The Bus

Email sent.

DirkUSA

I have the German Special Edition of Saw and it is in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen not 1.78:1.

Dirk

flashburn

Ditto.

After hearing some bad things about this movie, I will only be renting it anyway. But if I do like it, I won't bother buying this release. Hopefully another region will have it in its OAR. Even if the crop from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 is very little, it is just the principal of it I refuse to support.


I also need to say, I think some of you are mistakenly thinking that "a lot" of movies are being cropped from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1. The reality of it is, it is probably due to your TV's overscan that is causing it to look that way.

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?

DirkUSA

The Japanese release has DTS. http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/(simple)/de...KEY=ACBF-10358

Dirk

Squirrel God

Thanks. Does that mean the US release doesn't?

Josh-da-man

There's actually very little difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1.

And how is everyone so certain that the movies are being cropped on the sides? I'd say that it's more likely that the top/bottom mattes are just being opened up a little bit.

mdc3000

True, it's very slight...but it's the PRINCIPLE of the thing...because Lion's Gate is going to start doing this with A LOT of movies... and frankly, if they butcher HOSTEL like they did Lord Of War, going from 2.35 to 1.78 I am going to be EXTREMELY pissed off.

MATT

Jay G.

Again, many, many studios have already been doing this to a lot of movies. Sometimes it's not even mentioned, with cases saying 1.85:1 when the transfer is actually 1.78:1. I know that all the Pixar 1.85:1 movies are on DVD in 1.78:1. It's an issue that has been going on for years, and nobody has cared about it until now.

I think this Saw II reaction is caused by the Lord of War issue. If Lord of War hadn't happened, nobody would even have noticed that Saw II had a slightly different aspect ratio. But suddenly Lions Gate is the new bad guy, so people are overreacting to an aspect ratio change that they likely haven't even noticed on several of their other DVDs.

Julie Walker

Hostel will be released by Sony,so don't worry

The film was made by Screen Gems(who are apart of Sony) and Lions Gate only had theatrical distribution rights for the U.S.

And Lions Gate has released 2:35:1 dvds before such as Cabin Fever(sneaky since no aspect ratio is listed on the package!), Irreversible and a few other films.

Though I would keep an eye out on any 2:35:1 films made recently that they plan on releasing on dvd to see if they come out in the correct ratio or not.

Peep

As far as I'm concerned, 1:85:1 = 1:78:1

Julie Walker

Since I watch the majority of dvds on my 17 inch widescreen laptop using Powerdvd. I can say that honestly the majority of 1:85:1 films(labeled as so on packaging) have the same thin black bar as 1:78:1 releases. Also there is no way to get rid of the black bars expect by extreme zooming in of the image. So maybe on WS tvs,1:78:1 framed dvds show up as 'fullscreen'...but not on my PC at all that is for sure. But I'm down with the black bars and don't mind them onscreen..unlike some people

And since their is no overscan. I am able to see the entire frame/image and some dvds it is quite interesting.

For example on The Howling SE. There is a very thin black bar/line on the right side of the screen...while none is on the left side. Meanwhile on a standard tv screen this bar/line is not noticeable

Giles

I agree, my HiDef TV's overscan crops all my 1:85:1 anyway - so I can't really complain.

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.

Also, my copy of Primer says on the back of the disc "Widescreen Version: presentint in a format preserving the 1.78:1 apect ratio of its original theatrical release." IMDB lists Primer's aspect ratio as 1.85:1.

Matthew Chmiel

Not many. All. Any film shot in the flat 35mm format are originally in an aspect ratio of 1.37:1. During the post-production process is when the director and director of photography frame the film to a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Some films are hard matted during post, some aren't (thus creating the ability to have an open-matte full frame transfer on VHS, DVD, TV, and so on).

The only format that comes initially in an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 is when one shoots in any sort of "video" format (like HD). However, that's closer to 1.78:1.

Warner has been doing this practice for years. Do I give a shit? No.

Squirrel God

Well, going from 2.35:1 (actually, it will really be 2.40:1 I suspect) to 1.78:1 is another matter entirely. I'd be extremely pissed off about that too!

Would also be pissed off about going to 2.20:1 as Miramax/Buena Vista did with 'Playing by Heart'.

Or if they went crazy like Alliance Atlantis did with the Canadian R1 of "The Adjuster", where they cropped it to 1.96:1 and then stretched it vertically. Butchers!

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/adjuster.htm

Someone mentioned Life as a House being reframed to 2.10:1 but that's a different kettle of fish as the DoP actually changed his mind about the framing after release so reframed it for home video. I have no problem in those kinds of circumstances - although would have been a nice bonus to give us a 2 disc set with both framings!

IMDB is so full of errors, I'd be more inclined to believe the back of the case.

Jay G.

I was going from the info available here, which talks about shooting hard-matted:
http://www.modeemi.fi/~leopold/AV/Fi...otingHardMatte

You may be correct that the hard-matting is only done in post, although the end effect would be the same, the lack of additional vertical image for a 1.78:1 aspect ratio change.

Jay G.

That's a good list of aspect ratio changes to actually be concerned about. I like how DVDbeaver states that "there's no clear winner" in regards to the DVDs, when the MGM release looks so much better!

Ture, IMDB is quite error prone, but what's the last theatrical release you heard of that was 1.78:1?

Shazam

Oh geez.

Too bad you missed all the threads years ago about this exact problem. You would have enjoyed them.

Let me ask you: Do you think you've ever been to a theatre that had a proper ratio of exactly 2.35 or 1.85?

Jay G.

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. Those issues do support my point that worrying about a aspect ratio change from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 on DVD isn't that big of a deal, in my opinion.

However, my point with Primer's aspect ratio was that, while 1.85:1 films may be possibly shown at some theaters as 1.78:1, I don't think I've ever heard of a film's aspect ratio officially given as 1.78:1 for its theatrical release.

hermes10

Further info to support the idea that this is a new strategy.... I was browsing the used DVDs at the Movie Gallery and discovered "Creep" from Lion's Gate was described as being in "DVD Widescreen" format. According to the IMDB, this movie was shot in 2.35 to 1.

Matthew Chmiel

From what I've seen, most flat films that are released now are just done open matte so it's easier to create a "full frame" transfer for video and television. The only films that are shot in flat that are still hard-matted during post are those that require an extensive bit of post-production work such as CGI effects. It's cheaper and faster to create all CGI effects within a 1.78/1.85 frame (less space to work with) than it is to create them within a full frame.

Lionsgate's release of Waiting... in two weeks is in 1.78:1 (compared to the film's 1.85:1 OAR), but I'm still purchasing it. I honestly don't give a shit if a 1.85:1 film is altered to 1.78:1. It's not a big difference, and most of the time, it's just the frame being opened up. However, I do care about scope films being cropped.

DonnachaOne

Wings Of Desire, according to the back of the DVD box... heh

oldone

Just fired off an email as well. I did just buy my new 56" JVC to watch cropped movies.

digitalfreaknyc

Did you?