Hopefully, dvdcompare will do a comparison soon.

TinLauLau: Where did you buy the R3? (CD-Wow?)

While you are fighting on R1, R2 or R3, it happens that both R1 and R3 DVDs are CROPPED. You will see more on full screen VCD than DVD.

Please go to the following link for detail comparison.

http://www.tower3a.com/cgi-bin/ut/to...=1&bpg=1&age=0

A much more detail comparison on following link.

http://www.dvd288.com/html/2003/11/20031102083221-1.htm

Please note that

The R1 and R3 DVD isn't cropped! That source is very uninformed as to how films are made. The Super35 process,(which T3 was shot in) is an alternative to the Panavision process. It allows filmmakers a wide, panoramic theatrical image (2.35:1 aspect ratio) but without the massive cropping inherent in Full-Screen versions of scope movies. One director, for example, who uses this process pretty much exclusively is James Cameron. Cameron's films 'The Abyss', 'Terminator 2 - Judgment Day', 'True Lies' and 'Titanic' are all filmed in the Super35 process. It has a few advantages over anamorphic processes, for example, anamorphic lenses frequently result in optical distortion which makes the use of computer graphics effects extraordinarily difficult. Because of this, films that feature CG effects, such as 'The Lord of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Ring', 'Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets', and 'The Matrix', often use the Super35 process.
Films that do not feature CG effects also sometimes use Super35 because it creates a greater depth of field than anamorphic. Also, anamorphic lenses are very expensive and result in heavier camera rigs. Super35 eliminates those problems as well.
Probably the biggest advantage is that filmmakers get a nice wide theatrical image, just like anamorphic Panavision, yet they don't have to worry about the serious cropping in pan and scan versions. Why is that, you may ask? Well, let's talk about that now.
Super35 uses a 35-millimeter film frame (aspect ratio 1.37:1). However, unlike a standard 35mm frame, the magnetic area usually reserved for the sound track is removed. The film uses a seperate digital soundtrack instead of the lower-quality optical soundtrack on the 35mm print. Removing the optical soundtrack results in a much wider negative (approx. 1.60:1). Therefore, Super35 films actually have a negative aspect ratio of 1.60:1 (approximately). From the 1.60:1 negative, they extract a 2.35:1 frame for theatrical exhibition. That means that not all of the picture information in the negative is seen in theaters. This is sort of similar to the soft-matting process. In theaters, you will see a wide 2.35:1 image.
When the film is to be released on DVD and VHS, the filmmakers will need to prepare Full-Screen versions. Some DVDs receive only widescreen releases, but the film will probably eventually be shown on television anyway, so a Full-Screen version will be needed. So the filmmakers go back to the original negative (1.60:1 aspect ratio) and extract a 1.33:1 image. This results in a little bit of cropping on the sides of the picture, however there will be a bit more information on the top and bottom than was seen at the theater. Sometimes, in a Full-Screen version of a Super35 film, you will see more picture only at the top of the screen than the theatrical version. Sometimes you will see more only at the bottom. Sometimes you will see more at the top and bottom. It all depends on how the 2.35:1 theatrical image was extracted.
This may result in a reaction of "Wow! I'm seeing more picture than was shown in theaters!", but really the theatrical image is what was intended to be seen. For Super35 films, 2.35:1 is still the original aspect ratio, because it is the aspect ratio that viewers were intended to see in the theater. Therefore, the widescreen version is still the preferred format. When shooting the film, the director has a TV monitor with a rectangular outline that represents the 2.35:1 image. This shows the director how he needs to frame his shots so that no essential information will be cut out of the frame. The shots are then composed for the 2.35:1 aspect ratio.
Hope that explained things clearly enough. Should you desire to know, there's an easy way to tell if a 2.35:1 film is anamorphic or Super35. Look in the background of a shot in the film. Look for light sources that are out of focus. If the out of focus lights appear in the shape of an oval, then the film is an anamorphic scope film. If the lights appear as regular circles, the film is Super35.
Many others films that use this process. For example: 'Top Gun', 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon', 'Gladiator', 'Black Hawk Down', 'Apollo 13', 'Ocean's Eleven', 'American Beauty', 'Fight Club', 'The Fast and the Furious', 'Seven', 'The Usual Suspects', 'Reservoir Dogs', 'Dogma', 'Legally Blonde', 'Lara Croft - Tomb Raider', 'Training Day', and 'Panic Room'...

...and here is some additional information about the various Aspect Ratios that are seen in the cinema and found on DVD - including Super35...

. . . . . .

Yes, that is all fine and dandy, but if you prefer the fullscreen version then go for that, and ussually the TV versions end up the best of both worlds as they do 1:85:1 transfers, Titanic on TV is far supirior to the dvd.so is The Matrix, and many others, pity they will never release TV versions on dvd.

Why would you want a tv version on dvd? A movie that was shot and framed for scope would ruin the composition in 1.85:1, and it may as well be fullscreen.

...erm... Romerojpg was joking - I think/hope...

. . . . . .

Nope, no joking the 1:85:1 version of Matrix and Titanic on our digital TVs has 60% more information, available on all sides of the image, and its all finished off no dodgy special effects or wires, and they just look far better than any dvd, hey untill you see and compare them its hard for you to judge them, they will never apear on dvd thats for sure, but they do look better. But hey some people still prefer Fullscreen.

