Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > DVD Talk
Reload this Page >

1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

DVD Talk Talk about DVDs and Movies on DVD including Covers and Cases

1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Old 02-23-10, 09:40 PM
  #126  
Moderator
 
Giles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 33,630
Received 16 Likes on 12 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

[QUOTE=samre5;10015468]What does that mean exactly ? I went to your provided link >> Unrated-alternate Directors-Cuts DVD

Last edited by Giles; 02-23-10 at 09:43 PM.
Old 02-23-10, 09:55 PM
  #127  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,674
Received 644 Likes on 444 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by samre5
What does that mean exactly ?
IMAX films, which have an aspect ratio of 1.44:1 on the film, but projected on 1.35:1 screens, have been habitually cropped to 1.78:1 on Blu-ray. I think most IMAX DVDs are 1.33:1 (4:3) though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#Technical_aspects

As for IMAX Digital, that's a digital projection standard typically shown on normal-sized screens, or at least not IMAX Film size screens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#IM...Theatre_System

I don't know if they normally crop on IMAX Digital screens or not. However, I have a personal anecdote that's similar. When I went to see LOTR:FOTR, I tried getting tickets to our local theater's "Ultrascreen." This is a specially-branded 70-foot-wide screen that the Marcus Theaters chain installs in some of their theaters. The guy at the ticket counter said they were sold out for the day/time I wanted, but that he'd recommend seeing it in the alternate screen they were showing it anyway. The alternate screen was the second-largest screen they had, but more importantly, they were showing LOTR on it in OAR. On the Ultrascreen, the movie was being cropped slightly so it'd fill the screen.

[quote]I went to your provided link >> Unrated-alternate Directors-Cuts: DVD
Old 02-23-10, 10:12 PM
  #128  
Moderator
 
Giles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 33,630
Received 16 Likes on 12 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by Jay G.
IMAX films, which have an aspect ratio of 1.44:1 on the film, but projected on 1.35:1 screens, have been habitually cropped to 1.78:1 on Blu-ray. I think most IMAX DVDs are 1.33:1 (4:3) though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#Technical_aspects

As for IMAX Digital, that's a digital projection standard typically shown on normal-sized screens, or at least not IMAX Film size screens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#IM...Theatre_System

I don't know if they normally crop on IMAX Digital screens or not. However, I have a personal anecdote that's similar. When I went to see LOTR:FOTR, I tried getting tickets to our local theater's "Ultrascreen." This is a specially-branded 70-foot-wide screen that the Marcus Theaters chain installs in some of their theaters. The guy at the ticket counter said they were sold out for the day/time I wanted, but that he'd recommend seeing it in the alternate screen they were showing it anyway. The alternate screen was the second-largest screen they had, but more importantly, they were showing LOTR on it in OAR. On the Ultrascreen, the movie was being cropped slightly so it'd fill the screen.


That link is part of his signature. Everything below the "__________________" in his post is his signature, and not context-specific to the posts he makes.
of the 'IMAX' DVD's I've owned they have all been modified to fill a screen that is 1.78:1 there might be some 4:3 DVD's out there, but I've never seen one.

no, IMAX Digital screens are a fixed 1.78:1, for the IMAX-Digital presentations of 'The Dark Knight' and 'Transformers 2' the IMAX shot scenes were indeed projected at 1.78, the 2.35 scenes had black borders above and below the screen as in typical IMAX 'Film' venues.

Supposedly, the 'Avatar' presentations at Cinemark's 'Extreme Digital' screens were not 2.35 but it's original shot 1.78 aspect ratio.

