Cinemaddiction

Much like "Waiting...", the new "Lionscreen" 1:78:1, WS TV friendly transfer is being applied to "Saw 2". Not that it's a huge deal, given "Saw 2" was a 1:85/16 x 9 to begin with, but I fear this may be the standard for Lion's Gate, and quite possibly other industry giants soon.

Anyone ever get a solid explanation as to why the images are being altered, other than to fill widescreen televisions, which in itself sounds fishy?

Eric D.

My best guess is that's exactly why Lion's Gate is reformatting their films...to fill the screen. The reason for this is that they are catering to the joe six packs who finally splurged on widescreen tv's and are pissed that they still get "black bars" when they were under the impression that all widescreen films would "fill up" widescreen tv's. It's just the next generation of the fullscreen lovers. God help us all if other studios start to do this as well. That's why I for one will not be buying any of the titles in question.

Edit: And this was the first time I heard Waiting... was botched too. Guess I just have to cross that one off the list now. Damn, and Dane Cook is funny...but not funny enought for me to give Lion's Gate my money.

phr33k

isnt the dvd lord of war like this?

Eric D.

Yep.

Shazam

This practice has been going on since the dawn of DVD... Go check your Warners DVDs from the late 90's on your computers and measure the aspect ratio.

1.78 vs. 1.85 is miniscule and practically speaking, not relevant.

cerial442

Here is where it gets interesting. Lions Gate is putting House of the Dead 2 on DVD in March, and all of the spec sheets have it as 2.35:1.

Cinemaddiction

That's not always taking theatrical aspect ratio into account, though. "North By Northwest" was shot in 1:66:1, displayed in 1:85:1, then released on DVD in 1:78:1.

Like I said, though, "Saw" isn't a big deal; "Lord of War" (2:40:1/16 x 9) was a real hack job. Then there's the whole Anamorphic or Non-Anamorphic. It's all Greek to me after that...

darkside

I'm personally not concerned about 1.85:1 movies like Waiting and Saw II since its doubtful I could tell any difference with TV overscan already eliminating the black bars on 1.85:1 movies, but 2.35:1 movies are a big deal. Thats a sizeable chunk of the image lost.

xage

Any idea what is the Flashing SAW exclusive at Circuit City?

CertifiedTHX

From what I'm gathering, this isn't surprising at all. Lions Gate does not appear to be responsible for the modifications in aspect ratio--to Saw II or to Lord of War. That falls on the production company, at least for the latter. Lions Gate is just the distributor.

I certainly share in the disgust over the changes done to Lord of War--opening the mattes ever-so-slightly for Saw II isn't such a big deal to me--but I think the outrage might be misdirected. Would seem Lions Gate has been getting a reputation that is undeserved.

--THX

CliffStephenson

Oh good God, my fear is being realized. Alright, first and foremost, the Waiting... DVD is not botched. The transfer was supervised and approved by director Rob McKittrick and DP Matt Irving.

Secondly, for those that didn't read the end of the big Lord of War thread, I will repost the important parts:

Jay G Said:

OldBoy

can anyone post a screencap of what a 1.78:1 ratio looks like?

Josh Z

Alright, ask and ye shall receive. The following sample was created using the Paramount DVD for The Manchurian Candidate, which was also "butchered" to 16:9 from its original glorious super widescreen ratio of 1.85:1.

Everyone ready? Here we go.


Let the freaking out commence.

OldBoy

so the bottom pic is 1.78:1?

Josh Z

Yes, 1.78:1. It's what the movie image in either case looks like with 5% overscan. You can see that the black letterbox bars are completely cropped out, filling the 16:9 TV.

- A 16:9 DVD has 720x480 pixels.
- A 1.85:1 movie uses approximately 720x460 of those pixels. 10 pixels on the top and 10 pixels on the bottom go to the black letterbox bars.
- A typical 16:9 TV with 5% overscan only displays approximately 684x456 of those pixels, regardless.