Of course it has more information, as described by Brett above. The fullscreen version has even more information, does that make it better? Regardless of whether you see more or not it was not originally intended to be viewed that way, and basically amounts to a bastardized version of the original film.

I have pictures of the set from the filming of Terminator 3. I can see the whole set and even some crew people. But the DVD crops most of it out, concentrating on only what the director wants and what propels the story. Why can't studios get the message and stop cropping films.

I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not, but isn't that the point of OAR?

I and many others couldnt care less what a director wants us to see, in fact James Cameron has said countless times, HE doesnt want many of HIS film seen in widescreen! he prefers Fullscreen and wants them seen that way. and most directors oversee the fullscreen and TV versions process, but really its a bit pointless talking about it, as you are either for or kind of against bastardisation of an OAR

-ahem- getting back on topic, Brett C, have you had a chance to make a comparison yet?

Of course I was joking.

I think it's fair to say that anyone who posts on this board campaigning against OAR* is either joking or deluded.










*There are obviously those who prefer 1.33:1 transfers, but most of them understand why most here prefer OAR and do not campaign against it.

.;.and the Harry Potter (1st movie) DVD full-screen/frame version is superior to the w/s according to many DVD reviewers...

Then we can get into the PIXAR movies where they just recompose the shots for full-screen.

where's the comparison?

and to DEAN WALSH.. The R4 has dts according to dvdcompare. So what's the deal? Why don't you get that...

@ axolotls return
I'm not getting the r4 because an ntsc version is a safer bet. Theres the risk of it being pitch corrected to compensate for the PAL speedup which can affect dynamic range. If a PAL version is my only choice at the time (such as Mummy Returns) then I'll get that.

I hadn't refered to your post yet... note the quote was below my first comment. I was simply supplying information to those that are interested in a dts version of T3, which you apparently are not, so why are even in this thread?

The was intended as a 'here we go again', as someone has to bring up the DD vs. DTS debate YET AGAIN. Use the search function for 'dts' if you want to see why I, and many others think a half-rate dts track has potential to outdo the r1 DD track, we don't need to drudge that up yet again here... most of us are over that debate by now because it always degrades to the same tired arguments. I, and most others in this thread want a dts version of T3 and that's what I am here to discuss, not to defend why I want it. I shouldn't have to justify my purchases to you or anyone else.

So....has anyone done the audio comparison between R1 and R3 yet????

You and many others are ignorant on this issue. The only thing worse than ignorance is proudly defiant ignorance.

You are greatly misinformed. James Cameron's fullscreen comments were made almost 15 years ago and he has since completely reversed his stance. Let's count off the number of Cameron movies available on DVD in full-frame:

The Terminator - Nope
Aliens - No
The Abyss - Not this one either
Terminator 2 - Nada
True Lies - Nothing
Titanic - Not a chance

Pirahna 2: The Spawning - Ah ha! This one's in full-frame! Proof that James Cameron loves full-frame and nothing else!!!

If a filmmaker didn't want his movie to be seen in widescreen he wouldn't shoot it that way. Duh.

If I'm not mistaken, Fox did recently release a fool screen version of The Abyss. But that's still a pretty good track record for Cameron's films being available almost exclusively in WS.

As for what a director wants us to see, its up to you to watch what you want, if I am ignorant then so be it, I am not bothered at all, as for being proudly defiant of my ignorance, your words not mine, as I wouldnt call anyone that, its down to tastes not forced opinions from others.


I am not misinformed about James Camerons opinion, as they were recent interviews with him, He stated he prefers Abyss in fullscreen, and T2 as well, and a few others cannot remember which. I cannot suply evidence of this I remember an interview in either Total Film or Empire magazine, hey I have no idea as I buy soo many magazines, and countless other tit bits, but as I have no actual links you dont have to beleve me, many other people will know I am not telling fibs, but they would have to back me up.

and he has no say at all in what comes out in fulscreen, not many directors do, and they are shot widescreen for theatre releases, not for TVs. If he sudenly said Ohh can all Titanic dvds not be sold anymore as I want a fullscreen version instead its not gonna happen.

many films have been released only in fullscreen or 1.33.1 by directors request and we will never see widescreen version, even though in the cinema they were widescreen, take from that what you want.

Heat is already availble in DTS in Korea....but of course, the DTS disc is 1.85:1 for some unknown reason and the 5.1 disc (it is a two disc set) is 2.35:1. Go figure. I am hopeful that the Japan DTS Heat is in the correct 2.35:1.

I'm sorry but Cameron having absolutely no pull (not even in the slightest) regarding how his films are presented and released makes absolutely no sense. If he wanted fullscreen he would have pulled a Kubrick (shooting his films with open matte in mind and presenting them that way on video). Since he hasn't, he obviously likes the films in their widescreen versions.

Maybe, but he requested his TV show Dark Angel also be in Fullscreen in america, every other region ignored his request and has widescreen, same for Buffy the Vampire slayer, the director of that also wants Fullscreen, but outside of america its widescreen and both were shot with Super 35. Who knows what the director/ consumer thing is, I guess in the end its all pointless talking about because its hard for anyone to change the way of Movie filming. )

I guess some directors like Super 35 and formats like it, and maybe have soo much info at hand they have the option to change there minds, so they do occationally. Who knows what goes on in a Directors mind.