Last edited by Giles; 02-23-10 at 10:15 PM.
Old 02-23-10, 10:28 PM
  #129  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,674
Received 644 Likes on 444 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by Giles
of the 'IMAX' DVD's I've owned they have all been modified to fill a screen that is 1.78:1 there might be some 4:3 DVD's out there, but I've never seen one.
Some 4:3 IMAX DVDs reviewed here:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/5582/...eautiful-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/5545/...mpanzees-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/5513/...he-tiger-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/5476/ultimate-x-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/5392/momentum-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/4746/...on-earth-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/4743/...-gorilla-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/4701/...e-sharks-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/4382/imax-galapagos/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/4367/imax-into-the-deep/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/4366/...rvival-island/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/4223/...dventure-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/3816/cosmic-voyage-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/3316/...f-a-city-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/3306/great-north-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/2885/...y-of-man-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/2716/imax-hail-columbia/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/2715/...tiny-in-space/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/2705/...ission-to-mir/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/2607/...f-kuwait-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/2251/...etaceous-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/2197/...-kingdom-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/2027/...live-the-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/1866/blue-planet-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/489/g...t-places-imax/

Some DVDs have both 1.33:1 and 1.78:1 presentations:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/2698/...ch-ii-edition/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/2900/...lifornia-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/3408/...ng-caves-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/8913/...dventure-imax/

It looks like early on in the life of DVD, some IMAX films were release in their original negative aspect ratio:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/762/m...f-flight-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/855/discoverers-imax/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/714/e...t-helens-imax/
Old 02-23-10, 10:40 PM
  #130  
Moderator
 
Giles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 33,630
Received 16 Likes on 12 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

^ thanks for correcting me
Old 02-24-10, 08:55 AM
  #131  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,755
Received 252 Likes on 179 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by samre5
To your knowledge, is there a blu-ray of T2 (1.78:1 )available anywhere? I tried Amazon Canada......they only seem to have BD 2.35:1 Skynet....just like USA.
No, every Blu-ray release of T2 is presented in the movie's original 2.35:1 aspect ratio. It has probably aired on cable in a modified ratio at some point, however.

The movie was shot in the Super 35 format. Any 16:9 transfer would be open matte. See here for an explanation:

http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matte.shtml
Old 02-24-10, 08:58 AM
  #132  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,755
Received 252 Likes on 179 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by Giles
Supposedly, the 'Avatar' presentations at Cinemark's 'Extreme Digital' screens were not 2.35 but it's original shot 1.78 aspect ratio.
Avatar is a unique situation in that the 3-D version is being distributed to theaters in both 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 aspect ratios. Theaters are instructed to project whichever one will be larger on their screens. Auditoriums with Constant Height screens should project 2.35:1. Auditoriums with Constant Width screens should project 1.85:1.

James Cameron has stated that he prefers 2.35:1 for the 2-D version of the movie, and 1.85:1 for 3-D.
Old 02-24-10, 09:14 AM
  #133  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,674
Received 644 Likes on 444 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by Josh Z
[T2] was shot in the Super 35 format. Any 16:9 transfer would be open matte. See here for an explanation:

http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matte.shtml
A 1.78:1 version of T2 should be at least partially open-matte, although it still could be cropped on the sides. However, there's no guarantee that a studio couldn't just straight crop the 2.35:1 image.

Also, the screenshot of T2 on widescreen.org is misleading, as it's not showing the full frame of a Super35 negative (which has an aspect ratio of 1.33:1). The link below has examples from the Artisan DVD of T2, which shows the full Super35 image, and the 4:3 and 2.35:1 crops of the image.
http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/a...-part-two.html

Note that there's a modified version of Super35, called Super35 3-perf, that has a native aspect ratio of 1.78:1. Many TV shows use this, and I think a number of films shot for 2.35:1 now use it as well. However, T2 was shot before Super35 3-perf came into use, and so was shot with standard 4-perf Super35.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_pulldown

Last edited by Jay G.; 02-24-10 at 09:27 AM.
Old 02-24-10, 09:19 AM
  #134  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by Josh Z
No, every Blu-ray release of T2 is presented in the movie's original 2.35:1 aspect ratio. It has probably aired on cable in a modified ratio at some point, however.

