06, 06:28 PM
  #59  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
caligulathegod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Grove City OH
Posts: 3,862
Received 49 Likes on 28 Posts
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.
Old 01-23-06, 06:53 PM
  #60  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Other Side
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
True. So: ALL movies that have been exhibited 1.85:1 at cinemas are slightly cropped to 1.78:1 on DVD?
Old 01-23-06, 07:25 PM
  #61  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Shazam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Canuckistan
Posts: 10,027
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Not all. Some. Probably most. I have seen the odd actual 1.85 AR used.

If you have links to any of those threads, I'd be happy to read them.
Um, you too can use the search function. Sorry, but I'm not your DVDTalk mother.
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.
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.
Old 01-23-06, 07:53 PM
  #62  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,731
Received 664 Likes on 461 Posts
Originally Posted by Shazam
Um, you too can use the search function. Sorry, but I'm not your DVDTalk mother.
The search function doesn't always work the best, especially if serching for something with three letters like "OAR." I figured that since you brought them up, you must've participated, or at least read, the threads and might know their titles or such.
Old 01-23-06, 07:56 PM
  #63  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,731
Received 664 Likes on 461 Posts
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.
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.
Old 01-23-06, 08:58 PM
  #64  
Member
 
Join Date: 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.
Old 01-23-06, 09:42 PM
  #65  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 642
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
In the original Lord of War thread, there are links to comparisons where you can clearly see it is cropped.
Old 01-23-06, 09:43 PM
  #66  
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
There has already been a screenshot posted that proves this is not the case, and that at least one scene in the movie was severely cropped. There is minimal opening, and significant cropping --enough to completely alter the meaning and mood of the scene.
Old 01-23-06, 09:45 PM
  #67  
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

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.
Old 01-23-06, 10:55 PM
  #68  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,731
Received 664 Likes on 461 Posts
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.
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.
Old 01-23-06, 11:01 PM
  #69  
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
I have a projector and I don't normally view DVDs on the computer, but I found that WinDVD did have built in screen cap. I made three comparisons, superimposing your linked images over my screen caps. I didn't get the alignment perfect, but it's clear that the R1 release is open matte --apparently without any edge cropping.

Now, if I can just figure out how to post the images.
Old 01-23-06, 11:54 PM
  #70  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,731
Received 664 Likes on 461 Posts
Originally Posted by hermes10
Now, if I can just figure out how to post the images.
http://www.imageshack.us/ should work.
Old 01-24-06, 09:46 AM
  #71  
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jay G.
Thanks. My registration on the comparison images is little off on the subway pics due to not having an exact frame match, and a lot on the surgical chair pic. The edges of the 1.78 frames are not cropped.





My original screen caps:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Old 01-25-06, 06:14 AM
  #72  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,731
Received 664 Likes on 461 Posts
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.
Old 01-25-06, 09:44 AM
  #73  
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
I'm not a fan of open-matte either, though I will still buy a film I want to see if it is open matte, whereas I won't if it's P&S.

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.
Old 01-25-06, 10:48 AM
  #74  
Member
 
Join Date: 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
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.
Old 01-25-06, 04:28 PM
  #75  
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Look at the screen caps and read the posts prior to yours. Creep is not "cropped." The R1 release of Creep is open matte. I'm not defending Lion's Gate. I want to see releases in OAR, but we should get our terminology correct, especially if we're going to complain.

I didn't know about "Stage Beauty." I'll have to check out and see if it is open matte or cropped.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.