Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Forsooth, thou hast given a directive to be noticed and thy agenda of solving the great debate hath been heard by all.


And behold, the people of this land find thy decree......lacking.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

For the record, the original "Silverado" release to DVD in 2000 was in a cropped 1.78:1 aspect ratio. The speculation at the time was that a digital video master created for cable had been inadvertently used for the DVD. This was rectified with the 2005 SE DVD release; and the movie has also recently been released to Blu-ray in all its 2.35:1 70mm glory.

The only other instances that I'm personally aware of include the original Austin Powers movie (already mentioned in this thread); and the first two DVD releases of "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country". In both of those cases the movies had been shot in Super 35 and were "opened up" to 2.00:1 at the behest of the directors.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

I'm confused, so preferring OAR is an agenda now?

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Me too. It wasn't until post 35 that samre5 made his preferences known.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Fixed it for ya.

TLK :cool:

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Yes, it is on DVD.....luckily the Blu-ray Disc has the film finally presented in the theatrical aspect ratio! :)

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Well, it is a dvd thread after all.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

True, although the original poster has now also asked for any modified aspect ratios on Blu-ray Disc, and we wouldn't want them to get the first Austin Powers on BD and find it not modified to his "preference"! ;)

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

rotfl

What's the point of having the latest technology if they can't figure out how to make it fit in the TV?

heheh

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

I can't stand widescreen. With all my widescreen movies, I change the ratio to Full Screen. It's better to watch a film squished into full screen format than deal with all those horizontal black lines. It makes so much more sense to watch a film with vertical black lines.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Quote :(Altering a movie's intended aspect ratio just to fill up your precious TV screen's )....This is not sarchastic condemnation of someone elses choice? I believe it is.

Why does anybody care what anyone else wants as an option.....OAR is what you want......you have the right to "prefer that.....I'm not making any statement of which is better, I'm just saying that I want this option for myself. I just think that I would have a better viewing experience from the standpoint of image quality since I zoom every 2.35:1 movie that I own and rent.........I have no agenda.....your choice of watching OAR 2.35:1 movies in their entire dimension is fine by me......I encourage you to do what you enjoy.

I am searching for a list of movies that I can crossreference to OAR movies that I already own "as an alternative". What's the big deal.......why is everybody so threatened by this, what's the real deal with these forums?

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

I don't mind if an altered aspect ratio is provided as an option. Unfortunately, however, the real world has shown us OAR lovers that sometimes studio will release a film solely in an altered aspect ratio (AAR), leaving OAR fans in the cold. If a film is only going to be available in one AR, I'd prefer it to be in OAR.

Now, while the fault of providing solely AAR lies with the studios, a lot of people believe that if more people preferred OAR over AAR, or at least had no preference of one over the other, then the studios would be less likely to release AAR-only titles. Also, a lot of people who prefer cropped or open-matte images are simply uneducated about the changes being made to the film, and may change their mind if they are taught.

Finally, most people here are film lovers, meaning that they love seeing films the way they were meant to be seen. This means, OAR, original audio, original colors, original cut, etc., except maybe when the director prefers something else. And we're opinionated, and aren't afraid to voice opinions. So if someone voices a preference for one thing, anyone who prefers something else is likely to respond.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

OAR should always be the main release with the "full-widescreen option" available at an alternative.....I agree. All of my favorite movies are 2.35:1.....and It was awsome seeing the entire picture coming from VHS......but after seeing them so many times I just found myself wanting a bigger picture on the screen, so for years I've been zooming them....thus, the query.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

No harm done. At the end of the day, this thread was compiling a list. If everyone is getting some benefit from the list, one way or the other, then that's all that really matters. For example, I had forgotten about the original release of Silverado. Now I intend to double-check which version I actually have.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

mdnitoil, thanks for calming this angry bee hive and getting it back on track.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Both the first Austin Powers and Star Trek VI have been returned to their original 2.35:1 on Blu-ray, fortunately.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

List of titles.. http://www.dvdaf.com/search.html?has...has_reformatte

http://www.dvdaf.com/search.html?has...0_has_modified

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

one more i thought of too. Once Upon a Time in Mexico. Was shot in HD and cropped to 2:35 for theaters and the dvd is RR's prefered 1:78;1

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

It's hard not to take offense if I'm the pile of dog shit you're referring to.