The movie was shot in the Super 35 format. Any 16:9 transfer would be open matte. See here for an explanation:

http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matte.shtml
Wow, I being a pain in the ass who will never give up, will continue to look...nonetheless...........for that 16:9 version........IF it is available.
Old 02-24-10, 12:11 PM
  #135  
Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: NYC
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

For years this and other forums have vocalized their distaste for 4:3 FS/P&S releases of movies, in favor of OAR and anamorphic releases. It took years for the studios to react, but now with the trend towards 16:9 TVs being the consumer norm, studios are releasing less and less 4:3 FS/P&S movies. To advocate 16:9 FS/P&S releases is just a huge step back. 16:9 FS/P&S is JUST AS BAD as 4:3 FS/P&S for the consumer. The more formats, the higher the cost to make, and those costs are passed on to the consumer. Adjust, crop, and zoom the picture to your hearts content in the comfort of your own home, but I beg of you, please don't support introducing another FS/P&S format to the market.
Old 02-24-10, 12:27 PM
  #136  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
GoldenWheels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,291
Received 91 Likes on 22 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by BobSolo
For years this and other forums have vocalized their distaste for 4:3 FS/P&S releases of movies, in favor of OAR and anamorphic releases. It took years for the studios to react, but now with the trend towards 16:9 TVs being the consumer norm, studios are releasing less and less 4:3 FS/P&S movies. To advocate 16:9 FS/P&S releases is just a huge step back. 16:9 FS/P&S is JUST AS BAD as 4:3 FS/P&S for the consumer. The more formats, the higher the cost to make, and those costs are passed on to the consumer. Adjust, crop, and zoom the picture to your hearts content in the comfort of your own home, but I beg of you, please don't support introducing another FS/P&S format to the market.
I agree from an artistic standpoint alone but I guess I have to wonder just how much having two different versions affects the actual bottom line when it comes to consumer cost? I am pretty uneducated on the subject but it hardly seems like it would be, well, anything substantial. Would movies like Terminator: Salvation or Watchmen really be any cheaper for us if they hadn't made full screen versions?

The pessimistic side of me says the studios probably wouldn't pass any savings on anyway....but again, I don't know a ton about this, maybe it's a more expensive process than I think.
Old 02-24-10, 03:20 PM
  #137  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by BobSolo
For years this and other forums have vocalized their distaste for 4:3 FS/P&S releases of movies, in favor of OAR and anamorphic releases. It took years for the studios to react, but now with the trend towards 16:9 TVs being the consumer norm, studios are releasing less and less 4:3 FS/P&S movies. To advocate 16:9 FS/P&S releases is just a huge step back. 16:9 FS/P&S is JUST AS BAD as 4:3 FS/P&S for the consumer. The more formats, the higher the cost to make, and those costs are passed on to the consumer. Adjust, crop, and zoom the picture to your hearts content in the comfort of your own home, but I beg of you, please don't support introducing another FS/P&S format to the market.
They did it with fullscreen 4:3 being sold alongside widescreen OAR releases.........why not offer it as an alternative when there is already an OAR available?

My motivation is image quality when displayed on 16x9 full-screen. I am certain that the image quality of a studio cropped DVD or Blu-ray formatted to fit the screen will be superior to zooming to full screen on any disc. Of course, this would be an option as an alternative.
Old 02-24-10, 03:22 PM
  #138  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,674
Received 644 Likes on 444 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by GoldenWheels
I agree from an artistic standpoint alone but I guess I have to wonder just how much having two different versions affects the actual bottom line when it comes to consumer cost? I am pretty uneducated on the subject but it hardly seems like it would be, well, anything substantial. Would movies like Terminator: Salvation or Watchmen really be any cheaper for us if they hadn't made full screen versions?
Offering two different versions doesn't typically affect consumer cost. However, it does affect overall cost to the studios, which affects the consumer in less obvious ways.

