Dane

Despite Tideland OAR 2.35:1 altered to 1.78:1, and Gilliam being angry about it (however, the director's prefered ratio is 2.25:1), the Region 1 actually showed more information.

Although, I thought the movie was weird I found the 1.78:1 to be much better.

Read this Region 1 vs. Region 2 comparison here:
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/th...ideland-part-2

And a more thorough analasys here:
http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/tidecrop.htm

However, I find it much more disturbing when a given movie is totally re-edited and re-scored such as with the case of the original titled The Boat that Rocked Region 2UK aka Pirate Boat Region 1. The Region 1 is totally butchered as well as shortened by 15 minuttes.

...Or In Seach of a Midnight Kiss originally in Black & White (Region 2) which has been issued on Region 1 in color.

...Or In the Electric Mist, wich is also shortened by 15 minuttes on the Region 1 DVD.

samre5

Has Terminator 2 ever been re-released as "full-widescreen".....or 1.78:1....1.85:1 apect ratio ??

matome

No.

rw2516

There may be seperate versions, but The Great Raid was cropped to 1:78 on the disc I rented. There may have been a deluxe version that was correct ratio.

mdnitoil

The unrated director's cut is 2.40:1, for what that's worth.

Drexl

It probably should be noted that OAR does not necessarily mean showing "all of the image." That may be the case with true scope movies like Star Wars or Blade Runner, where you see comparisons that show the 4:3 version getting butchered. It's true that for Super 35 movies, there will be more image that could be seen by opening up the top and bottom. However, this does not mean it is meant to be seen. They may allow it for television, but generally the 2.35:1 ratio is intended.

Although, it seems that some directors aren't as strict about a singular aspect ratio as others. There are a few who prefer the image to be opened up for home video, like Roger Donaldson (The Recruit), and apparently Robert Rodriguez in some instances.

Darth Maher

If their intention all along was for both movies to be shown as one long (double) feature, shouldn't they have agreed on an aspect ratio?

JJE-187

I wouldn't have minded if Planet Terror was shown theatrically as 1.78:1 and Death Proof 2.35:1 Grindhouse was a homage to 70's grindhouse fare and not all movies that were doubled up back then were the same aspect ratio

orangerunner

A special scope lens is placed on the projector to show 2.35:1 scope films, so if you're using a platter this can be a pain for the projectionist.

The old-school way where you have separate 20 minute reels that switch between two projectors might suit it better but few theaters still operate with that system.

samre5

Well, it's clear to me that there are many instances where movies have been altered for better "optimal viewing on the modern day equivalent of fullscreen ...that being 16x9 TV's.
Are there any 2.35:1 OAR movies that have been altered and released as " 1.78:1 Full-Screen" or 1.85:1 on "BLU RAY" ??? ... "THAT", Sir, would be...TO ME.... the Holy Grail of all finds to settle a contentious debate that I had in a thread in another forum.....I call it" Big Brother Forum" ......where only "their agenda" was being voiced and "the BIG secret" that is being discussed FREELY in this thread was met by deflection, condescension and dismissive responses........and never answering the specific questions directly, as has been done SO OPENLY in this particular forum. I would really like to find out. I felt like Neo in the Matrix before he knew the answer. They did push me to buy the Philips Scope TV a couple of times......in the face of my explaining that I payed $4500.00 for a 60 inch Sony 4 years ago......Hmmmm ???!!!

Adam Tyner

Most theaters keep a constant height and just vary the width, right? Couldn't Planet Terror have been printed in scope but been pillarboxed so it'd still be 1.78:1? The only difference is that you wouldn't have the curtains in front of the bars. I've seen several movies that have had 4x3/16x9 images pillarboxed in a scope frame, but I'm not sure if there are any other issues with doing that for the length of an entire movie.

It's not the first time Robert Rodriguez has matted to scope theatrically and opened it up on DVD/Blu-ray. He likes to fill the screen in both arenas.

Jay G.

Some sort of solution probably could've been arrived at if Rodriguez had seriously wanted a 1.78:1 image in theaters. However, as you point out:

Josh Z

Rodriguez and Tarantino in fact did agree on an aspect ratio. "Grindhouse" is a 2.35:1 movie. It's only when Planet Terror is broken out on its own that Rodriguez has modified the aspect ratio.

The 6-disc Japanese DVD box set has all of the Grindhouse theatrical cut at a consistent 2.35:1. But the Planet Terror extended cut on the next disc is 16:9.

smurr05

Its actually 2.0:1 as preferred by Coppola and stated in the extras of that DVD-

mdnitoil

Well let's not get silly here, Coppola apparently doesn't give a shit. If he did then many of his films would be similarly butchered. The whole screwed up aspect ratio is Storaro's "vision"...which he somehow aquired in a dream about ten years after he filmed the damn thing. For god knows what reason, he's decided that 2.0:1 is the magic aspect ratio and anything that he didn't originally film that way will just get chopped. To be fair, he doesn't seem to care which director's work he messes up. He also pulled the same crap with The Last Emperor.

