I apologize, as my remarks were not directed at you, but at the whole situation. I agree that the theatrical aspect ratios of these movies are 1.85:1 and they are being slightly reformatted to 1.78 for video. There's no disagreement there. What we have been trying to say is that its not a Lions Gate issue as every studio does this to some degree. What we are also saying is that despite the "TECHNICAL" aspect ratio being 1.85:1, there are many variables that make that number relatively useless. Think of 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 as approximates. Seeing a sliver more on the top or the bottom or having a sliver cropped off the sides doesn't change the film's composition, which is what the rage over Lord of War was actually about. Like I said earlier, see the same movie in the same theater a week apart and you'll almost certainly get slightly different framing. Worry less about the numbers and more about the art.

The comment about people who don't know their facts was more directed at The Digital Bits for running this "story." Let me put it another way. If I came out and said that Dreamworks is continually and knowingly reducing the resolution of their films on DVD, impressionable folks would take this and run with it and soon there would be threads all over taking Dreamworks to task for this practice. The truth is that ALL studios downrez HD masters for DVD and that's were most DVDs get their transfers from. So, while technically what I said was true, by only singling out Dreamworks for something that's common among all studios and something that most people wouldn't understand is not a bad thing, it creates a lot of misinformation that is recycled over and over again. That creates a lot of people who think they know what they're talking about, but in reality, they're just regurgitating information that they don't truly understand to someone else who knows a little less than them. That's why its dangerous.

My problem with your original post is that it reads as though you didn't completely understand the whole issue as you alluded to other industry giants following Lions Gate's lead, when the truth is that Warner and Sony were utilizing this transfer method before Lions Gate ever bothered to release a DVD. Then to be followed up by a comment that Waiting... was "botched" told me a little fact was in order. Again, if you want to post a Saw II aspect ratio thread, then you'll need to start Corpse Bride, Lethal Weapon, Ghost, Titanic, Birdcage, Bad News Bears, Finding Nemo, Young Frankenstein, Junebug, and War of the Worlds threads as well.

But I've already told you that they're not. House of the Dead 2, Crash Director's Cut and Basic Instinct will all be released in March at 2.35.

No. North by Northwest was shot in VistaVision, which meant that it could be exhibited anywhere from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1. By the time it came out, nearly all prints were 35mm dye-transfer Technicolor reductions.

MGM's recommended projection AR, though, was 1.75:1. Warner's DVD is 1.78:1, which is pretty much the same. It's also important to know that the DVD has the widest picture than any previous format for the film. Even the letterboxed Criterion DVD heavily cropped the sides.


Guys, there is practically no reason to be concerned about 1.78:1 vs. 1.85:1. All they do is open up the image by about 20 more pixels vertically. The sides do not get cropped. Also, 1.37:1 films being cropped to 1.33:1... Academy Ratio films often had a LOT of room in the frame for cropping on the screen. It's likely that the DVD's expose more information than you would have seen in a theater.

Remember, though: more picture doesn't mean it's right or wrong. Less picture doesn't mean it's right or wrong.

the screener for House of The Dead 2 is 1.78:1, instead of the 2.35:1 OAR. so we'll see how its released to retail.

Just a quick note: If this is something you feel strongly about, you should learn the correct way to express aspect ratios --- 1.85:1 not 1:85:1, 2.35:1 not 2:35:1, etc.

We return you now to your regularly scheduled thread.

Which is better to get this coming Tuesday?

1. The Bestbuy Comics Package?
2. The Circuit City SAW2 Flashing Saw?

I don't own a widescreen tv yet. That is in my future plans once I graduate from college.

So I'm wondering, do they sell widescreen TVs that don't have overscan? I would assume they would have a feature to turn it off. I recall watching a Kurosawa DVD on my friend's widescreen TV and I could tell something wasn't right with the edges. Some of the letters were cut off on the sides. I then compared it with the Standard TV in my room and I was right, the widescreen TV was cropping the edges. I assume this is Overscan?

In my opinion: #1.

Actually, I caught some of this on SciFi Channel last night at 1.78:1. Was the 2.35 AR ever confirmed by anyone that would actually know? I'm inclined to believe it was always 1.78:1.

If you don't like your overscan, then change it. Get DVE and fix it yourself. You can easily reduce it to 2% or less, depending on your preferences. I for one am very picky of my overscan and check the picture calibration every few months to see if it still looks right to me.

My latest TV (Samsung 42" DPL) had a serious horizontal shift (and many other problems, including the overscan) right out of the box. I'm still working on getting the picture to look the way I want, but it's way better then it was when I first turned it on.

On CRT TVs, overscan is necessary because as the TV ages, the picture shrinks, resulting in less overscan.

Overscan has been carried over to new TVs because CRTs are the lowest common denominator when it comes to broadcasting.

If it was made for TV and broadcast in 1.78:1 and the screener is 1.78:1 then where did the OAR of 2.35:1 come from? I highly doubt that the director shot it for an aspect ratio that would never be seen.

What's DVE?

It's actually either way, unless you wish to call Kodak liars? You know what I'm referring to; to nitpick is juvenile and elitist, even in joking.

I'm not nitpicking, and I'm not joking. I'm trying to be helpful. If this is a subject you care about, and clearly, like the rest of us, you do, it serves your best interests to get the terminology right.

And aspect ratios are not written either way. An aspect ratio is a ratio of width to height. It is written with a single colon, not two. If the number before the colon has a decimal point (which does not serve the same purpose as a colon), it's because it is not a whole number.

For example, 2.35:1 is written that way because the image is 2.35 (2 and 35 one-hundredths) wider than it is tall.

From Kodak's Web site glossary on photographic terminology:
You'll notice, in Kodak's examples, none of the aspect ratios have two colons. 2:3 is not the same thing as 2:35:1.

Again, just trying to be helpful. Striving for accuracy is neither juvenile nor elitist.

Digital Video Essentials

Zero overscan has drawbacks. Most broadcast TV stations have excess signal crap along the edges that is intended to be cropped off by TV overscan. If your display has no overscan, you see it, and it's ugly.

Using two colons in an aspect ration (2:35:1) is obviously the notation used when dealing with 3D viewing. This will become the standard in the future when the holographic projectors come down in price.