For example, a retailer that orders a few less titles each week, since they need shelf space for alternate versions. This means consumers of less mainstream fair may be unable to find what they want in stores.

Or take the studios, which will release a few less titles a year since a chunk of their operating budget went towards producing, manufacturing, and distributing alternate versions of a title instead.

Then there's the example of an older title that was released as a dual-sided disc with OAR on one side and 4:3 on the other. In order to save money, the studio decides to press only one side on newer copies, and they press the 4:3 side. This means consumers looking for that tile either get screwed over when they discover their new copy doesn't have the OAR side like the older copies do, or if they know in advance, the consumer has to hunt down a new or used copy of the film that does have both sides. An example of this is the film Idle Hands, but there's a number of other titles that this has happened to.

Or, if the OAR and 4:3 are separate releases, a studio may make the OAR version a limited edition and/or part of a more expensive collectors edition (such as the Lord of War 2-disc set). Or, the studio may discontinue the OAR version and only keep the 4:3 version in print.

So the extra costs of making separate AR versions of a film do affect consumer, just not in the initial retail price.
Old 02-24-10, 03:30 PM
  #139  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,674
Received 644 Likes on 444 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by samre5
They did it with fullscreen 4:3 being sold alongside widescreen OAR releases.........why not offer it as an alternative when there is already an OAR available?
There we plenty of reasons "why not" for the 4:3 versions as well, as argued by myself and others. I just posted a few reasons why having MAR versions, while seemingly harmless, can in practice cause less consumer options, and can also lead to situations where the MAR is the only "option" available for a film.

In an ideal world (unlimited resources, studios always favoring OAR, etc.), having MAR as an option for films might not be too bad. In practice, however, the spectre of MAR always seems to eventually screw over an OAR fan somehow.
Old 02-24-10, 06:24 PM
  #140  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
GoldenWheels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,291
Received 91 Likes on 22 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by Jay G.
Offering two different versions doesn't typically affect consumer cost. However, it does affect overall cost to the studios, which affects the consumer in less obvious ways.

For example, a retailer that orders a few less titles each week, since they need shelf space for alternate versions. This means consumers of less mainstream fair may be unable to find what they want in stores.

Or take the studios, which will release a few less titles a year since a chunk of their operating budget went towards producing, manufacturing, and distributing alternate versions of a title instead.

Then there's the example of an older title that was released as a dual-sided disc with OAR on one side and 4:3 on the other. In order to save money, the studio decides to press only one side on newer copies, and they press the 4:3 side. This means consumers looking for that tile either get screwed over when they discover their new copy doesn't have the OAR side like the older copies do, or if they know in advance, the consumer has to hunt down a new or used copy of the film that does have both sides. An example of this is the film Idle Hands, but there's a number of other titles that this has happened to.

Or, if the OAR and 4:3 are separate releases, a studio may make the OAR version a limited edition and/or part of a more expensive collectors edition (such as the Lord of War 2-disc set). Or, the studio may discontinue the OAR version and only keep the 4:3 version in print.

So the extra costs of making separate AR versions of a film do affect consumer, just not in the initial retail price.

I can certainly agree with your examples in regards to both the shelf space issue and those damn flippers. It was really just the bottom line to the consumer's wallet at the point of sale I wondered about.
Old 02-25-10, 07:01 AM
  #141  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Jay G. is some sort of "mad genius".
Old 02-25-10, 11:57 AM
  #142  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

In an ideal world (unlimited resources, studios always favoring OAR, etc.), having MAR as an option for films might not be too bad. In practice, however, the spectre of MAR always seems to eventually screw over an OAR fan somehow.[/QUOTE]

The vast majority of people who are viewing movies are viewing them on 16x9 TV's. Most of thim, I would suspect, are completely unaware of the battle that has been fought for the OAR release.....I wasn't aware until I started this thread.........I must have over 300 DVD's in my collection "including" 4:3 DVD's from before I bought my Sony 60". The battle and the cause to continue the preservation of the "theatrical release" on DVD and Blu-ray is "just".. I wonder though, if the future of the "big blockbuster" is going to tend toward 1.78:1...or....1.85:1 over time.....just for the sake of the movie industry being a money making operation....as well as a means of creative expression.