OldBoy

so then this ratio shrinks the left and right sides? that is horrible!

CliffStephenson

Josh,
You're my new favorite person.

Cliff

Josh Z

That's what overscan is. Consumer TVs crop approximately 5% off the edges of the picture. This is completely normal.

Josh Z

Thought you'd like that, Cliff.

Us former DVDFilers gotta back each other up once in a while.

Cinemaddiction

I, for one, never raised a stink about 1:85 to 1:78. I was just letting everyone else know, regardless of TAR, LGF may throw ALL their films in that format.

OldBoy

overscan blows!

CliffStephenson

But our point is that there's never been any indication that LGF would release ALL their films in that ratio. Undiscovered was released only 3 weeks prior to Lord of War and is in its proper 2.35:1 ratio. The new Crash director's cut and the Basic Instinct Ultimate Edition are also being released in March in their full 2.35 aspect ratios. And the problem with a thread like this is that it gives the (false) impression that Lions Gate is deliberately screwing up all their films. Just see the comment from above where Waiting... was referred to as "botched." With the director and DP involved, "Botched" is misleading and uninformed. But its also damaging as people panic and vow to not buy a title that has been so "altered" from its original presentation. If you're going to go down that road, here's a partial list of other "Botched" titles:
Corpse Bride (1.78:1)
Elizabethtown (1.78:1)
In Her Shoes (2.32:1)
Titanic (Original Release-2.25:1 Collector's Edition-2.30:1)
The Batman Anthology (All 1.78:1)
Alien vs. Predator (2.32:1)
Toy Story 1&2 (1.78:1)
Clear and Present Danger (2.25:1)
Star Trek Generations (2.30:1)
Saving Private Ryan (1.78:1)
Shawshank Redemption (1.78:1)
Ghostbusters (2.38:1)
Ghostbusters II (2.32:1)
Streets of Fire (1.77:1)
Backdraft (2.12:1)
Hunt for Red October (Old release-2.25:1 Collector's Edition-2.30:1)
The Brothers Grimm (1.82:1)
Husle and Flow (1.78:1)
The Wild Bunch (2 disc-2.38:1)
War of the Worlds-2005 (1.82:1)

I can go on and on and on.

Bottom line. You're not getting cheated any more than you were the day the first DVD came out, so stop listening to people who only "think" they know what they're talking about. Remember, the only person more dangerous than someone who doesn't know anything is someone who doesn't know anything but thinks he does. Please, stop spreading all of this as a new "Fact."

darkside

Yup, I never see bars even on correctly formated 1.85:1 DVDs. This cropping to 1.78:1 from 1.85:1 is a complete non issue. There is no way in hell I would ever notice while watching a movie.

abintra

Seriously.

Lumping 1.85:1->1.78:1 (or the other variations of that sort) in with legitimate pan and scan/open matte "widescreen" releases does a tremendous disservice to those titles that have been altered to be more "widescreen TV friendly" and focusing on those.

The few I'm aware of (that haven't been at the request of the DP/Director like Life as a House)..

Barbarian Invasions, The
Lord of War
Me Without You
Recruit, The
Snow Walker, The
Stage Beauty
XX/XY


I appreciate you both attempting to provide the proper context.

Cinemaddiction

..and my point is that I never said they were going to. I said may, based on the fact the last 3 DVD's, in a row lest we forget, were all released in 1:78:1. Until LGF releases a DVD in it's OAR, then how am I "wrong" to suggest that, vouching for only LGF? I'm not, and not that it matters to me or anyone else, I'll maintain that it's their flaw, and may continue. If people are drawing impressions from singular, proven observations, they're obviously not reading into what I say.

In closing, I hope you're not calling me out as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, because if that's the case, you've miscontrued my remarks. Taking them as gospel when they're merely suggestion based on physical proof. I have yet to pass anything as fact. I don't share anything unless I know what I'm talking about