This is a public forum, so I will not keep my opinion to myself. And it's funny how you seem to think that you have an opinion, but anyone who disagrees with you has an agenda.

Jay G. said it all in his post above. These forums are populated by film fans who have spent years battling movie studios to get films released on DVD in their OAR, not cropped or modified to fill Joe Six-Pack's precious screen real estate. It has been a long and hard-fought fight and we're too far into it to go back now. And as Jay said, when studios choose to release cropped aspect ratios, they don't release OAR versions at all.

I've read some of your posts on other forums. It's too bad that you've vowed to never rent or buy a DVD or Blu-ray that's in the 2.35:1 format, simply because you can't deal with 4 percent of your 60-inch screen going unused.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Nevermind, it's not worth it. This guy is not going to listen to reason.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

>>I.E preference bashing<< Mr. Salty............have you read a single post that I have told anyone that OAR sucks or have I made a single snide comment about their decision to watch the entire width of the presentation. Read post #63 .......this may explain my reasons for my initial query.........sorry, you were just the last guy to take a "poke" at me.......one of many I might add. Apparently it is out there to be had as exhibited by the links provided by "ABINTRA" in post #67.

I have no agenda and will never comment on anybodys personal decision to view anything in any format. I feel like I'm in a cage in these forums and people happen by and poke at me with a stick because they don't like what I'm looking for. If you were looking for something and people were taking jabs at you , I believe you would defend your right to do so. Sorry if you took my defensive posture as a personal attack, I apologize.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

To be fair, samre5 didn't refer to you as a "pile of shit," he referred to your post as a "pile of shit." Big difference. Although this point may be moot since samre5 has already apologized.

I said that they may not release an OAR version. There's a large amount of titles that were released "full-screen" 4:3 as well as OAR WS, but occasionally a title would be released with an AAR only.

This actually seems to be someone more problematic with 16:9 altered titles, since studios consider them to be "widescreen" and don't see the need to release another "widescreen" version, even if it's 2.35:1 OAR. Hopefully consumer response, such as what happened with the Lord of War release, will keep even these types of AAR-only releases to a minimum.

A 2.35:1 image on a 16:9 screen uses only about 76% of the screen, so that's about 24% of the screen going "unused". Granted, that's a lot better than the 43% of "unused" space on a 4:3 TV, but it's still a sizable chunk of real estate.
http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Nice post Jay G.......thanks!......My response to Mr Salty was a general statement to the nature of all the posts like this one below>>>>

By 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. <<< End Post

I beleive Mr Salty , and others, are under the impression that my search is some sort of promotion of the wholesale slaughter of the OAR presentation. I assure you that I fully support OAR and that directors certainly should NOT alter movies to fit TVs at the sacrifice of the theatrical presentation with exclusivity ever.....that would be an abomination. The true theatrical presentation should always be available "unmollested" by studios and available to the public for personal viewing. I can't be more plain than this.

I fully agree with the statements made by 'JAY G." in his post #62............please also see my response in post #63. This will cleally state my intentions and the reasons for my search......it's a fact finding mission to fill a personal need, nothing more. I'm just looking for one more option.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Jay, you're right. It was late when I wrote that. I meant to write "often don't release OAR versions. "

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Mr Salty, I wasn't aware of the practice of studios altering the aspect ratio and releasing the movie exclusively as....as Jay G. says "AAR"......that's crazy. That just doesn't make sense.

I remember being in awe when I first watched the T2 Extreme DVD, and you find "key components" have been added back in that really shed new light and add dimension to the storyline......it makes me wonder why it was just not released that way to begin with since it was so much better. At least they put it back in.........with "AAR only", the movie fans are getting ripped bigtime.....and that's just wrong.

At the end of the day, for my own personal reasons, I'm looking for certain AAR titles of OAR movies that I already own..........without a desire or passion to defend the AAR format..........I simply want it as an alternative if it is in fact actually available. Quite honestly I think I'm fishing a dead lake.