I would not buy the T2 Skynet Edition Blu-ray......I had it in my hand ....and I could not bring myself to buy it because it was not formatted at 1.78:1...or...1.85:1 ratio.........I'm just being completely honest. I have the T2 "Extreme DVD" and have worn it ot over the years.........I want an option to fill my screen particularly on Blu-ray......so that I can get the utmost image quality ....and have the most immersive experience....for me.
Old 02-25-10, 12:17 PM
  #143  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,755
Received 252 Likes on 179 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by samre5
I wonder though, if the future of the "big blockbuster" is going to tend toward 1.78:1...or....1.85:1 over time.....just for the sake of the movie industry being a money making operation....as well as a means of creative expression.
No, if anything, it's moved in the other direction. It's very rare for an intended-blockbuster to be shot at 1.85:1 these days. Most are 2.35:1.

Movies are made first and foremost to be seen in movie theaters, not on TV, no matter how nice that TV.

Cinemascope was invented specifically to lure audiences away from their TVs and back to theaters. As the quality of our HDTVs has slowly caught up to theaters, filmmakers have been adding new tricks like IMAX and 3-D, to give theater audiences something better than they can get on TV.

And really, although people like you may complain loudly, by this point you're in a pretty small minority of viewers who refuse to watch a 2.35:1 movie on DVD or Blu-ray. We've all been living with the concept of Original Aspect Ratio on DVD since 1997 (and some of us much further back than that, on Laserdisc). That's at least 13 years for you to get used to it.

Most people, even those who don't understand why their screens aren't filled, either accept the letterboxing or shrug their shoulders and put up with it anyway.

Your TV is just a box. Its purpose is to display a picture. It's like the frame to a painting. When the frame is more important to you than the painting, you've simply got your priorities backwards.
Old 02-25-10, 12:24 PM
  #144  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Midlothian, VA
Posts: 2,659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

When it comes to Blu-ray Discs, going forward chances are 99.99% of the time any MAR release will be a cropping/reformatting of original 4x3 material to 16x9 (like with TV shows)....the only reason you see 16x9 releases of scope films on BD from Canada is because the company that is doing them (Alliance) only gets the rights to release certain things and only can use what they have access to, which in a majority of cases are poorer quality HD broadcast masters done for TV...
I seriously doubt we will see any major type of push or outpouring of requests for an alternate "16x9 full screen" release for scope films on BD from either the studios themselves or the general public....you are dealing with a format that has six times the resolution of standard definition....sorry you're not able to "get the maximum value for every pixel" or "the utmost image quality" as you say, but not buying the T2 BD just because it is presented in the proper original aspect ratio, and instead holding onto the DVD is ridiculous....buy the BD, zoom it to fill your screen, and it will STILL have a much better looking (and higher resolution) picture than what you already have...sheesh...

Last edited by WMAangel; 02-25-10 at 12:28 PM.
Old 02-25-10, 01:00 PM
  #145  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Off topic, How do "isolate" a single sentence as a "QUOTE". Thanks
Old 02-25-10, 03:30 PM
  #146  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,674
Received 644 Likes on 444 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by samre5
Off topic, How do "isolate" a single sentence as a "QUOTE". Thanks
I do it manually. If I only want to quote part of someone's post I quote it, then go inside the quote tags and delete out the text that I don't want.

If I want o break it up, I do by typing the quote tag at the beginning of what I quote, then /quote at the end of what I want quoted separately. Then repeat for the other quoted segments.