Some of the screen caps on that one are just awesome. Beautifully framed scenes that completely fill the 2.35 frame with guards on either end now have half a guard on either end after he cut that one down to 2.0:1 as well.

My only consolation is that he's a lot older than me, so maybe after he dies I'll be able to see this stuff correctly again.

samre5

Are there any 2.35:1 OAR movies that have been altered and released as " 1.78:1 Full-Screen" or 1.85:1 on "BLU RAY" ??? Even a single instance ?

mdnitoil

I don't know about that, but the BR release of the '39 version of Max Fleischer's Gulliver's Travels took a fullscreen 1.37:1 film and somehow made it 1.78:1. Amazingly, they didn't even simply cut the top/bottom of the frame, but both cut the frame and applied some kind of squeezing/stretching. It's pretty much a total abomination. The Amazon reviews are pretty damn brutal.

Drexl

Well, there is The World's Fastest Indian, which is another case where the director wanted it opened up for video. Is this something you would like to see more often?

You mentioned 2.35:1 TVs. I don't see them as anything more than a niche. As long as TV stays 1.78:1, there just won't be a big market for them. Bear in mind that on such a set, anything that isn't 2.35:1 will have black bars on the sides. That means that 1.85:1 movies, classic Academy ratio films (generally stuff made before the 50s), anything on TV, and video games, will have side bars. I think the all-around usefulness of the 1.78:1 ratio will continue to be more appealing to most people.

samre5

I agree,...... I have a Sony SXRD 60 (16x9 of course) that is 4 years old.....I had some maniac (with a hidden agenda) telling me I should get a Philips Scope TV in order to see 2.35:1 movies in their intended aspect ratio......I'll keep my true thoughts bottled up. Thus, The start of this thread in a search for some answers. It all started with a search for a T2 version at 1.78:1 which I now believe would be "Full-widescreen" format.....if that is correct. Still to no avail.

SilverDreams

The Region 2 UK DVD of Jane Campion's PORTRAIT OF A LADY is cropped from 2.35:1 to 1.78:1 and the difference is amazing. I have discovered that I can use HANDBRAKE to rip any non anamorphic DVD and it will create an anamorphic image that I can then watch on my LCD HDTV. So yay!!!!

So all my non anamorphic DVDs have gotten this treatment.

Rypro 525

the first austin powers movie is cropped/opened up to about 2:00;1 per the director's order

Mr. Salty

Altering a movie's intended aspect ratio just to fill up your precious TV screen's pixels is never for the better. The unused real estate is minimal with a 2.35:1 AR on a 16:9 screen. With a 60-inch TV you should be more than happy that you're seeing the movie the way it was intended to be seen.

I can't believe people are being so easy on you. I was hoping this sort of discussion was played out by the end of 1997.

samre5

EVERYBODY TAKE NOTICE............Mr.Salty......no offense, but I left a forum where everybody is like you........"THIS forum" has been a walk on a nice spring day( with a random pile of dog shit on the path..i.e...preference bashing).....Your agenda should be kept to yourself. Not a single person in this forum has made a statement contrary to the preference of OAR...."preference" is the key. The majority of people are providing facts.

Perhaps you need to read the "start" of this thread>>>>

Is there a list of studio release movies that have been altered from their OAR of 2.35:1 and put on DVD for the purpose of viewing on a 16X9 TV? Thanks much....no opinions please, just facts.

There it is in a nutshell.

OAR is necessary for people who want it.......

"Full-Widescreen 16X9 " versions of my favorite movies is in demand by people like me, who probably already own the OAR versions of the movies that they're looking for anyway. My personal choice would be to have it available on Blu ray. In my opinion, since I ZOOM every single OAR 2.35:1 movie that I have ever owned or rented to fill my screen,..."including Blu ray". THIS would be the answer for me....personally.....without condemnation of anybodys personal beliefs.

The debate is solved..... When they "crop" the film to 1.78:1 (16:9) the entire image fills the screen at the proper high resolution ( ie. no loss in quality unlike when one tries to zoom in on a 2.35:1 scope film in order to fill their screen).

This is a fact.......not sarchastic condemnation of anybodys choice.

mdnitoil

And here I thought we were trying to compile a list so folks knew what to stay away from.

I really need to pay more attention to the conversation!

Cheato

The main person that seems to have an agenda here (hidden or otherwise) is you. Sorry, but you don't get to dictate the direction your thread goes in.

And I like how you keep talking about the "proper" resolution of an "altered" image. The Orwell Award for 2/17 goes to you.

@mdnitoil: I'm with you. I was making a note of which titles have been released improperly. I'd avoid these just like I'd avoid any FS P&S (I always read that as "POS") titles.