the don cheadle dvd traitor, which will be released by anchor bay on december 19th has an aspect ratio if 1,78 according to the back cover listed on dvd empire;
http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_ite...or=1#topoftabs

imdb states the original aspect ration as 2,35!

is it a misprint on the cover, or a wrong info on imdb? i hope anchor bay does not produce such a fiasco as lions gate did with their lord of war release!!

as there are still few weeks until release, perhaps someone with a contact to anchor bay could inquire about the ratio and perhaps inform them about the mistake, if it turns out to be one!?

2.35:1 is the correct aspect ratio. Hopefully that artwork is just a comp that has the wrong info.

i am starting to have that bad lord of war feeling then....

i have written an email to anchor bay and was very impressed how fast i received an answer to my inquiry! great service on their part.
however, they confirmed my fear, which i had when i encountered the back cover!!
here is the correspondence:

"hi!
according to the back cover, the dvd "traitor", which will be released on dec.19, lists the aspect ratio as being 1,78. however, the original aspect ratio was 2,35.
is this just a misprint on the cover, or will you be releasing the dvd with the wrong aspect ratio?
thanking you in advance for your reply regarding this matter i remain for now with
best regards"

"Hi,
Thank you for your interest in Traitor!
Because of the space constraints on DVD we are releasing the Standard Def version of this film in 1.78, but the HD version on Blu-ray™ will be in the theatrical aspect ratio of 2.35.
The 1.78 is not exactly the “wrong” aspect ratio as both versions were created by the film’s director for film’s release. The 2.35 version was used for the theatrical release and HD formats as it was better suited to the medium, and the 1.78 version was reserved for the standard-def DVD to ensure a richer experience even on a standard 4x3 television. Per the director’s wishes, there will be no 1.33 4x3 version, even for television broadcast.
I hope this answers your question!
Best,
Deborah Katz


"hi deborah!
i would like to thank you very much for your fast response! i was very impressed by it, as some major labels like warner don`t care enough about their customers to answer such mails.
great service by your company!
unfortunately, as i feared when i saw the backcover listed on dvdempire, the dvd will not be in the original theatrical aspect ratio.
the reason why i wanted to check with you about the ratio question, was because of the fiasco lions gate had when they released lord of war. the dvd release was also presented in 1,78, which caused such outcry by fans, that the company was forced to re-issue the film in the oar of 2,40.
in addition, you have stated that the blu-ray of traitor will actually be in 2,35.moves like this also often face huge criticism on dvd forums, as many standard dvd buyers feel somewhat "cheated" into being offered a lesser product and that companies are trying to force customers into blu-ray by such release differences.
i am sure you will reveive much negative feedback once the dvd is released and am hoping that your company will rethink the policy of not releasing the dvd in the theatrical aspect ratio.
i also find it difficult to believe that the aspect ratio decision was made due to "space constraints", as i would think that the ratio would not make such a big space difference.
in any case i would like to thank you again for your fast and detailed response to my question!
best regards"


is there any way the dvdtalk admins or senior users could intervene? hopefully users can spread this news on other forums to raise the awareness of the ratio problem with the release!?
how was it possible to have lions gate re-release lord of war, what methods of fan pressure were used?

WHY do they assume people with SD have 4x3 televisions???

Give us that email and let's flood them with emails! (POLITE, RESPECTFUL emails!)

That answer from Anchor Bay is just utter bullshit.

A 2.35:1 transfer takes LESS space on a DVD than 1.78:1.

thats exactly what i thought
why do studios still not understand that releasing a theatrical scope movie
in the wrong oar is just crap!!??

the email is:

[email protected]

i think such release policies should not be supported and the company should definitely realize that will cause protest!
like i said before, i am just curious what triggered lions gate to re-release their lord of war in the right aspect ratio!?
hopefully this can be repeated with traitor!!

I wish directors wuld stop shooting in 2.35:1. I kind of like the idea that this director framed his shots with 1.78:1 in mind.

ugh. go back to your P&S vhs.

I hope this is a joke.
If I had my way just about every film would be shot in scope.
Also it is very fucked up Blu-ray gets the film in widescreen while dvd people get a cropped version.I didnt think I'd see it come to this.

Why? Why limit films to any aspect ratio?

fail.

I gotta say this studio is being such pricks...they think the SD people still have 4x3 tv's and could care less about widescreen...well I am here to say we do care about this and its not fair that SD gets 1.78:1 while the BR people get the film in it's original OAR

According to IMDb, "Traitor" is 114 minutes long. Obviously space shouldn't be an issue.

I sent an e-mail to the address you provided. I've gone Blu, so this wouldn't affect me, but I agree that it's important to stamp out this kind of foolishness whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head before it becomes widespread.

Also, philip74, if you're going to write more e-mails or posts about this, please note how aspect ratios are written: 2.35:1, not 2,35; 1.78:1, not 1,78.

It may be a cultural thing. I don't know where Philip is, but decimals are written as commas instead of periods in some countries.

i am in europe, but i just wrote the ratios that way.....well because i was lazy i guess
anyway everyone gets the point and what is important is, that we all put pressure on anchor bay, before this release policy becomes custom!

i sent my email, and even sent something off to Bill Hunt at The Digital Bits, in hopes that he can publicize this fiasco and get his readers to join our efforts.

i contacted bill hunt as well. are there any other forums we could mobilize in order to put pressure?

Hey, BD is getting affected too. There are several titles with an OAR of 4:3 (or 1.44:1 in the case of the IMAX films) that have been cropped to 16x9, and there doesn't seem to be much opposition to it. I wish there was this kind of passion against these cases.

This whole thing just goes to show you that the OAR issue doesn't go away when people switch to widescreen televisions. Heck, I've even read about some people with CIH front projection setups (which use a 2.35:1 screen) who crop the top and bottom of 1.85:1 material so it will fill their screens. Now, you know these aren't backwards people who are ignorant as to why the black bars are there.

Why would you want that? I'm sick of having to turn my head from side to side when watching a scope movie. It's ridiculous.

And I always hear how excited people are when seeing films in IMAX -- which is just 4:3!!!

Then you're sitting too close.

It might be of some value to email Roger Ebert and ask him his thoughts on the topic of studios cropping 2.35:1 (and greater) ratios to 1.85:1.

Well for one thing I dont like IMAX.
I like WIDE movies. There is a reason the most beautiful cinematography is often wide or scope (2.35:1) aspect ratio.
Leone, P.T. Anderson, Wes Anderson, etc are some of my favorite filmmakers and they have shown the ability to make beautiful films in scope that just would not be possible in a flat ratio.

As far as the Dark Knight IMAX debate goes, didn't Nolan frame the IMAX scenes with a 2.35:1 theatrical exhibition (non IMAX theaters) in mind?