You can also, when writing a post, select text in your post and click the "quote" button:

Last edited by Jay G.; 02-25-10 at 04:58 PM.
Old 02-25-10, 04:57 PM
  #147  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,674
Received 644 Likes on 444 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by samre5
I wonder though, if the future of the "big blockbuster" is going to tend toward 1.78:1...or....1.85:1 over time.....just for the sake of the movie industry being a money making operation....as well as a means of creative expression.
I doubt the studios are losing much money from scope (2.35:1) releases. The DVDs seem to sell just as well despite there not being a MAR option.

I remember when Pirates of the Carribean was released in only scope OAR on DVD, back when a 4:3 MAR release was still common. I worked retail then, and a few customers complained, but bought the DVD anyway because they wanted the film.

In theaters, scope releases are typically seen as a plus.

Originally Posted by Josh Z
No, if anything, it's moved in the other direction. It's very rare for an intended-blockbuster to be shot at 1.85:1 these days. Most are 2.35:1.
I thought it was more 50/50. For example, of the top 10 grossing films last year, 4 were 1.85:1/1.78:1, and 6 were scope.
Old 02-25-10, 06:33 PM
  #148  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by WMAangel
....sorry you're not able to "get the maximum value for every pixel" or "the utmost image quality" as you say, but not buying the T2 BD just because it is presented in the proper original aspect ratio, and instead holding onto the DVD is ridiculous....buy the BD, zoom it to fill your screen, and it will STILL have a much better looking (and higher resolution) picture than what you already have...sheesh...
I may go out and buy the BD Skynet Edition. Truth be told, if I were holding in my hand, right now, two BD T2 Skynet Editions.....one being a higher image quality (when displayed fullscreen)......studio produced "Full-Widescreen 16x9" version ....or......the Oar 2.35:1 version.....weighing them both against each other, based on my own personal desires......for this particular movie(I might add)......I would walk out of the store with the "Full-Widescreen 16x9" version............of course, this is a complete hypothetical, since it doesn't appear to exist.
Old 02-25-10, 07:07 PM
  #149  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by Jay G.
I doubt the studios are losing much money from scope (2.35:1) releases. The DVDs seem to sell just as well despite there not being a MAR option.

I remember when Pirates of the Carribean was released in only scope OAR on DVD, back when a 4:3 MAR release was still common. I worked retail then, and a few customers complained, but bought the DVD anyway because they wanted the film.

In theaters, scope releases are typically seen as a plus.


I thought it was more 50/50. For example, of the top 10 grossing films last year, 4 were 1.85:1/1.78:1, and 6 were scope.
Jay G. , I would like to make a request ......... you should consider changing your screen name to V---GER.
Old 02-25-10, 07:49 PM
  #150  
Moderator
 
Giles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 33,630
Received 16 Likes on 12 Posts
Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1

Originally Posted by Jay G.
I doubt the studios are losing much money from scope (2.35:1) releases. The DVDs seem to sell just as well despite there not being a MAR option.

I remember when Pirates of the Carribean was released in only scope OAR on DVD, back when a 4:3 MAR release was still common. I worked retail then, and a few customers complained, but bought the DVD anyway because they wanted the film.

In theaters, scope releases are typically seen as a plus.


I thought it was more 50/50. For example, of the top 10 grossing films last year, 4 were 1.85:1/1.78:1, and 6 were scope.
for me it depends on the theatre - if it's a theatre that has side masking it's fine, but for theatres where the screen decreases (top and bottom) - it seems like a rip, and don't get me started on scope films on IMAX screens, those black borders above and below the image seem like a waste of screen space. James Cameron has so far been the only sensible director and Fox for that matter to present the full image (1.78) and use the giant screens to it's advantage. Spielberg filned in Flat (1.85) specifically for Jurassic Park to take advantage to convey the height of the dinosaurs, one wonders if Peter Jackson had similarily implemented this for his version of King Kong - I think it would have looked better if hadn't been shot in scope.

Last edited by Giles; 02-25-10 at 08:43 PM.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.