1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Old catalogue widescreen con

Discussion in 'Movie Forum' started by topmba, Apr 27, 2004.

  1. topmba

    topmba
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    249
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Bedfordshire
    Ratings:
    +4
    Some older movies have been edited on DVD, as Widescreen Anamorphic.

    However this is done by cropping the 4:3 version.:confused: bottom quarter.

    I noticed this as I upgraded some titles from VHS to DVD.

    Eg. Dirty Rotten Scroundrels, starring Michael Cane and Steve Martin.

    I wish they had edited them as 4:3 and let me zoom in Cinema mode if I wish to.
     
  2. Garrett

    Garrett
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    31,288
    Products Owned:
    2
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    The best thief you’ll never see.
    Ratings:
    +4,004
    They did something similar to the original The Time Machine but the was in made in 1.66 : 1 so it is not as noticeable.
     
  3. inzaman

    inzaman
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2002
    Messages:
    7,874
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Derby
    Ratings:
    +927
    They must do this with a few older movies as i know robocop was changed to 1.78, and evil dead was also changed. Thankfully i have the dvd versions with the proper aspect ratios of both though.
     
  4. Garrett

    Garrett
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    31,288
    Products Owned:
    2
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    The best thief you’ll never see.
    Ratings:
    +4,004
    I have just looked at specs for the movie which was Aspect ratio 1.37 : 1 (negative ratio) 1.85 : 1 (intended ratio).
    They do something worse which is a bugbear with me is they shoot in 16:9 and cut to 2.35:1.
     
  5. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,354
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +144
    :confused: Huh

    Surely these are films made in open matte where the intended ratio is say 1.85:1 yet 'opened up', i.e the borders are removed for TV to give a near 4:3 ratio.

    4:3 is NOT the intended ratio and sometimes you can see too much space above the actor's head and also see boom mics appear.

    Be rest assured that the WS version is the correct version you are seeing and how the Director intended it and not the TV stations.

    Garrett, surely you already knew this?
     
  6. figrin_dan

    figrin_dan
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    1,991
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +135
    You would then lose a hell of a lot of definition. If a subtitled film was like this you could lose them too.
     
  7. Garrett

    Garrett
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    31,288
    Products Owned:
    2
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    The best thief you’ll never see.
    Ratings:
    +4,004
    Kevo are you referring to my first comment or second????????????????

    The first I’m only stating fact.

    If you mean the second I have heard that explanation before, so how come a lot of the shoots cut the top of the actors head off in 2.35:1.
    I saw Starship Troopers in 4:3 and cannot remember a boom or mike in site. And there was more area shown top and bottom in that version than the 1.85:9 version so even that must have been cropped.
     
  8. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,354
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +144
    I'm sure this topic has been discussed on several other occaisions and usually in favour of the WS versions!

    The correct/intended aspect ratio is the WS theatrical version and is always the one I prefer to the 'TV version'.

    I'm not saying you see the mics in all these films, but you can notice them on some of them.

    Don't forget, with Super 35 open matte you do get more width. Any extra height is a 'bonus'.

    A lot of films are shot this way these days and have been since the early 80s when home video took off.

    Have a look here for a better explaination and some examples...

    http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml
     
  9. topmba

    topmba
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    249
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Bedfordshire
    Ratings:
    +4
    Thank you all. The film is indeed more cinematic in Widescreen. Another flaw I noticed in DIRTY ROTTEEN SCOUNDRELS was that everyone looks pink. It must have been a bad transfer from NTSC to PAL. CABARET is not anamorphic and has sharper edges.

    I would say the craze for 2.35:1 is to enable the films to fit into a single DVD. I only know of THE GODFATHER II spanning two DVDs in the Trilogy edition.
     
  10. figrin_dan

    figrin_dan
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    1,991
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +135
    I think you mean film to video.

    2.35:1 has been used for decades, dvd only came out in the 90's
     
  11. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,354
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +144
    :confused:

    Like figrin_dan says,

    2.35:1 is an old aspect ratio which dates back to the 50s.
    Mainly Hollywood as European filmmakers are more fond of the 1.85:1 AR.

    Nothing at all to do with DVD, just the Director's preference.

    I think you'll find a lot of older films are actually 2.40:1 or even wider

    It's normally used with 'scope' films (i.e. the ratio is obtained by means of an anamorphic lens rather than matted), but is common to be used with the open matte process these days.

    Personally I prefer this wider AR. It looks more 'cinematic' than 1.85:1
     
  12. topmba

    topmba
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    249
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Bedfordshire
    Ratings:
    +4
    Yet films broadcast on TV are usually 1.78:1 (16:9). The point being to fill as much of the display screen as possible.

    Unfortunately a 2.40:1 DVD zoomed up to 16:9 looks awful on my 36" Tosh, using a Tosh sd-330 player.
     
  13. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,354
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +144
    But a 2.40:1 film watched at it's correct AR will look fine on your 36" WS TV....borders and all!

    Some broadcasters do crop ws films to fit 16:9...(SHAME ON THEM :nono: ) so as not to upset 'the masses' :rolleyes:
     
  14. figrin_dan

    figrin_dan
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    1,991
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +135
    Shame they can't add another option to the boxes.

    16:9
    4:3
    4:3 letterbox
    OAR
     

Share This Page

Loading...